RECENT  POSTS:  » Where art thou, Jeremy? » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall'  

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


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:


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

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