| The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the Mormon front group form New Jersey that is bankrolling the Yes on 1 campaign, filed suit in the Federal District Court of Maine. NOM was joined by American Principles in Action (APIA), as was noted yesterday.
NOM and APIA were seeking a temporary injunction of a decision by the Maine Ethics Commission to investigate NOM to determine whether that group qualified, under Maine law, as a PAC or BQC; APIA joined the complaint since it might affect their intentions to run advertisements in support of Yes on 1 (see the link above for the actual ads).
Today Justice D. Brock Hornby submitted his ruling (pdf warning) on the complaint:
Under Maine law, any person or entity that solicits and receives contributions or makes expenditures over $5,000 "for the purpose of initiating, promoting, defeating or influencing in any way a ballot question" must register and file reports with the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. Maine's November ballot asks Maine voters to decide whether to veto a recent Maine statute that permits gay marriage. The plaintiffs here [NOM and APIA] are two nonprofit corporations that operate nationwide. One describes itself as "dedicated to preserving the traditional definition of marriage," and says that it has been receiving contributions connected in part to the Maine November election. The other says that it is "dedicated to promoting equality of opportunity and ordered liberty," and that it proposes to make expenditures in connection with television commercials about the Maine ballot question. State election officials recently have begun an investigation of one of the two plaintiff nonprofits to determine whether it has illegally failed to register and report. As a result, the plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit against a variety of state officials, asking me to declare that the First Amendment makes the Maine registration and reporting statute unconstitutional. They have asked for the emergency relief of a temporary restraining order against enforcement because the election is imminent, and they wish to make solicitations and expenditures that exceed the $5,000 threshold without registering or reporting. I conducted an expedited hearing on Monday, October 26, 2009.
The critical question on a request for a temporary restraining order is the likelihood of success on the merits. Notably for First Amendment purposes, the challenged Maine statute does not limit contributions or expenditures in connection with ballot initiatives. Instead, it requires that they be reported when they exceed a certain threshold. Although these requirements impose some burden on the plaintiffs in pursuing their First Amendment rights of association and speech, Maine has a very strong interest in providing its voters with information about the source of the money that funds the campaign on either side of a ballot issue. To achieve that goal, it imposes only a minimal burden on persons or entities that contribute money or make expenditures. I conclude that the plaintiffs have failed to show a likelihood of success on their claim that the Maine statute violates the First Amendment. I therefore DENY the motion for a temporary restraining order.1 The case will proceed in the ordinary course.
It should be noted that the State is not restricting how much money NOM or APIA wish to spend on trying to influence how Mainers will vote on Question 1 - the State is simply asserting that if they spend over a certain limit, then they must file as a PAC or BQC, and so report to the State - that is you and me - their source of funding.
As should be clear, Maine law needs to be looked at in the next coming months to make sure that reporting requirements are made more strict, and that such requirements comply with the Constitution. But Maine must no longer be seen as a state where monied interests can buy ballot initiatives.
Updated: AG Janet Mills thinks Justice Hornby's ruling sends a clear message, the PPH reports:
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. |
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an