NOM Says It Will Defy Campaign Disclosure Laws Again in Minnesota

The National Organization for Marriage, which continues to see the court rule against it in Rhode Island and Maine where it is trying to keep secret the names of donors to anti-gay campaigns, says it will defy the law again in Minnesota if need be.

Nom_minnesota The group, with Minnesota Family Council and the Minnesota Catholic Conference is part of a coalition trying to pass an anti-gay amendment there.

The Minnesota Independent reports:

Last week, the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board announced it was considering updating its rules to close loopholes in the ballot initiative’s reporting requirements. The board released guidance to outside groups that want to donate to ballot campaigns such as Minnesota for Marriage which supports the amendment or Minnesotans United for All Families which opposes the amendment, and spelled out how those donations would be disclosed.

The guidance would heighten public disclosure around campaign spending and will be debated before the board this week. On Tuesday, Minnesota for Marriage cried foul and said it would only do what it had planned to in the past, calling the new guidance “illegal.”

Bigotry doesn't like the light of day.


  1. Pete n SFO says

    It’s all a boondoggle… we spend time & resources on this, and it will likely lead to a group that is funded anonymously another way.

    Didn’t The Colbert Report do a story on exactly this political money shell-game last week?

  2. Continuum says

    Will someone please tell me what penalties NOM has incurred for thumbing their noses at court rulings.

    So far, it seems to me, that the courts have failed to sanction NOM in the pocketbook. Instead, the NOM team merely obfucates and continues on its same course.

    The real fools here appear to be the people who actually follow the law and who spend resources getting court decisions which the same courts fail to enforce.

    So, tell me once again, why this is great news.

  3. says

    These people are craven and disgusting. At a time when so many LGBT folks are coming out and sometimes putting themselves in clear and present danger, they act like victims.

    @ DALE: actually, the Catholic church is so big that their politicking may not be considered a large enough portion of their overall activities to count against their tax-exempt status. Tax-exempt organizations are allowed to engage in a small amount of politics, as long as it’s not a significant portion of their time and money.

    @ CONTINUUM: this path may work well for us: 1. it makes them look bad; 2. going after their money, one way or another, may, in the end sink them. A major lawsuit against the white supremacists in Idaho sank them.

  4. Charlie says

    I was reading about this on the NOM blog yesterday. They claim this change in regulation has not legal authority since the law does not require this type of disclosure. And further, that the legislature considered making a change in reporting requirements on three separate sessions and declined to do so.

    Since I don’t live in the state nor do I follow their election laws I don’t know if their is any truth to this. However, if this is the case they may not be breaking any laws by declining to make these disclosures.

    This is not the case in the other states where there are legal disclosure requirements.

  5. Nathan says

    So them spreading their hate and bigotry is not illegal but legal means to stop them is..hah..hah…these people are just like the ones that didn’t believe Noah when he told them the flood was coming..they laughed..well you MORONS..the flood is coming and you better have your flippers on because you are going to drown in your own vitriol.

  6. says

    I think it’s time to label NOM a terrorist (for lack of a better term) organization seems how it’s willfully breaking the law and ignoring court orders. There is no excuse to allow this group to convene and commit crimes.

  7. Piet says

    I wonder if it would be possible to stop NOM and others like them by requiring second-level disclosure from any political advertising locus, that is, require a newspaper, for example, to maintain records on the advertiser AND the advertiser’s source of income. That wouldn’t make the advertising illegal (an impermissible infringement of free speech) but it would make the record keeping so onerous that newspapers, radio and television stations, etc., might begin to turn down the advertising itself.

Leave A Reply