The decibel levels may have subsided since the referendum on same-sex marriage last November, but supporters and opponents signaled at separate rallies today that they are prepared to dial up the volume once again.
A coalition of same-sex marriage supporters held a press conference under the capitol rotunda this morning at 10:30, followed by a rally led by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) on the capitol lawn at noon.
Arrayed in red shirts, buttons, stickers, and other "Equality Maine" accoutrements, nearly 150 proponents of same-sex marriage cheered when Governor Baldacci made an unannounced appearance.
Governor Baldacci spoke approvingly of their efforts: "I'm so impressed with all of you. I know we came up a little bit short in the last election. But I think you did change a lot of minds and hearts."
Click or visit mainewatchdog.org to read the rest of the article.
This morning, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) lost its appeal of a 1st District Court ruling requiring it to turn over information on its donors to the Maine Ethics Commission. NOM was order to turn over the names by Magistrate Judge John Rich in May.
NOM is the Mormon front group that donated $1.9 million in a successful effort last year to overturn Maine's law that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry.
The Appeals Court found that the documents requested by the Ethics Commission do not violate 1st Amendment guarantees, nor does that request impose a "significant risk of chill."
Further, the Court found:
Moreover, Appellees [NOM] have a compelling interest in defending Maine's election laws against charges of unconstitutionality...In this case, that interest extends to review of the documents in question. In framing some of their underlying constitutional challenges to Maine's election laws, Appellant-Petitioners have made relevant the issue of whether NOM has as one its primary purposes the influencing of ballot questions and/or candidate elections. We conclude that the materials in question have the potential to be highly relevant to that issue, and we see no less restrictive means for Appellees to probe the issue than by reviewing the materials under the auspices of the strict protective order to which Appellees have consented.
The Maine Ethics Commission held a hearing last August into the fundraising efforts by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a Mormon front group, regarding the group's effort to overturn Maine's equal marriage law. In so doing, it ordered NOM to turn over the names of those that contributed to their campaign, so as to comply with Maine's sunshine laws.
NOM has refused to do so, and gone to court to block the order. On Sunday, Magistrate Judge John Rich denied their appeal
Judge Rich's conclusion:
For the foregoing reasons, I SUSTAIN in part and OVERRULE in part the plaintiffs' objections on relevance grounds to Second RFP Nos. 1 through 3, OVERRULE their objection on First Amendment grounds to Second RFP No. 1, and DIRECT them to produce documents responsive to Second RFP Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as those requests are herein modified, within seven days of the date hereof. I also DENY, without prejudice on the showing made, the defendants' request to order the plaintiffs to supplement their initial disclosures and to bar them from using additional witnesses or documents to the extent that such supplementation is not made.
This is a great ruling for those that oppose anonymous campaigns in any and all elections. It should be noted that Judge Rich has placed a confidentiality order on the financial disclosure, which "would prevent the Commission from using donor identifying information in the context of its investigation into possible violations of the state's BQC laws."
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the Mormon front group that contributed nearly two million dollars to help overturn Maine's gay marriage law, promised that they were not done meddling in Maine's politics:
"We added additional claims that go beyond initiative campaign finance laws to campaign finance laws that deal with candidate elections because NOM would like to participate in state elections," says Jim Bopp, an attorney for the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage, which is fighting a ruling by the state Ethics Commission requiring the group to register as a political action committee, and to submit campaign finance reports for independent expenditures it made during the gay marriage campaign.
But Bopp says NOM wants the same First Amendment protections given to those who contribute money to elect or defeat candidates for state offices. "Right now the problem is that there are significant unconstitutional limits on participating in state elections that they have now brought to the attention of the federal court and are looking for a decision in early spring from the court regarding that."
It looks like they want to meddle in New Hampshire too, as the group has launched this site attacking Gov. John Lynch (D), Lynch Lied, complete with a internet ad.
Democrats in Maine would be wise to be prepared, especially those running in districts featuring opponents associated with Bob Emrich.
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 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.
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.
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.)
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 moneybefore 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:
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.
The Maine Ethics Commission will rule Thursday morning on whether Maine Leads, the fake grass roots organization created by the Maine Heritage Policy Center (MHPC), is a PAC or not.
How the Commission rules will have implications on ballot initiatives in Maine for the near future, and maybe years to come.
The concept is easy to understand: a special interest group wants to change the law in Maine. A political action committee (PAC) is legally created to accept contributions to initiate and promote a ballot question. This PAC can accept money to help with that effort, but must disclose the sources of such contributions, as well as all of its expenditures.
Transparency.
But the special interest group does not have to do so under current Maine law, as long as such contributions to the PAC are not its "major purpose." Say, for example, Toyota wants to change Maine's excise tax law to create a lower rate for hybrid cars. Toyota could contribute money to a PAC formed to place a ballot question before the voters, but such a contribution from Toyota would be a small percentage of their overall business, which is to manufacture and sell cars.
But let's say that you are a group whose special interest is to stop same-sex marriage in every state, and overturn it where it has been legalized.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is such a group. They are in business for the sole purpose of defeating every attempt to allow lesbian and gay couples to marry. In the 2nd Quarter of 2009, NOM contributed $160,000 to Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM), the PAC behind the so-called people's veto. This accounted for almost half of all the money received by S4MM in that quarter.
It's easy to see that without this money, which was used to hire a company from Michigan to collect signatures, Question 1 would never have made it on to the ballot.
What NOM will argue tomorrow is that their expenditures in Maine to initiate Question 1 are not their major purpose, because when viewed against their overall budget, the contributions made to S4MM are just a small percentage of their overall budget. And NOM will clam that Maine law is unconstitutional (sound famliliar?):
In addition, Section 1056-B because it burdens an association's First Amendment right of free speech requiring such to register and report as if they were political action committees, when they are not political action committees, and when they do not have the major purpose of influencing a Maine ballot question.
Such an argument is sheer bullshit - I challenge NOM to demonstrate even one dollar spent in Maine prior to the initiative to overturn LD 1020. I challenge NOM to demonstrate any other money spent in Maine since 1 January 2009 not directly related to overturning LD 1020.
Did NOM make a contribution to any group that works to reconcile family conflicts in Maine? Did NOM make a contribution to any agency that works to aid victims of domestic violence in Maine? Did NOM make a donation to any of Maine's soup kitchens?
Did NOM make a contribution to any Mormon Church in Maine?
The only reason that the National Organization for Marriage is spending money in Maine is entirely do to our law that allows same-sex couples to marry.
I challenge Brian Brown, head of NOM, to prove that statement wrong.
Dirigo Blue is an open forum, and anyone is allowed (and encouraged) to join.
(From the diaries - National Organization for Marriage (NOM) was responsible for nearly half of all contributions to Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM), the group behind the people's veto in the 2nd Quarter of this year. It should be remembered that this was at the time when S4MM was gathering signatures to put Q1 on the ballot (which included paying National Petition Management, a company from Michigan, $193,000 to assist with that effort). It can be argued that without NOM's financial contributions, Q1 may never have made it on the ballot this November - promoted by Gerald Weinand)
BEFORE WRITING THIS column, I sat and stared at my computer screen for what seemed like ages trying to figure out a way to make the topic of IRS regulations seem a bit more interesting.
Let's face it, most people just don't want to read about a subject as dry as tax law. Unfortunately, one of the only ways to detect questionable practices by organizations like the National Organization for Marriage is to first acquire the group's tax return, research it in detail, and make public the findings. Not surprisingly, NOM's initial return generated more questions than answers.
Obtaining the return has been an ongoing process spanning many months. On March 25, 2009, the group Californians Against Hate sent a certified request to NOM at their headquarters (20 Nassau St., Suite 242, Princeton, N.J.) for a copy of their 2007 tax return (Form 990). Under IRS regulations, NOM was required to release this information to the group within 30 days or face penalties of $20 per day. As of this week, NOM had not turned over their return to Californians Against Hate.
(After the break: Danielle sits down with NOM's Executive Director, Brian Brown.)
A California-based gay rights group has filed a complaint with Maine's campaign oversight agency against groups pushing for a people's veto vote in November on Maine's new gay marriage law.
Californians Against Hate founder Fred Karger filed a complaint with the ethics commission asking for an investigation into what he alleges is illegal fundraising reporting. Karger says the groups are contributing to the Stand for Marriage campaign without reporting the names of their donors.
The ethics commission is likely to decide whether to order an investigation during its October meeting, according to its Executive Director Jonathan Wayne.
Stand for Marriage co-chair Bob Emrich said today the complaint is bogus and that the groups have been very careful to follow the reporting law.
Karger claims that National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has funneled contributions specifically intended for S4MM without disclosing the names of the donors, as is required by Maine campaign finance laws.
Today, the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics sent a letter to Joseph Keaney, Treasurer of S4MM and Brian Brown, Executive Director of NOM, stating that the Commission will consider the request at its regularly scheduled meeting on 1 October 2009. The meeting will be held in Room 208 of the Burton M. Cross Office Building, 111 Sewall Street in Augusta, beginning at 9:00 a.m.
It should be noted that this meeting will explore if a formal investigation is warranted, and is not an investigation itself.
UPDATE: The entire letter sent to both S4MM and NOM is below the fold, but some of the highlights:
Mr. Karger points to a few factual circumstances which could be relevant to whether a violation has occurred:
• NOM is a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization that is roughly two years old. Based on the information that is presently available to the Commission staff, it appears that NOM has contributed at least $250,000 to the Stand for Marriage Maine PAC. This is a large amount of funding, which could suggest that NOM solicited and received funds for the purpose of initiating the referendum.
• In 2008, NOM formed a committee in California to raise and spend money in support of an amendment to the California State Constitution (Proposition 8) stating that only marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized by the California state government. According to the California Secretary of State, NOM's California committee raised $1,870,134 and contributed $1,561,134 to a larger PAC supporting Proposition 8. So, NOM has demonstrated the capability to raise a significant amount of funds to support a referendum on same sex marriage.
• Mr. Karger has provided the Commission with some fundraising solicitations from NOM stating to potential donors that the funds would be used to oppose the legalization of same sex marriage in New England. The two most relevant are the communications dated March 13 and 31, 2009, which mention Maine specifically.
The March 31st communication refers to "a hard-hitting new radio ad that we're launching today as part of our 2009 Northeast Action Plan ..." and makes the following solicitation: "We're excited about this new ad, but we need your help to keep these ads on the air, especially in states like Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and New Jersey, where coordinated grassroots opposition to pending gay marriage legislation is urgently needed."
The ad was apparently intended to run while the marriage legislation was under consideration by the Maine Legislature (March or April 2009). Nevertheless, the solicitation does seem to look forward to more communications to voters later in the year: "Throughout the year, we'll be rolling out new ads as we work to identify and motivate marriage activists throughout the Northeast." (italics added) This could easily be a reference to communications to voters in support of a referendum petition drive in Maine, which was actively discussed during the 2009 legislative session.
• As Mr. Karger has noted, the March 2009 solicitations from NOM promise its donors anonymity: "[P]lease make the most generous donation you can to help us keep these important ads on the air. Use this hyperlink to make a secure online donation. And unlike in California, every dollar you give to NOM's Northeast Action Plan today is private, with no risk of harassment from gay marriage protestors."
The AP has this report that the public option nixed from health bill by the Senate Finance Committee. This committee is chaired by Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), who has received at least $3.9 million in capaign contributions from the health care industry.
From the story:
These officials said participants were on track to exclude a requirement many congressional Democrats seek for businesses to offer coverage to their workers. Nor would there be a provision for a government insurance option, despite President Barack Obama's support for such a plan.
---
Obama and numerous Democrats in Congress have called for a government option to provide competition to private companies and hold down costs. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said during the day, "I don't believe that the president has come down (on) one versus the other in terms of denoting co-ops equal to or above public option."
One of the senators involved in the talks, Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, confirmed that co-ops are the preferred approach. "It's safe to say that'll probably remain in the final document," she said.
Officials also said a bipartisan compromise would not subject companies to a penalty if they declined to offer coverage to their workers. Instead, these businesses would be required to reimburse the government for part or all of any federal subsidies designed to help lower-income employees obtain insurance on their own.
Below the fold I print Subtitle B--Public Health Insurance Option from the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), which establishes the public option, essentially a health insurance agency of the Federal government, that is to compete head to head with for-profit companies. H.R. 3200 mandates that new policies offered by these for-profit companies provide the same minimum coverage that the Fed will offer.
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor appears headed to quick confirmation as the first Hispanic justice in spite of opposition from a growing chorus of conservative Republican senators who say she would bring liberal bias to the high court.
A Senate Judiciary Committee vote Tuesday was expected to advance Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court nominee, to the full Senate, where she's all but guaranteed to be confirmed in a bipartisan vote next week.
The examiner.com has this story about what we can expect to see in Maine, gay bullying:
The National Organization for Marriage has produced another ridiculous video to fan the flames of hate and fear associated with the issue of gay marriage. Their initial video, A Gathering Storm, was so preposterous that it had good comedic value. It would seem that there is concern that gay people are going to start pouring out of the sky, like frogs in Charleston during hurricane season. Of course gay activists promptly made a brilliant parody.
The premise of NOM's most recent video is that children will be confused by the concept of gay marriage, though it seems that the concept of marriage isn't likely to be confusing if they understand the concept of homosexuality. God forbid we teach children tolerance in a diverse society.
The ad:
Be sure to click through to the parody noted above - it's pretty funny.
Peter Cianchette was a legislator, then Republican nominee for governor, then George W. Bush's campaign manager in Maine, then GOP national committee member.
Most recently, he was U.S. ambassador to Costa Rica.
Just don't expect him to be a candidate for governor in 2010.
"I've been involved in public life a long time, and I'm looking forward to being in the private sector again," Cianchette said Monday.
He added that you should never say never, "But I really don't have any intentions to run for public office, certainly for the foreseeable future."
BEFORE WRITING THIS column, I sat and stared at my computer screen for what seemed like ages trying to figure out a way to make the topic of IRS regulations seem a bit more interesting.
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an