National Organization for Marriage Violating IRS Rules?

I've said it before and will say it again - the professional gay haters, while professing to be "godly Christians" are one very dishonest bunch who feel an entitlement to ignore the rules the rest of us have to live by. Like campaign finance laws, tax laws and IRS requirements while making very plush livings for themselves. Now, HRC is reporting that the National Association for Marriage - which appears to be violation election campaign reporting laws in Iowa. Here are some highlights:

*

On the heels of news that officials in Maine were investigating the campaign practices of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), we just learned that authorities in Iowa are questioning the group over potential violations of campaign finance laws.

*
Turns out NOM has failed to register as a PAC and disclose contributors. NOM even boasts in their fundraising letters that they offer donors anonymity. Said the Iowa board letter: “The independent expenditure process in Iowa is not a vehicle to shield political contributions.” Read the entire Iowa letter here [pdf] as well as the Maine letter [pdf].

*

Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher may have felt pretty good after the love fest they got from the Washington Post on Friday, but the fair-minded Americans they’re trying to reach should take note. One final note… NOM’s 2007 form 990 was finally released last night thanks to Justin McLachlan. Happy reading.

*

So far the IRS form 990 exposes some potentially shady self-dealing for the benefit of Brian Brown who receive a $160,000+ payment to one of his organizations that appears to do little or nothing. Nothing like laughing all the way to the bank while disseminating lies and hatred.

Responses to Comments on Clinton

I have been taken to task by some for stating that I do not know if I could bring myself to vote for Hillary Clinton if by some fluke - or more accurately, stolen nomination - she were to become the Democrat Party nominee. While I very much do not want another Republican administration, especially one that would prolong the disaster in Iraq, I have to seriously question whether or not McCain would be worse than another dose of Bill and Hillary. I am liberal on social issues and an ardent supporter of gays rights, but the thought of 4 or 8 more years of constant scandals and self-serving conduct by the Clintons is hard to stomach. Their tactics to date have shown that they care only for themselves ultimately, regardless of whatever lip service they give to the contrary. Moreover, other than using gays as a source of votes and money, I do not expect Hillary to do anything for gay rights. We will be thrown under the bus the second our uselfulness is over.

The only thing that would perhaps swing me over to vote for her if, God forbid, she is the nominee would be to protect future nominations to the U. S. Supreme Court. Obviously, I'd prefer to avoid the whole situation by seeing Obama get the nomination. While white blue collar racists like those in rural Pennsylvania who voted for Hillary (as a native of Syracuse, New York, I traveled through rural Pennsylvania often and it makes Norfolk, Virginia, look downright progressive and racially tolerant) may be inclined to vote against a black man - they seem to forget he is also half white - I believe the issue of the economy and the Iraq War will make them vote against their racial bias and support Obama. I continue to believe Obama has a far better chance of carrying more states than Hillary, Virginia being one of them.