Dirigo Blue - LD 1020

UPDATEDx2: NOM requests Ethics Commission to stay investigation - motion DENIED

Gerald Weinand — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:26:19 GMT

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has petitioned the Maine Ethics Commission to stay their investigation into NOM's campaign finances during last years Question 1 contest. At issue is whether NOM violated Maine election law; I wrote about it here and here.

The hearing is this morning, and from the Commissions [agenda http://bit.ly/7nfurg}:

The National Organization for Marriage has objected to the Commission's investigative requests for documents and information. The organization requests a stay of the investigation until the federal courts have reached a final decision on its constitutional challenge to the ballot question reporting statute.

Earlier this week, Keith Shortall had a story on Maine Things Considered about whether last week's Supreme Court's election ruling could bolster part of Maine's law:

Maine's laws don't apply any such spending restrictions to these groups, and so was not directly affected. Except, says Jonathan Wayne of the Maine Ethics Commission, for one possible area of state election law.
"What the court decided is that if corporations or labor unions want to spend money independently of candidates to influence their elections, they can, but they have to file disclosure statements with the federal government, stating that they spent "x" numbers of dollars on "x" date in support or against the candidates," he says.
And, says Wayne, that might actually provide some legal support for Maine's law, which requires that certain campaign spending reports be filed in the weeks before an election. "The Maine election law requires independent groups that are spending money in the 35 days before the general election to file reports if they mention candidates, and there's a Maine Clean Elections Candidate in the race. So that's one of the statutes that NOM is challenging."
NOM is the National Organization for Marriage, a Washington D.C.-based group that was a major funder behind the campaign to overturn Maine's same sex-marriage law this past November. NOM has so far refused to file spending reports with the Ethics Commission, but according to the PAC, Stand for Marriage Maine, it received nearly two-thirds of its funding -- more than $1.9 million -- from NOM.

We'll continue to follow this story.

Update: By a 4 to 1 ruling (Francis Marsano opposed), the Ethics Commission voted to deny the request to stay the investigation. The vote was not without interest, as when the Commission voted to investigate NOM three votes to two, Marsano was one of those that voted to investigate, and Edward Youngblood, who initially voted against investigating, now voting against the stay.

Great news.

Update: Audio of the hearing is now available here. There is no time marks on it, but the NOM case begins about 1/3 of the way in.

Question 1: Yes 53% NO 47%

Gerald Weinand — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:54:51 GMT

To say I'm disappointed would be an understatement.

I'm disappointed that LD 1020, An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom, has been repealed. I'm disappointed that so many Mainers thought it necessary to deny some of the fellow citizens the right to form legal unions like the ones that they enjoy. Some chose to overturn our law out of fear and bigotry.

But many simply got hung up on a word: marriage.

It is these people, the ones that claim that they support civil unions for lesbian and gay couples that are legally exactly like marriages for straight couples, but called something else, that I am most disappointed with.

It has been heartening to hear and read about all those that worked so hard to defeat the people's veto, of the many Mainers that volunteered and of those from away that helped as well. I have met people whose breadth of knowledge about campaigning and of LGBT issues is amazing. ANd I've met others who simply believed as I do, that same-sex couples have every right to get married as straight couples do.

I know that many of you are as disappointed as I am. For now, take solace in the work you did, and the people that you met, during the campaign. There will be time to think of what to do next.

Rep. Chellie Pingree: Tomorrow We Can Make History

Gerald Weinand — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:12:10 GMT

Reposted with permission of the Huffington Post - the original can be found here. I thank them, and also Rep. Pingree for being the only member of the Maine delegation to have the courage for actually taking a stand.

Tomorrow, Maine voters decide whether to repeal Maine's 4-month-old same-sex marriage law. Don't be mistaken: this is an historic election. Tomorrow Maine can become the first state in the country to support marriage equality in a statewide vote.

Two summers ago I proudly watched as my daughter, Hannah Pingree, was married in a simple ceremony in our community. Good friends of ours -- two men in a long time committed relationship who had known Hannah since she was a small child -- performed the ceremony. I'll never forget what one of them said to Hannah the day before the wedding.

"I'm so proud of you, Hannah," David said. "But I want to remind you that tomorrow you will be doing something we can't do by getting married."

The next year Hannah became Speaker of the Maine House and she, along with other legislative leaders and our governor, made Maine one of the first states in the country to make same-sex marriage legal through the legislative process. I was so proud of my daughter and her colleagues in the state capitol that day.

Maine people have a live-and-let-live philosophy, and tend to be fair and open-minded. Left to themselves, I have no doubt that they would support true marriage equality for all Maine families.

The problem is, they haven't been left to themselves.

The same forces that were behind Prop 8 in California have moved their entire operation to Maine. The anti-marriage equality effort in Maine is a carbon copy of the California effort -- including false and misleading ads intended to frighten parents and distract attention from the real issue of marriage equality. Funded primarily by the right-wing National Organization for Marriage, they have tried to convince parents that legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine will lead to "explicit" discussions of gay sex as part of a "gay friendly curriculum." For kindergartners.

The anti-marriage side has not exactly set the standard for openness and transparency. Last month they went to court to try and avoid state law that requires the names of donors to be reported. And it's been two weeks since the last campaign finance report, so we have no way of knowing how much they've raised in these final days -- but I am told that they have increased their ad buy significantly. A massive infusion from an outside group (think the Mormon Church in California's Prop 8 campaign) at the last minute wouldn't be a surprise.

You can help. Go to Protect Maine Equality to learn more.

The vote in Maine can go one of two ways tomorrow. It can be a victory for those who prefer fear and misinformation over honest discussion. Or it can be a victory for fairness and equality that will resonate across the country and, I guarantee, through the halls of Congress. Please help make the difference for my state by clicking here.

UPDATED: Gov. Baldacci discusses Question 1 on the Rachel Maddow Show

Gerald Weinand — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:00:00 GMT

Last night Rachel Maddow interviewed Gov. John Baldacci about Question 1, the so-called people's veto of Maine's law that would allow same-sex couples to marry:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Update: It is of interest to contrast the position taken by Gov Baldacci when signing LD 1020, that his own view of same-sex marriage had changed when he really reflected on it, and the sudden claim by Marc Mutty and everyone else at S4MM that domestic partnerships are an acceptable alternative to equal marriage, so sudden in fact that they forgot to explain their conversion:

Some write letters

Gerald Weinand — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:30:00 GMT

This letter to the editor appeared in yesterday's NYTimes, and it identifies the terribly weak foundation on which the Yes on 1 campaign is based:

Re "In Battle Over Gay Marriage, Timing May Be Key," by Adam Liptak (Sidebar column, Oct. 27):
The pivotal exchange in one of the lawsuits now challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage shows that the opponents of gay people's freedom to marry still can't give a real answer to the key question posed in yet another court by yet another judge: "What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry?"
The anti-gay forces' lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, replied, "Your Honor, my answer is: I don't know ... I don't know." Mr. Cooper eventually told the judge that the government should be able to exclude gay couples from marriage in order "to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions."
But even Justice Antonin Scalia, no friend of equality for gay people, wrote in Lawrence v. Texas: "What justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution'? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
The reason smart lawyers like Mr. Cooper don't give a better answer to why marriage discrimination should be allowed to continue is that there isn't one.
Evan Wolfson
Executive Director
Freedom to Marry
New York, Oct. 27, 2009

Question 1: Both sides roll out new ads

Gerald Weinand — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:00:00 GMT

With the election just days away (unless you are one of the thousands that have voted either early or using an absentee ballot), it is expected that the campaigns for the first four ballot questions will be rolling out new ads.

On Question 1, both the Yes and NO campaigns have done so.

The NO on 1 campaign continues along the theme that is the essence of their campaign - that ALL families in Maine ought to be treated equally and with dignity:

On the Yes side, it seems that their departure from the fear mongering based on lies and omissions was short lived, as with their new ad is is more of the same: teh gays are going to push our kids to.....exactly what is never really explained. Better not to do so, I suppose - the unknown is always more scary - just ask Stephen King.

Of course, if "gay marriage" is already being "taught in schools," one really has to wonder what all the fuss about it is:

An outbreak of happiness

Gerald Weinand — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:10:33 GMT

From last night's debate on Question 1 (which you can watch here, the "people's" veto:

Blogger Leave it to Seaver notes that when only one side can talk about happiness:

The WMTW/Portland Press Herald debate on question 1 today had some really revealing moments. None so much as the reaction of each side to the question of what happens should they lose on Nov. 3rd. Brian Souchet's is a cold statement of fact about policy. Mary Bonauto's is about real people's lives. I think we see which side is fighting for something that actually impacts the lives of committed couples and their children.

UPDATE: Federal District Court of Maine rules against NOM & APIA

Gerald Weinand — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:34:07 GMT

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.

S4MM has a new ad out today; it seems the fear mongering wasn't working so well

Gerald Weinand — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:48:16 GMT

Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM), the group behind the Yes on 1 campaign that would veto Maine's law allowing same-sex couples to marry, has a new TV ad out today:

The most obvious thing to note is that S4MM seems to have abandoned the theme of its other ads, that is that somehow allowing LD 1020 to become law will turn schools into incubators of homosexuality or something. Evidently it wasn't just the public polls that were showing the Yes campaign sinking like a anchor, but their internal polls as well.

So, the new line is, "We want to be tolerant of gays." Gone is the fear mongering, replaced with the more reasonable sounding support for civil unions or domestic partnerships for lesbians and gays. The ad even shows a screenshot from the Maine Department of Human Services website that describes the Domestic Partner Registry, which you can see in the embed.

The page cited can be found here. By clicking through the "Instructions and Information for the Domestic Partner Registry" button you'll find, as you would expect, all the info you'll want to know, including this interesting statement:

Yes, it seems that despite what the Yes on 1 campaign claims, the State of Maine makes it clear that a "registered domestic partnership is NOT the same as a marriage." Civil unions or domestic partnerships are NOT the same as marriage, and do not provide all the rights and protections (and obligations) that marriage does.

And it is best to re-emphasize that allowing same-sex couples to marry will not "dismantle traditional marriage," or "obliterate" it as Marc Mutty stated in a recent email.

My wife and I have been married for nine years now, and after this "people's" veto is defeated, we look forward to celebrating our tenth.

If you are married, what anniversary will you be celebrating after 3 November?

Call for Equality/Drive for Equality: Volunteer for NO on 1

Gerald Weinand — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:00:00 GMT

There are two fun ways to volunteer for the NO on 1 campaign:

If you live within 500 miles or so of the Pine Tree State and want to come to Maine to help with the GOTV effort, then Drive for Equality may be for you.

Or if you want to help to call potential voters, then Call for Equality, which allows you to phone bank from your own home.

The friendly folks at the NO on 1 campaign can tell you all about these two options. And thank you.

If you think the ads from the Yes on 1 campaign are beyond the pale, just wait

Gerald Weinand — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:39:32 GMT

Like a receding tide (and utterly as predictable), the advertisements and claims made by Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM) have become ever more outrageous as Election Day draws closer. What began as a campaign to defend "traditional marriage" evolved to a fear mongering, using children and schools.

The same playbook that was used in 2008 in California is being used here in Maine, which is again not surprising, in that the same public relations firm that ran the campaign against same-sex marriage out west is doing so here.

That playbook is paid for by one major funder as well, in this case the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). NOM has given so much money to the Yes on 1 campaign that it is being investigate by the Maine Ethics Commission to see if qualifies as a PAC.

NOM filed a complaint in Federal Court in Bangor last Wednesday which you can read here (pdf warning, h/t Right Wing Watch). NOM is joined by American Principles In Action (APIA) in the suit, which is explained on page 11 of the complaint:

45. Plaintiff APIA is a nonprofit 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to promoting equality of opportunity and ordered liberty.
46. APIA does not have as its major purpose the promotion or defeat of any Maine referendum or ballot question.
47. APIA intends to produce a 30 second video entitled "Bigot" relating to same-sex marriage in Maine and place it on its website.
The script for the ad is as follows:
Girl: Mommy, are you a bigot?
Mother: What?
Girl: At school, we learned that people who are against gay marriage are bigots.
Mother: No, dear. I believe that homosexuals should be treated fairly--but I also believe that marriage should be just for one man and one woman. That doesn't make me a bigot.
Girl: What about Reverend Jones and Father Diego? Are they bigots?
Mother: Did you learn that at school too?

Girl nods
VO: Think that gay marriage won't affect your family? Think again.
Vote Yes Graphic

48. APIA also intends to produce a 30 second video entitled "The New Curriculum" relating to same-sex marriage in Maine and place it on its website. The script for the ad is as follows:
School Administrator (talking to an off-camera mic/reporter--as he talks, we see images of teachers in classrooms reading from blurred-out books, GLSEN-style posters, etc.):
No, we're very proud of the new curriculum. It's all about teaching kids to embrace different lifestyles and explore their own sexuality.
Switching from images of sex ed classrooms to little boy on a bench in a darkened school hallway. We can see an adult male (not his face, we're looking from the perspective of the child and the view never includes his head) come out of an office, take the boy's hand, lead him into the office, and close the door. Freeze on the closed door, which has a sign that says, "Counseling Session: Do Not Disturb"
Reporter (VO): Yes, but is it appropriate for kindergartners to be receiving counseling about whether they might be gay?
School Admin (VO): Sure, we've had a few complaints, but there's not much parents can do. It's the law, after all.
VO: Think gay marriage won't affect your family? Think again.
Vote Yes Graphic

49. APIA estimates that the total cost of producing "Bigot" and "The New Curriculum" and placing them on its website is approximately $3,000.

Read through that second ad again. You know and I know that counseling about sexuality, or sex for that matter, is not given to Kindergarteners. The set up is every parent's nightmare, except, of course, one that has nothing to do with reality. Portraying a school counselor as a sexual predator ironically uses the sex scandals that have plagued the Catholic Church in an attempt to lend some credibility to the ad.

But let me be clear: elementary schools do not teach sex education to their students in Maine. Elementary school counselors do not counsel children about sexuality or sexual orientation.

I've been asked to clarify the above paragraph: what many of us would consider sex ed (that is, hygene, contraception, etc.) is not taught in K-5 classes in Maine. However, "Family Life Education" is taught (anatomy, what constitutes improper touching, etc.), in a way that is age appropriate. This is more done in regards to the safety of the children instead of personal awareness.--GW

And further - allowing same-sex couples to marry, the law that the Yes on 1 campaign is trying to veto, has nothing to do with what is currently taught in Maine schools, or what will be taught in the future.

If you have been wondering just how low S4MM, its head Marc Mutty, Bishop Richard Malone, and everyone associated with the Yes on 1 campaign are willing to go, the two ads above should give you some idea.

And that they base their argument on moral grounds even makes them more despicable.

Irony Watch

Gerald Weinand — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:54:16 GMT

On their website, Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM) has this nugget:

The People's Veto of Gay Marriage - Question 1 - needs your financial contribution. Your support will help us stand up to the vast network of wealthy homosexuals with seemingly unlimited resources from places like Hollywood, New York and Massachusetts. Washington, D.C.'s largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization has already pledged to spend as much as $5 million to try to defeat us.

That S4MM will use this claim when they have received over 60% of their contributions from just one group, National Organization for Marriage (NOM), is of interest.

And no one group has donated even $1.6 million, let alone $5 million, to the NO on 1 campaign. But these sorts of facts never seem to bother the morals of those behind the Yes campaign.

Boston Globe: Vote NO on 1

Gerald Weinand — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:17:19 GMT

In an editorial for its Sunday readers, the Boston Globe endorses equal marriage in Maine - the Globe endorses a NO vote on Question 1:

MARRIAGE AFFORDS unparalleled rights and benefits to people who commit to long-term relationships. All people, regardless of sexual orientation, should have an equal right to marry under the law. On Election Day, Maine voters should vote "no'' on ballot Question 1 and respect the rights of their neighbors and fellow citizens to live how they choose.
Supporters of the ballot initiative argue that same-sex marriage erodes heterosexual marriage, but experience has proven them wrong: Since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage five years ago, the state has seen its divorce rate, already the lowest in the nation, decline further. But that hasn't stopped supporters of the initiative from making other wild claims. No, gay marriage is not being taught, alongside spelling and long division, as part of the public-school curriculum in Massachusetts. No, an equal right to civil marriage has not rendered Massachusetts genderless.
Religions differ in their beliefs, customs, and ceremonies about marriage - none of which will be affected by a new Maine law that deals only with civil marriages. If Question 1 fails, churches and other religious groups could still refuse to perform same-sex marriages. But the law would ensure that courts will continue to marry gay and lesbian couples.
The law signed by Governor John E. Baldacci in May recognizes that legalizing gay marriage is a matter of fairness. A civil union, the governor said, is not equal to a marriage. Just as the state of Maine would not deny the equal rights and protections of the law to its other citizens, it should not deny them to gay people who wish to build stable families. A vote of "no'' on Question 1 is a vote for equal protection of the laws, a guarantee in Maine's constitution and in the country's that all citizens should defend and embrace.

Uncovering secrets in Maine

Gerald Weinand — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:00:00 GMT

This originally appeared in the South Florida Blade, and is posted here with permission from the author - thank you Danielle

Uncovering secrets in Maine

Anti-gay group rolls out scare tactics as referendum nears

ON OCT. 1, the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices met to determine if a complaint filed by Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate against the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) would be investigated. In his complaint, Karger claimed that NOM violated campaign reporting requirements and that the group was actively participating in money laundering. Despite the evidence he submitted, which included NOM emails pertaining to fundraising specifically for Maine while alluding to donor anonymity, the commission's staff recommended that no investigation be conducted due to lack of supporting evidence.

NOM had failed to disclose even its required IRS 990 filings to the public so it is not surprising that the evidence Karger possessed was limited. In my last Blade column published Sept. 18 entitled, "Follow the money: Why the federal gov't must investigate NOM's financial practices," I detailed how the group has habitually hidden and revised its records. Uncovering NOM's secrets has been the focus of my work for many months and as the title of my last column implies, I do believe an investigation into the group is warranted.

So I flew to Maine specifically to attend this hearing but due to circumstances beyond my control, I missed the first portion of the proceedings. I arrived just in time to hear the testimony of NOM Executive Director, Brian Brown, and a member of his legal team, Barry Bostrom.

Both Bostrom and Brown lavished praise on the staff and the Commission for their professionalism. They insinuated that the entire proceeding was a waste of everyone's time and it was obvious that Brown had thought he had already won. At that point, most of us in the audience believed NOM had won as well - it is rare that a Commission overrules a staff recommendation.

Then Brown made an egregious error, stating: "Mr. Karger refers to the fact that we refused to disclose our financial records ... this is simply not the case. We have given our 990s to journalists. They are now publicly available - they're available on our web site and we did that because we got so many calls and people showing up at the office asking for them that it became quite difficult to work."

Apparently, Brown had no idea I had entered the room. If he had, perhaps he would have reconsidered that statement because I am one of only two journalists who showed up at NOM's office requesting 990s - I know this because Brown told me so in person when I interviewed him on Sept. 1. (The other was the Blade's Lou Chibbaro Jr.)

More after the fold
IRS regulations require charities to release the documents within 24 hours of an in-person request. Brown did not release the documents to me - ever. And his reference to the documents "now [being] publicly available" was laughable because popular blogger ChinoBlanco revealed that NOM had secretly released the 990s on the web within days of the Maine hearing, presumably to feign compliance in front of the Commission.

Brown went on to attack Karger's efforts and made false claims against the gay civil rights movement in general. Although it was never my intention to speak at this hearing, by the time Brown was finished, I simply couldn't remain silent and allow his false statements to go uncontested.

ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION does not allow public questioning of witnesses, they did grant me a few moments to speak. Here's what I said:

"My name is Danielle Truszkovsky ... I'm a political columnist ... one of the journalists who have visited the NOM offices to request the 990s. It's been an ongoing process attempting to obtain the records. I know that the group Californians Against Hate sent an initial request in March and (NOM) had 30 days to release the records, which they did not do and as far as I know, they have still not sent the records to Californians Against Hate.

"I also personally visited their 'national headquarters' in Princeton three times to make an in-person request and no one was ever available at that office - it's basically a barren, empty space. I did speak with Brian [Brown] at his Washington, D.C., office and they did not have the returns available at that point."

I went on to explain that NOM has also amended its 2007 return numerous times even though it is extremely rare for charitable organizations to do so. I quoted an e-mail from NOM to its supporters in which the group "takes credit" for the signature gathering and fundraising efforts in Maine. This is a direct violation of the campaign laws in Maine that require groups that fund these efforts to register as PACs (Political Action Committees) or BQCs (Ballot Questioning Committees). My testimony ended with, "Now, I ask, how is it possible that this group [NOM] is the largest contributor to Stand for Marriage Maine at $160,000 but they are the only one who is not registered as a PAC or BQC?"

BROWN AND BOSTROM were then given the opportunity to speak again and when the pair finished, the Commission had some very interesting questions about NOM's activities and attempts to conceal its records from the public. Brown admitted that NOM released its 990s on the web only within the past week. It was also revealed that after NOM donated its initial $160,000, the group has since poured hundreds of thousands more into Maine. As they scrambled to defend their activity in Maine, their story seemed to simply fall apart.
Upon completion of the discussion, the Commission voted 3-2 to conduct an investigation into the National Organization for Marriage.

Prior to the hearing, Brian Brown submitted a sworn affidavit, which states, "NOM does not accept donations designated for the Maine referendum" and "NOM has not made expenditures exceeding $5,000 for the purpose of initiating or promoting the people's veto referendum in Maine, other than by contribution to Stand for Marriage Maine PAC." If it is determined that NOM did violate any of the points listed in the affidavit, Brown could face perjury charges.

It will be interesting to see what developments occur next. It is safe to assume that NOM will do everything in its financial power to prevent its records from being examined. In California, NOM lodged a lawsuit against the secretary of state, the attorney general and the five commissioners of the California Fair Political Practices Commission for allowing an investigation into the group. NOM has also initiated litigation in California that attempts to remove all disclosure of contributors to political initiatives and campaigns. Rather than comply with state and federal regulations, it seems NOM and its backers prefer to use their massive war chest to conceal records and intimidate the officials who seek to protect the citizens they represent. Will NOM resort to the same desperate scare-tactics in Maine?

On Oct. 1, the Maine Commission on Ethics & Governmental Practices made a courageous decision to stand up for fairness. This, however, is just one small victory. On Nov. 3, the citizens of Maine will decide if their gay and straight neighbors deserve the same civil rights. For more information on protecting equality in Maine, visit the No on 1 campaign www.mainefreedomtomarry.com.

Mormon front NOM kicks in $1.1 million to Yes on 1 in last two weeks

Gerald Weinand — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:26:21 GMT

It's been anticipated that the Mormon front group National Organization for Marriage (NOM) would contribute more to Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM), the group behind the Yes on 1 campaign.

I'm just surprised that they gave money before today, the last day that contributions have to be reported until after the election.

But like the other Mormon groups did last summer in California, they have ponied up some serious cash:

10/1/2009: $300,000.00
10/9/2009: $300,000.00
10/14/2009: $500,000.00

And there's more!

The Catholic Diocese of Portland was not a very close second (sort of embarrassing, actually, but they are having to close churches here in Maine):

10/15/2009: $47,000.00
10/1/2009: $48,000.00
10/20/2009: $50,000.00

That's $145,000 more.

Nearly one and a quarter million dollars, contributed to the "people's" veto. Or, about 90% of the total contributed over the last two weeks came from two religious groups.

And NOM, all by itself, has so far contributed 64% of all contributions S4MM ha received.

Indeed.

S4MM tries to create another controversy where none exists

Gerald Weinand — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:47:38 GMT

One of the pages of the Stand for Marriage Maine campaign is to play the victim, and they will create an opportunity in which to do so if need be.

Yesterday, this post went up on the S4MM facebook page:

Camden Schools update: No on 1 is not speaking at Camden High school, It was proposed as an after school activity but cancelled [sic]. There was a significant call volume of concerned patents/citizens. Please let people know so that the school is not further overwhelmed with calls. Thanks.

I happen to know some folks at SAD 28, and contacted them about this. The principal of Camden Hills Regional High School (CHRHS), Dr. Nick Ithomitis, sent this letter to parents of students there:

Hello Parents,
Today, you may have heard concerns about our Diversity Coalition Club hosting a meeting to get more informed about Question One on this year's Nov ballot. Unfortunately, the entire situation has been blown way out of proportion. It all started this morning on a state wide talk show when a caller called in to say that CHRHS was holding an assembly for all our students to hear a speaker explain why "to vote no on question one." This misinformation created quite a stir. Here are the facts:
We do have a Diversity Coalition Club; approved by the CSD School Board. The club's goal is to foster an understanding and respect among all people, regardless of color, religion, ethnicity, socio-economic background, county or origin, gender, or sexual identity. As a school sponsored club, the students and advisors have the right to hold meetings after school hours on school property. In addition, they have the right to invite outside speakers to their meetings, as long as the speakers do not pose substantial disruptions to the school or promote anything that is illegal.
In this case, the club attempted to find speakers who would present both sides of the issue on question one. The meeting was to be held after school and was voluntary. The one speaker who agreed to meet with the club posed no substantial disruption to the school nor was s/he promoting anything illegal. Therefore, the kids and advisors did nothing wrong.
In fact, to be honest, I applaud the students for wanting to find out more about what is happening in our state. I hope you agree that we want our kids to be more involved in political issues, and we want them to gather information so they can make informed decisions. Unfortunately, when this was first reported, the media did not have all the facts. Therefore, the initial reports were distorted and inaccurate.
At this time, the original meeting has been postponed. The Club wants to make sure they have time to get a speaker from both sides of the issue.
I hope this note clarifies things. I would be happy to speak to you if you have further questions.

What is not clear from Dr. Ithomitis letter is the circumstances that led the club to cancel the event, and so I called his office to verify what I had been told: that the Diversity Club had asked a representative to speak from both the Yes and No on 1 campaigns, but that only the speaker in support of No on 1 was available to make the date and time in question.

That's the entire episode in a nutshell.

What Philip Spooner said

Gerald Weinand — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:26:14 GMT

At the public hearing last April regarding LD 1020, An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom, many people, both in support and in opposition spoke.

Among them was Philip Spooner, an octogenarian that grew up in the County, and now resides in Biddeford.

You may have seen his testimony, as it has 'gone viral' as it's said. But in case you haven't, here it is:

If Mr. Spooner's remarks moved you, then please copy the link to them and send it along to your family and friends, especially to people that you know that are on the fence regarding Question 1 and equal marriage. Let us know how it went.

All you married folks - listen up

Gerald Weinand — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:15:13 GMT

The Yes on 1 campaign, the group that opposes same-sex marriage, sent out a blast email yesterday to prepare their followers for the upcoming debates on Question 1. One of the "pointers and messages to remember when calling in" that opponents of equal marriage are supposed to use is this:

If Question 1 fails, homosexual marriage will not become equal to traditional marriage because traditional marriage will be totally eliminated. Marriage will be genderless. It will exist solely for the benefit of adults.

Let's set aside the notion that married couples in Maine have legal obligations to other people or groups as part of their union because they don't.

My concern is that you are not taking your won marriage seriously enough. Did you know that if LD 1020 becomes law you will no longer be married according to the State of Maine? That the property that you and your spouse currently jointly own would be subject to endless amounts of litigation? You will no longer have joint custody of your children, but the courts will have to determine which of you is now the dominant parent? And what of your own parents? They will also be left in some bizarro world of legal limbo!

"Because traditional marriage will be totally eliminated!!!"

These are just some of the consequences that await you should LD 1020 become law. Ones that should not be dismissed lightly.

Are you a member of the "homosexual policial elite?"

Gerald Weinand — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:23:16 GMT

Are you a member of the "homosexual political elite?" You may be without knowing it.

Please read how Marc Mutty, Campaign Chair of Yes on 1, describes it in a recent blast email:

As you probably know, our opponents have amassed a war chest from the homosexual political elite from nearly every corner of the country to impose their will on Mainers like us. It exceeds our resources by a large margin. They are poised to spend outrageous amounts of money in these final two weeks to do whatever it takes to eliminate traditional marriage completely.

You may not be aware that you are involved in a campaign to "eliminate traditional marriage completely," and I really have to take issue with that: my wife and I have been happily married for over nine years, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let some elitist completely eliminate it.

So be warned!

Frogtown Mountain Puppeteers urge you to vote NO on 1

Gerald Weinand — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:00:00 GMT

the Frogtown Mountain Puppeteers are out with an ad of their own: