PORTLAND, Maine — The campaign supporting a November referendum asking voters to allow same-sex marriage contended Friday that a national opposition group is flouting state law by failing to disclose the names of individual donors.
In a campaign finance report, filed Thursday with the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, the National Organization for Marriage reported raising and spending more than $250,000 to oppose Question 1, according to Mainers United for Marriage. The report covers the period from July 18 to Sept. 30.
Question 1 would allow same-sex couples to receive a marriage license from the state while protecting religious freedom.
Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, or NOM, called the accusation “absurd.”
Matthew Marett, who works for the ethics commission, which regulates campaign finance laws, said Friday that NOM’s latest report complies with the law.
In a practice that dates back to 2009, NOM refuses to identify the sources of its contributions, the majority of which were funneled to the Protect Marriage Maine PAC, and continues to flout Maine’s campaign finance disclosure laws, Matt McTighe, campaign manager for Mainers United for Marriage, said in a press release issued Friday. Campaign finance laws require disclosure of contributions of more than $50 for PACs and more than $100 for Ballot Question Committees, he said.
Brown said that because the money given to Protect Marriage Maine, which is running the campaign opposing Question 1, came from an undesignated fund, NOM is not required under Maine law to report individual donors.
Brown said the Human Rights Campaign Fund, a national group that supports same-sex marriage, churches and other groups can make contributions in a similar fashion without naming donors.
“The rule is that an organization can transfer general treasury funds on the condition that it didn’t raise the money specifically to influence the Maine campaign,” Marett said. “That appears to be so from the way NOM reported it.”
Neither Protect Marriage Maine nor Mainers United for Marriage had filed reports with the commission as of 4 p.m. Friday.
The criticism of NOM stems from the 2009 people’s veto campaign that repealed the same-sex marriage bill passed by lawmakers and signed by Gov. John Baldacci. During that campaign, NOM did not file as a ballot question committee or provide the names of its donors to the commission, according to a previously published report.
NOM challenged Maine’s campaign finance law in federal court in Portland.
In 2010, U.S. District Judge D. Brock Hornby upheld the state’s disclosure laws as they relate to ballot committees. Last year, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Hornby’s ruling. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up NOM’s appeal.
The high court’s decision cleared the way for the commission to move forward with an investigation into NOM’s contribution to the 2009 campaign, Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the commission, said Monday. He also said it was premature to discuss possible sanctions against NOM.
David Farmer, spokesman for Mainers United for Marriage, said the organization has not decided whether it would file a complaint with the commission over NOM’s latest report.
Mainers United for Marriage is expected to report raising more than $2.2 million from 8,200 donors during the most recent reporting period, McTighe said in Friday’s press release. So far, the organization has raised a total of $3.4 million from 13,780 donors in its effort to pass the referendum.
More than two-thirds of the contributions to the campaign have come from Mainers and 89 percent of the contributions were for $100 or less, according to Mainers United for Marriage.
Protect Marriage Maine has raised about $414,000, including the $250,000 donation from NOM, Carroll Conley, executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, which is donating office space in Augusta to the campaign, said Friday. He said that information about the number of donors to the campaign would not be available until the report is filed late Friday.
The deadline for candidates and groups supporting or opposing referendum questions to file financial information is midnight Friday.
Editor’s Note: David Farmer is a columnist for the Bangor Daily News.
And I suppose that Mainers United for Marriage(which certainly does not speak for Mainers) and Equality Maine are complying with listing the donors of their $5 million?
The opponents to SSM didn’t report their donors the last time they worked against equality; why would they, all of a sudden obey, the law now?
Oh , and the forces for good and equality did obey the law last time and they are this time.
The state should than make all new papers ,radio stations pull the adds because they are not going by the law an fine them 4 million dollars
They are doubling up on the conservative agenda, and this repeated scoff law attitude is about corporatism, and the false premise that corporations should have human rights.
Yes, you suppose right. I am unable to look for it now (ducking iPhone) but I believe the list can be found online.
I have not been able to find it to this point of moment, but still looking
YES!
Yes. Are you too lazy to look it up?
In 2009 ALL donors names were released… and my name is on that list.
Why would you think that we’d seek as low as NOM and their ilk?
Here are the answer to your questions
Mainers United for Marriage
http://www.mainecampaignfinance.com/Public/entity_financial_transactions.asp?TYPE=PAC&ID=6123
Equality Maine
http://www.mainecampaignfinance.com/Public/entity_financial_transactions.asp?TYPE=PAC&ID=668
NO NO NO NO NO and NO MEANS NO!!!!!!
Sorry, I couldn’t understand you, did you mean ‘no’?
It’ll be fun to watch your outrage when gay marriage comes to Maine.
It really will be.
I was thinking much the same thing … but about when Baby Bear brings his same sex partner home to meet Mama.
Do you believe that it is right for any group pro or con to not report donors as required by Maine law?
Exactly!
NO homophobia. NO discrimination. NO bigotry. NO inequality. NO forcing religious beliefs on our citizens. NO exclusion.
NO means NO.
Only if it fit your definition I see. Forcing your bigotry on those who have a different opnion
Ahhh, Mom, you’ve said that before, and no one listened then, either.
So Mama, if gay people don’t propagate, where do they all come from ?
What do normal people expect from this group, honesty and the courage of their convictions? Ha, that isn’t going to happen. These people from NOM are cowards, thieves, and liars who seek to oppress those who do not agree with their moral opinion. They are just like the Taliban. Shame on them. Marriage should be addressed nationally by our Congress and considered to be a civil right for any and all American citizens. Failing that the Supreme Court should address this in a way that puts the whole issue to rest (as compared to arguing each and every attack on freedom to marry). The trouble is, even our Congress doesn’t have the political fortitude to stand up for what is Right in America.
Once again, it’s those that scream the loudest and point their fingers the most that turn out to be the guilty ones. You refuse the follow the law, absolutely refuse, and yet gays are the immoral ones? Just so disgusting.
How is it disgusting do you have scientific evidence to back it up ?
Scientific evidence for what?
about gays being disgusting
I’m not as crazed about this topic as some, but I tend to be a person who minds my own business and don’t feel it is my job to tell others how to live their life. I will be voting in favor of same-sex marriage, simply because it’s not my business to tell someone who to marry and because, after 22 years of being married to my husband, I find that love is a pretty amazing thing and that nobody should be denied the rights that I have myself.
Now to the topic of this article. The one thing I don’t understand…those opposed to same-sex marriage likely are opposed because they feel it is immoral, yet they are breaking the law? I’m sorry, but is that not the most hypocritical thing you’ve ever heard????
Likewise I feel it’s none of my business how people want to live out their lives within the bounds of the law. Right now in Maine couples are free to choose their partners. The fact same-sex partners are not issued marriage licenses does not change that. If they wish to “marry” they can even do that, as there are groups and even churches willing to “bless” or endorse these unions. The state and society however have no legitimate interest – except in those cases involving one man and one woman – endorsing any type of human bond. The union between a man and a woman is very different than all others: it is natural, procreative, and naturally conducive to the rearing of children, whether ones own by nature or through adoption. A recently published study by a University of Texas at Austin professor – the largest of its kind so far – has confirmed children do best when reared by a mom and a dad. Thus there is no real argument for state endorsement of relationships other than those involving a man and a woman determined to make a life-long relationship together in mutual love.
As to the question of NOM being in violation of law, its spokesperson Brian Brown explained the organization is using undesignated fund money to campaign for marriage in Maine. How is this a violation of Maine law?
Liar.
They have the exact same interest that they have in endorsing the unions of infertile or elderly citizens.
I know that bothers you… but it’s a fact.
Procreation has nothing to do with the civil contract of marriage. You’ve never been able to disprove that.
As for your study, it’s already been called into question due to the use of parties who stood to profit off of its publication.
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2012/09/17/31127/
You’re going to have to do better than that… it’s the same as quoting Paul Cameron or NARTH.
As long as you’re going to lie about the whole procreation bit (hypocrisy at it’s finest), I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that you don’t even know your “study” is falling apart.
Is this all you can come up with, I mean, calling me a liar? Or does the truth hurt? Read what your referenced article says in part:
“However, in August, the University of Texas performed an inquiry into
Regnerus’ study and decided that he had sufficiently employed
scientific methods and that no further investigation was necessary.
Social Science Research also conducted an audit that claimed the journal
had not violated procedural guidelines.
According to Samuel, the scholars in opposition of Regnerus had overreacted.
“What happened to Dr. Regnerus was so unusual,” Samuel said. “Instead of just
sitting down and writing a paper refuting his work, they went and pressured his home university to conduct an academic investigation …and it became so politicized and so out of the ordinary. I think it was a very unfair way to treat Dr. Regnerus.”
Incidentally, Dr. Regnerus is a well-respected sociologist in his field. But is he a liar? If you claim he is, then tell me why. I’ll say this much, you are no researcher yourself. The University has conducted its own investigation and concluded, after being pressured unfairly by gays to suspend Dr. Regnerus, his research efforts sufficiently employed scientific methods and no further investigation was necessary. Justifiably Dr. Regnerus has been reinstated to his former professorial position.
For me, it’s not hard to tell why nature made men and women differently physically, mentally, and emotionally. If women are simply made to bear children in the womb, then tell me why the mental and emotional differences between them are universal?
The study was refuted actually. It wasn’t well received like you are purporting it to have been.
Yes, it was refuted by a gay and gay activist on the basis the researcher was a Catholic convert, among other irrelevant reasons. So much for tolerance from “tolerant” gay activists and leftists of this world.
It took me all of 3 minutes to find a list of organizations that filed an amicus brief challenging the use of the Regenerus study in order to support DOMA.
Those organizations are :
THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, THE CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS AND ITS CALIFORNIA CHAPTER,THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, AND THE AMERICAN PSYCHOANALYTIC ASSOCIATION
And no, you are overtly and outright lying about the basis which the study was challenged; the researcher’s religion had, and has had, absolutely NOTHING to do with why it’s been, and continues to be not just challenged, but entirely dismissed.
Have a little integrity. Is there nothing that you do not have the nerve to lie about here ?
And your response – you don’t know when the amicus brief was filed ? Seriously ? Look it up !
You’re lying, whawell, you’re lying when you claim a blogger had anything to do with with the scrutiny the study brought upon itself.
You’re lying when you claim his Catholicism had anything to do with the scrutiny the study brought upon itself.
Have a little integrity, an internal audit of the journal that published the study has found that the study is not just flawed, but that those involved in publishing it had ties to NOM and had an agenda.
It’s blatantly dishonest of you to make so many false claims when making a moderate effort and spending 5 minutes of your time researching the issue would easily prove the BS you’re repeating from the NOM based sites you rely on for all these lies.
Again, I ask you, have a little integrity, what you’re doing here is shameful, deceptive, and dishonest.
I don’t know when these organizations filed their amicus brief. I do know however that the professor’s dismissal was based on complaints made by Scott Rose, a homosexual freelance writer with no academic credentials. The professor is a recent convert to Catholicism, and Rose has a history of Catholic bashing.
That’s not true, you just made that up. I think it’s unfair how you spread misinformation and then when you’re called on it, you claim you’re being victimized and you flag comments, etc.
It’s not right and it’s not honest.
You are a liar, as well as a hypocrite.
When the law forbids childless marriages, you will have a point.
As long as people can wed and not have children, you are only being a hypocrite.
Speaking about liars, you called Brown ” a known liar and cheat.” When you name-call – for example, you called me a liar – are you not cheating as well? You are violating rule number 2 for posting. How about, Pal?
It’s neither a lie nor cheating.
It’s only the truth.
Your response was predictable. Rather than address your own failure, you deny cheating (rule breaking) while calling out Brian Brown for rule breaking. As you said, “It’s only the truth”. Hypocrisy at its best!
Wow…
His own “failure” ?
Just what is THAT supposed to mean ?
You’re not being honest. Brown has a judgment against him and NOM did cheat and lie and break the law.
Also, when you spread misinformation whawell, how do you expect people to react towards you? With a hug? No, people are going to prove you wrong and state that you are lying (sometimes that comes with the label “liar”).
It’s interesting that you would would bring up the Regnerus study.
Since the part of the controversy you omit entirely is that Dr. Regnerus failed to disclose who funded the study. It was partially funded by the NOM-linked Witherspoon Institute, and in the process the peer-review process was corrupted.
A Regnerus funding agency representative — Witherspoon’s Brad Wilcox — was paid $2,000 to assist Regnerus with data analysis on his study. Yet another conflict of interest, and yet even more grounds for charges of scientific misconduct.
Seems to be a consistent tendency for the anti-marriage mob to break the law, break the rules, hide who their funding is from, cower from scrutiny, and lie. Constantly. And when confronted, to pretend that they’re victims of some grand agenda.
So if the lying shoe fits, wear it.
And your response below – how is it that you are unaware of the internal audit of Social Science Research, the publisher of the study, which found that the study never should have even been published because of the obvious serious flaws in the design of the study, and the conflict of interests of the people on the panel that allowed it to be published int he first place.
THIS news came out back at the end of July, it’s a done deal, no credible organization considers the study to be valid in any way, and it’s been retracted.
So stop your lying and referencing this study, it’s been soundly dismissed already.
Gay activists have a tendency to attack the messenger instead of discussing the message. This is exactly what is happening in the case of Dr. Regnerus who is known among his peers for his honest scholarship. It makes no difference who funded the project. All relevant information regarding the study has been submitted for review. Of course if Dr. Regnerus failed to dot an “i” or cross a “t” these activists will make a big to-do with all sorts of wild accusations as they have attempted to do so far. It appears they don’t want anyone to come up with research they deem contrary to their interests. I feel badly for this researcher who no doubt is being intimidated and excoriated publicly.
The University of Texas has a policy that requires an inquiry into all complaints against a professor accused of shoddy scholarship. After completing such an inquiry the school either launches an investigation or dismisses the case. For your information the case against Regnerus has been dropped, and Regnerus has been reinstated to his professional position as professor.
Incidentally, the study is in the process of peer review. Any analysis of the data done by Brad Wilcox or any other entity will be thoroughly looked at, I’m sure, for any lapses.
Married 40 years and I agree.Very well put.
NOM = Narrowminded Old Misanthropes….
I am doing some volunteer work for this organization this time and yes i will vote for gay marriage, but lets stop the childish games about not disclosing names. If they are not they will get caught. IF it wins it wins if it does not it does not, just do it again
Well, which is it … are the those who fund opposition to Same-Sex Marriage … and fulfillment of the Golden Rule (allowing others what you want for yourself, as in, Marriage to someone you love. which they used to deny mixed race couples), or is the organization ashamed of those who provide its funding, because it doesn’t want to admit to endorsing their bigotry?
The anti-marriage group (and that is really what those who oppose Same-Sex marriage are) is a victim of “Saint Paul’s Joke” … as pointed out in the new KINDLE book of the same name.
Marriage was once marrying one person to many persons.
Marriage was once marring a person of one race to someone of the same race.
What you’re missing is that the definition of marriage has already changed many times.
This latest addition won’t hurt you a bit.
RAmen.
At one time it was a Union of a man and as many “women” as he could afford. Of course, these women were 10 or 12, which was perfectly acceptable for the Christians.
His problem is that he actually believes Brian Brown, a known liar and cheat.
There we go again! In your world anyone who disagrees with you is a “liar”. To me, that says a lot about your personally.
Actually I wouldn’t call him a liar but I would classify him as a criminal for knowingly breaking Maine law.
Knowingly breaking Maine law? I don’t understand how you can make that judgement if Mr. Brown was sincere in his belief. One can be sincere in a belief but be found to be wrong in the court of law. There’s a big difference here. This is analogous to erroneously calling someone a liar for giving out misinformation he believes to be true. In order to lie one must consciously disseminate a falsehood. People disseminate false information on a daily basis without intent to deceive. Does that make them liars? Of course not.
Willful ignorance is just as bad . Not bothering to fact check? That’s not honesty.
NOM came into Maine prior to the 2009 vote on the repeal of the SSM law. They knew that Maine law required the release of donor lists to Maine’s Commission on Government Ethics and Election Practices. They knew it. The information is readily available on line at Maine.gov. They knew it and refused to release the lists.
They continued to refuse to release the list even when Maine’s Commission on Government Ethics and Election Practices ruled they had to.
They continued to refuse to release the list even with the state and federal court system rules against NOMs law suit.
They CONTINUE to refuse to release the 2009 list even when the SCOTUS refused to hear their case this past week on appeal.
And NOW they refuse to release the 2012 list and you call that Mr. Brown being “sincere in his belief”!
whawell when you are on I95 in Portland and you are stopped doing 65 mph in a 55 mph zone are you going to try the line with the Maine Trooper that you where “sincere in” your “belief” that the speed limit was 65 mph after passing one sign that said “Reduced Speed Ahead 55 mph” and then a 55 mph sign with two neon orange flags hanging on either side of the sign?
NOM ignored the law. They ignored the warning signs. They ignored the Maine Trooper that issued the summons for speeding. They lost in court. They appealed the decision and lost again and again and again. They lost there law suit and the SCOTUS refused to hear their appeal and now they refuse to release the 2012 list of donor.
Yup that is willful and I repeat, “I wouldn’t call him a liar but I would classify him as a criminal for knowingly breaking Maine law.” Yup Mr. Brown and NOM has knowingly broken Maine law not once but twice now.
They do have a judgment against them though that says they are in fact cheats.
If you are referring to a court decision against their interest, I don’t think that the accusation of cheating was involved in the judgement.
NOM broke Maine law in 2009 and lost every appeal including the SCOTUS. They continue to refuse to release the 2009 list of donors.
Now they refuse to release the 2012 list.
What would you call a group or group of people that break Maine law during an election cycle whawell?
I call it criminal.
Brian Brown lies about state laws and cheats his way around them.
Simple fact.
The finish line will happen where it should… in the legislature or the courts.
People should not be voting on who gets treated equitably under government.
So yeah… see you there.
Carpetbaggers not playing by the rules–again.
If Maines “finest” has the audacity to change the very definition of marriage, then you would think that they woulde care less about who pays for what. With an agenda like they have, they should be worried about much more than a donor for the other side.
I would like to know if I can marry the 5 women I love and they love me.. any objections? it gives me 2 days off a week to date.
If you want to marry 5 women go for it. 1st you must get it on the ballot, so you’d better started.
The voters have spoken over and over and over time and time again. It will not pass. The silent majority have and will speak again!
The voters have “spoken” on this issue ONCE before.
Silent ? On what planet ?
Majority ? Not for long.