Gay Marriage | Maine | News

National Organization for Marriage Loses Effort to Keep Names of Donors Disclosed in Maine

Nom

The New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has been fighting to keep the names of donors to the "Yes on 1" campaign in Maine private. They lost:

Maine "Judge D. Brock Hornby ruled that Maine's reporting requirements for ballot question campaigns do not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as claimed in a lawsuit filed last week by the National Organization for Marriage. Bolstered by the ruling, Maine's attorney general challenged the advocacy group Wednesday night to make its records public before next week's vote on Question 1. 'We are not going to give them legal advice. We trust that their legal counsel will advise them to comply fully,' said Attorney General Janet Mills. 'The court has ruled that it is in the public interest to do so, and the law couldn't be clearer.' ... 'I would hope that they would file before the election," Mills said. "Why not? What is there to hide?' The National Organization for Marriage, a Virginia-based nonprofit corporation, has contributed about $1.6 million to the political action committee Stand for Marriage Maine, which is leading the fight to repeal the same-sex marriage law. That's more than half the total raised for the campaign so far."

NOM had argued that Maine's ballot laws (which require "any individual or group that raises or spends more than $5,000 to influence a ballot question vote to disclose contributors who gave more than $100 for that purpose") were unconstitutional and that individual donors have the right to remain anonymous in referendum campaigns.

NOM has not responded to the ruling, which also denied th request for a temporary restraining order.

Above, NOM President Maggie Gallagher, and Executive Director Brian Brown.

Judge: State can press for disclosure of donors [press herald]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Once the names of those donors are made public, and the people of Maine see the extent to which out of state interests are trying to push issue 1, the balance will tip in favor of marriage equality.

    Posted by: Hank | Oct 29, 2009 1:02:41 PM


  2. Gosh, it's too bad the secretive assholes have to come out of the closet with their bigotry. I really feel for them.

    Wanna bet they'll keep grasping for delay tactics and issue many press releases decrying this "unfair" treatment? That is, treatment that applies to all powerful donors.

    Posted by: Paul R | Oct 29, 2009 1:31:54 PM


  3. STOP SAYING NJ BASED.

    They moved their mailing address to South Jersey because one of their Executive Director lives here.

    NOM has almost NO support in NJ although they keep trying to drum some up.

    Posted by: qjersey | Oct 29, 2009 2:04:22 PM


  4. I LOVE this law. Here in California, its let me know which businesses in my area are anti-equality and I don't patronize them. They want to say that by allowing the information out they are 'persecuted' by the public, but that's democracy, dummies. They get to be bigots and I get to NOT give them any of my money.

    Posted by: princely54 | Oct 29, 2009 2:29:22 PM


  5. Hey princely54: As a fellow Californian I'd love to know where I can also view the anti-equality businesses in my area. I too would rather not patronize them. Personally I think it would be wise for our community to set up a national online resource profiling this information where available. As a web designer I'd even be willing dontate my time and work with developers to create this. It is high time we leverage our community consumer power to make the most lgbt-responsible business practices the most the profitable choices. Think Carrotmob for queers! Long live democracy!

    Posted by: chi | Oct 29, 2009 3:16:04 PM


  6. @Chi: I believe there once was a website called "Know Your Neighbor" or something like that. It revealed the anti-Prop 8 folks... but I think it was taken down.

    Try looking for a mirror. Someone has a copy, I'm sure!

    Posted by: Tommy | Oct 29, 2009 4:02:20 PM


  7. We probably haven't heard from Maggie because she is crying into the bottom of an empty cake box

    Posted by: RONTEX | Oct 29, 2009 4:48:19 PM


  8. God, that Maggie needs some gays in her life.

    Posted by: another matt | Oct 29, 2009 4:57:40 PM


  9. Rontex I love you

    Posted by: Christopher | Oct 29, 2009 5:14:46 PM


  10. Shouldn't the title of this piece say "undisclosed" or "from being disclosed"? Right now it implies the opposite to the content.

    Posted by: Mike | Oct 29, 2009 6:01:37 PM


  11. Gallagher and Brown can just suck it up! If they and their fellow hate-mongers want to deny gay people's rights, they should have the balls for people to see who they are, or be called cowards in addition to being bigots!

    Posted by: CKNJ | Oct 29, 2009 6:56:51 PM


  12. To gallagher: that'll do pig, that'll do.

    Posted by: TANK | Oct 29, 2009 7:16:30 PM


  13. If they are too ashamed to proudly stand up for their beliefs, then they should stay out of the game. Our donations to No on 1 will be displayed for all to see and any ramifications from that will be accepted. I wouldn't want NOM-skulls patronizing my business.

    Posted by: 1equalityUSA | Oct 29, 2009 10:39:10 PM


  14. Now about those names. Common, Maggie, let's see it! I want to make sure my hard-earned money does not go to any businesses that fund these types of causes. I don't care about people's personal addresses and phone numbers, but I do want to know which businesses are responsible for Yes on 1 in Maine and Reject Ref. 71 in Washington State!

    Posted by: John | Nov 4, 2009 10:27:10 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Levi Johnston to Go 'Full Johnson' in Playgirl« «