« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
10/04/2011
NOM vs. disclosure: Minnesota edition
NOM's increasingly fringe behavior is giving us all insight into the full breadth of the organization's fight against equality for LGBT people. But perhaps the most telling thing about this organization in its current incarnation: That its heads will fight even more bitterly to mask their donors than they will to even stop equal protection for same-sex couples:
St. Paul, MN—The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today told the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board they were acting illegally in attempting to force NOM and other pro-family nonprofit organizations to disclose the names of donors to the groups in order to contribute general treasury funds to a ballot question committee in Minnesota. Minnesota law does not require nonprofit corporations to disclose its members as a condition of contributing to a ballot question committee.
“NOM does not object to its donations to the Minnesota for Marriage campaign being publicly disclosed,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “What we do object to is the attempt of Campaign Finance Board bureaucrats to illegally force us to report information the law does not require. The CFB does not have the legal authority to impose such requirements. Only the Legislature can enact laws, and they have repeatedly refused to do so.”
*KEEP READING (including letter from NOM's uber-far-right counsel, Cleta Mitchell): National Organization for Marriage Challenges Minnesota Campaign Finance Board [NOM]
Note how Brian quite strategically says "NOM does not object to its donations…being publicly disclosed." That's complete and utter nonsense, considering how stridently this organization has fought fair disclosure in every single state where the subject has come up. Brian is just saying he doesn't object to such disclosure because (a) he wants to make it sound like this fight in Minnesota is simply because of the board's supposedly overstepped bounds, and not because NOM has anything to hide; and (b) he has nothing to lose by making such a claim when it comes to NOM's blanket contributions, considering the fight to stop disclosure in that area is the same either way. His comment is a pre-emption, meant to make NOM sound agreeable.
But don't you dare buy it for a second -- this is WHOLLY about keeping NOM's secretive/suspect donor rolls away from public eyes. Obviously. And interestingly.
Your thoughts
comments powered by Disqus
