NOM Loses Fight To Keep Anti-Gay Marriage Donors Secret

The National Organization for Marriage ("NOM") has arrogantly thought itself above campaign finance disclosure laws aimed at allowing voters to know who is funding different political advertising campaigns. I've long suspected that NOM is a front for perhaps the Roman Catholic Church and/or the Mormon Church or principally financed by a few deep pocket donors rather that actually being any sort of grass roots organization as Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown would have the public believe. Now, NOM has lost two (2) lawsuits where it was challenging disclosure laws in Maine and Rhode Island. The U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld both states' disclosure laws. NOM can try to appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court, but based on that Court's ruling in a Washington State case by anti-gay forces, the prospects look bleak that the Court would even take the case. On Top Magazine has coverage. Here are highlights:

In the Rhode Island case, the court ruled that the state's law imposed little burden on the group and served a valuable government interest, the Providence Journal reported.

In the Maine case, NOM argued that the state's reporting requirements are vague and over-broad, Maine Public Broadcasting Network reported.

Maine's laws “neither erect a barrier to political speech nor limit its quantity,” the court wrote. “Rather, they promote the dissemination of information about those who deliver and finance political speech, thereby encouraging efficient operation of the marketplace of ideas.”

I always maintain that if an organization has nothing to hide, then it doesn't act as if it does. NOM's disingenuous statements that disclosure would subject its donors to harassment just don't fly. Moreover, if one lacks the courage to publicly stand behind their convictions, then perhaps they need to be rethinking their convictions. The Providence Journal noted in part as follows on the lawsuits:

[District]Judge Lisi concluded the disclosure law imposed little burden on the group and had a valuable governmental interest in identifying the people who give more than $100 to a support or defeat a candidate.

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Juan R. Torruella, Michael Bounding, and Kermit V. Lipez upheld Lisi’s ruling Thursday in a decision that echoes a similar ruling delivered the same day regarding election laws in Maine.

Common Cause Rhode Island, which weighed in on the state’s side in the case, argues the organization’s suit challenges the interests of Rhode Islanders to be informed about the source of political messages advocating for or against people who will be their elected officials.