RECENT  POSTS:  » You know what's not presidential? Like at all? » Inevitable justice temporarily delayed in Alabama » Read: Fed. judge strikes Alabama marriage ban; no stay on ruling » Derisively remembering when full equality was in 'Jeopardy!' » When all else fails, demand your letters are capitalized » Major Iowa caucus player calls on next President to 'politely reject unjust SCOTUS opinions' » Photo: Supreme Court's Thomas poses with NOM's cofounder, major equality opponent » Wait, even NewsMax is now pushing back against anti-gay spin?! » Deflating the anti-gay right's latest 'gotcha!' » POTUS hails marriage equality in State of the Union speech  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

06/26/2012

Is NOM violating C3, C4 coordination laws?

by Jeremy Hooper

I've been tipped before about the way NOM enjoins its Educational Fund activities with its endorsement and other campaign efforts, a collusion that seems to come very close to crossing the line of what tax-exempt organizations can and cannot do. But now, with both NOM's Dump General Mills boycott (a c3 campaign) and their electoral activities (c4 behavior) ramping up, I'm really wondering if there might be some violations going on:

201206260956

Some information about the can and cannot of coordination, via Independent Sector:

Screen Shot 2012-06-26 At 10.04.52 Am
Screen Shot 2012-06-26 At 10.04.58 Am
[CapDale.com]

There is clearly staff overlap (Brian Brown's ActRight site is pushing the General Mills effort; NOM's Thomas Peters is pushing both; etc) and the same properties are being used for both purposes. Plus let's not forget that this General Mills effort also has connections to the campaign activities of Minnesota For Marriage, of which NOM is the head coalition partner.

If nothing else, it's worth keeping an eye on.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails