Maine Supreme Court: NOM Must Reveal Donors

NOM president Brian Brown

The National Organization for Marriage ("NOM") has gone to great lengths in the form of lawsuits in its attempt to hide the identities of donors to its 2009 Maine referendum campaign to reverse that state’s marriage equality law which raised $2 million.  NOM has claimed continued anonymity is crucial to protect its donors from "harassment or economic reprisals by supporters of gay marriage" and also claimed that the organization’s fund-raising efforts would suffer if donor identities have to be revealed.  Many, however, suspect that NOM's real fear may be that revealing donor identities will reveal that NOM has only a handful of big donors and is not a "grass roots" organization as constantly claimed.  Moreover, the names of some of these donors could cause major repercussions to organizations like the Catholic Church and its front organizations. Now, the Maine Supreme Court has ordered that the donor names need to be revealed.  Here are details from the Portland Press Herald: 

The National Organization for Marriage has lost another round in its attempt to hide the identities of donors to a successful 2009 referendum campaign to reverse Maine’s marriage equality law.

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday refused NOM’s request for a stay, which would enable the organization to delay complying with a state ethics board ruling that it must file a report identifying the sources of the $2 million it gave to the referendum drive.

NOM has mounted a relentless legal battle to conceal the names of its donors, saying that they could be subjected to harassment or economic reprisals by supporters of gay marriage, and that the organization’s fund-raising efforts would suffer.

The Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices last year imposed a $50,250 fine on NOM, the nation’s largest organization opposed to gay marriage, because it failed to register as a ballot question committee or file campaign activity and donor disclosure reports.

In April, the Maine Superior Court upheld the ethics commission decision to fine NOM and its requirement that the group list its donors. . . . has not filed a campaign finance report containing the names of the donors to the 2009 campaign.

Wayne said the ruling by the state’s highest court means that NOM should file a campaign finance report. Additionally, he said, the court also indicated in its ruling that the organization wouldn’t likely win its appeal.

[T]he ruling stated “The circumstances underlying the Commission’s decision occurred almost six years ago, and the decision has successfully withstood federal and state court challenges during that time. NOM now asks us to decide many of the same issues and has failed to sufficiently show that it has a likelihood of succeeding on the merits. Accordingly, we deny NOM’s motion for a stay pending appeal.” The ethics investigation cited bank statements and campaign literature to show that the organization used its nonprofit status to draw donations earmarked for the Maine referendum – a violation of Maine election law.

"Taliban Bob" McDonnell Did Not Reveal Rolex From Donor

The greed and willingness to grab gifts and loot that has permeated the McDonnell household at the Governor's mansion seems to know few limits.  The latest item to come to light is a $6,500 Rolex watch that Taliban Bob seems to have conveniently forgotten to disclose.  It is becoming increasingly hard to believe that all the lavish gifts did not come with strings attached.   The Washington Post looks at McDonnell's latest memory lapse.  Here are excerpts:

A prominent political donor purchased a Rolex watch for Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, according to two people with knowledge of the gift, and the governor did not disclose it in his annual financial filings.

The $6,500 luxury watch was provided by wealthy businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr., the people said. He is the chief executive of dietary supplement manufacturer Star Scientific and the person who paid for catering at the wedding of the governor’s daughter. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because of an ongoing federal investigation into the relationship between Williams and the McDonnell family.

Williams’s gift came in August 2011 — about two weeks after he met with a top state health official to pitch the benefits of his company’s health products at a meeting arranged by first lady Maureen McDonnell, according to people who know of the meeting.

The Rolex, engraved with the inscription “71st Governor of Virginia,” represents the first undisclosed gift known to have been used personally by McDonnell (R) among tens of thousands of dollars of undisclosed gifts given to the governor’s family.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment. Jerry Kilgore, an attorney for Williams, declined to comment on the federal investigation, as did Star Scientific’s corporate attorney, Abbe Lowell. Tucker Martin, a spokesman for the governor, also declined to comment on the watch or the investigation.

They [federal investigators] are also investigating other money provided to Maureen McDonnell, as well as expensive designer clothing — some bought in 2011 in New York City — according to people familiar with the inquiry.   The shopping trip emanated from a social occasion with Williams and Maureen McDonnell shortly after the governor won election. The governor’s wife mentioned that she would need an inauguration dress, preferably one from the designer Oscar de la Renta, and would like Williams’s help getting one, according to two people familiar with her suggestion.

The governor is the subject of broad federal and state investigations into gifts given to him and his family and whether McDonnell took official action on behalf of anyone who gave gifts, people with knowledge of the investigations have said.

There is more that deserves a full read.  One thing for certain, Maureen McDonnell is a real piece of work and seems insatiable in her quest for gifts.  She surely doesn't know the words "discrete" and "modest."

McDonnell and Cuccinelli Should Have Known Better

It is actually becoming rather entertaining to see newspaper after newspaper across the Commonwealth lay into Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell and Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli for their ethically challenged dealings with Star Scientific, including receive thousands of dollars of gifts.  The latest newspaper to get in on the beat down is the News Leader.   Here are highlights from the paper's editorial:

Political power and prestige can blind those who achieve it. Surely, Gov. Bob McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, in less frantic days, knew better than to get so chummy with Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams.

Since ethical problems in their relationships with Williams were first revealed last month, episode after episode has made us question McDonnell and Cuccinelli’s judgment.

Williams had already lavished McDonnell with $100,000 worth of campaign travel on his private jet and $9,600 worth of food, lodging and entertainment.


Most educated people would have agreed that accepting money to pay the catering tab crossed too many lines, especially since the giver was filing suit against the Commonwealth.



That’s where Attorney General Cuccinelli’s repeated lapses come in. In 2011, Star Scientific filed a lawsuit against Virginia, after the state assessed sales and use taxes on tobacco-curing barns it owned in Mecklenberg. Cuccinelli said he wasn’t aware of the suit – though he and Williams are personal friends – when a few months after its filing, he bought almost $10,000 worth of Star Scientific stock to add to the approximately $10,000 he already owned. By law, the Attorney General was required to report his holding of that stock, but he did not for a year, because he said he didn’t realize the value exceeded the $10,000 threshold.

Conflicts of interest are not easy to avoid when raising millions of dollars to get elected. But avoided they must be. Our governor and attorney general should have been wiser, all the way around.

As arrogant as Cuccinelli is now, should he be elected in November to the Governor's mansion, I suspect what we've seen to date would pale compared to the egomaniac would do as governor.  Virginia does not need a corrupt extremist as governor.

Bob McDonnell (and Ken Cuccinelli) Should Come Clean on Lavish Gifts

There's nothing like ending your term as governor plagued by ethics questions.  Ditto for running a gubernatorial race with the same cloud over your head.  But that is where Bob McDonnell and Ken Cuccinelli find themselves.  Not that anyone should be surprised, especially in the case of Cuccinelli who always sees himself and his views above the rules that apply to everyone else.  For all it efforts to depict itself as a genteel state, the truth is that corruption is rampant, especial sine the disclosure laws concerning gifts to politicians has few limits and if nothing else can be circumvented by the donor simply claiming that the gift was given to a family member, not the elected official himself or herself.  The Washington Post blasts Bob McDonnell for his continued efforts at subterfuge to avoid coming clean about lavish gifts.   By the time he is done, it will be the lies and dishonesty which will be a bigger problem for McDonnell if he tries to satiate his yearnings for higher office.  Here are highlights from the Post's main editorial:

IT’S A FAIR GUESS that companies based in Virginia launch thousands of new products each year. Precious few of them get to mark the event with a luncheon hosted by Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) at the Executive Mansion in Richmond or are treated to a personal plug by his wife.

A notable exception is Star Scientific Inc., based in the Richmond suburbs, whose chief executive, Jonnie R. Williams Sr., has lavished tens of thousands of dollars in cash and gifts on Mr. McDonnell and his political action committee since before he became governor.

Under Virginia’s financial disclosure laws, politicians such as Mr. McDonnell may accept cash and gifts in virtually any amount; they must simply disclose any donation of more than $50. The idea is that full transparency will act as a brake on largess that looks too much like outright bribery. But in the case of Mr. McDonnell and his benefactor Mr. Williams, even those extravagantly permissive laws proved too onerous.

As The Post’s Rosalind S. Helderman reported, Mr. McDonnell failed to report a $15,000 gift from Mr. Williams that covered most of a catering bill for food and flowers at his daughter Cailin’s wedding nearly two years ago. He also issued a misleading statement about the nature of the gift.

Documents subsequently obtained by The Post show that Mr. Williams’s “gift” covered about three-quarters of a $19,400 catering contract that Mr. McDonnell himself signed, annotated and started to pay, to the tune of $8,000 in deposits. About two weeks before the June 2011 wedding, Mr. Williams stepped in with his $15,000 check to cover the balance due — and more.

Any reasonable person looking at those facts would conclude that Mr. Williams’s check was a gift to the governor. Mr. McDonnell, a lawyer renowned for his attention to detail, was astute enough to amend the catering contract to insist on a refund if the wedding reception was canceled due to an act of God or death. He was presumably also astute enough to remember that he had signed the contract and was on the hook for the balance.

Have other gifts been directed to the governor’s family? Mr. McDonnell, taking cover behind the disclosure law’s loophole, isn’t saying.

That’s a miscalculation. If he wants to get in front of what is rapidly becoming a scandal that threatens to engulf his last year in office, Mr. McDonnell should come clean with more answers than he has provided so far.

Cuccinelli has also been on board the Star Scientific gravy train of gifts and needs to come completely clean on all of the largess that has been directed his way.   Cuccinelli likes to depict himself as a paragon of virtue, but the reality is that he looks more like a sleazy pimp.  Ditto for Bob McDonnell.

Democrats Demand Cuccinelli Resign Over Star Scientific Scandal; Did McDonnell Lie About Star Scientific Gift?

It seems that Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli and Bob McDonnell are becoming increasingly ensnared in the web of conflicts of interest and failures to disclose financial interests and gifts.

I noted the other day how the Virginian Pilot ran a scathing editorial calling for Ken Cuccinelli to resign from the office of attorney general.  As noted before, Cuccinelli has been ripping of Virginia tax payers and using state employees as campaign workers - not to mention drawing his own salary while spending almost all of his time campaigning.  Now, with the Star Scientific scandal picking up steam, it is even more appropriate that Cuccinelli resign.  I suspect Cuccinelli will resist as long as possible so that he can maximize the money he rips off from Virginia taxpayers who have no desire to fund his campaign.  As Blue Virginia reports, some leading Democrats have had enough og Cuccinelli's sleazy conduct and are calling openly for his resignation.  Here are excerpts:

 "More than two weeks of news accounts have revealed that Cuccinelli neglected to disclose that he owned Star Scientific stock when they sued Virginia to avoid paying up to $1.5 million in taxes, failed to recuse his office from the case and bought more Star stock after the company filed their suit against the Commonwealth...McEachin, Toscano and Herring will call on Cuccinelli to put transparency and accountability ahead of his personal ambition and resign his office." A few more highlights from the call:

Charniele Herring: Cuccinelli was not elected to use his office as a platform for his personal and ideological agenda, but unfortunately that's what he's done in the case of Star Scientific and Jonnie Williams ("deep pocketed special interests"). So, we're calling on Cuccinelli step down as Attorney General immediately. 

Donald McEachin: This issue is not a partisan issue, it's a matter of what kind of leadership Virginians deserve in their Attorney General. These are not Democratic accusations against Cuccinelli, the news has been reported by the AP, Washington Post, Richmond Times-Dispatch, and the Virginian Pilot. Cuccinelli has put his personal and financial interest over the interest of Virginians. 

David Toscano: Cuccinelli's "inexcusable conflict of interest" with Star Scientific goes deeper than we knew a week ago. Now, given all that we know about this scandal, Cuccinelli must resign.

Besides being liars, these "godly" men also seem to have an affinity for enriching themselves via gifts from campaign contributors and those seeking political favors.  It looks like Bob McDonnell's ludicrous lie that a $15,000 gift was to his daughter, and not himself may be about to explode in his face. Here are highlights from the Virginian Pilot on McDonnell's apparent lies:

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has said his daughter and her husband paid for their own wedding. So a $15,000 check from a major campaign donor to pay for the food at the affair was a gift to the bride and groom and not to him, and therefore did not have to be publicly disclosed under the law, the governor says.

But documents obtained by The Washington Post show that McDonnell signed the catering contract, making him financially responsible for the 2011 event. The governor made handwritten notes to the caterer in the margins. In addition, the governor paid nearly $8,000 in deposits for the catering.  When the combination of the governor's deposit and the gift from the donor resulted in an overpayment to the caterer, the refund check of more than $3,500 went to McDonnell's wife and not to his daughter, her husband or back to the donor.

The new documents suggest that the governor was more involved with the financing of the wedding than he has previously acknowledged.

The question of who was responsible for paying the catering bill is a key one because Virginia law requires that elected officials publicly report gifts of more than $50. The law does not require the disclosure of gifts to family members.

The comments came as McDonnell faces new questions surrounding his relationship with Williams and his company, which McDonnell and his wife showcased even as they received other gifts and campaign donations. The company has revealed it is the subject of a federal securities investigation.

Williams and Star Scientific provided McDonnell and his political action committee more than $120,000 in publicly disclosed political donations and gifts.

I suspect that right now Taliban Bob is perhaps wishing that he had had a little less upscale affair for his daughter.  He and Kookinelli may think that they are above the law, but time may prove otherwise. 

Hate Group Ordered to Obey Donor Disclosure Laws

One thing that is striking about anti-gay hate groups is their reluctance to disclose the identities of their donors as required by campaign finance disclosure laws. I'm not sure if the refusal to obey the law stems from (i) open arrogance and a mindset that the Christianists are above the law, (ii) cowardice on the part of donors who don't have the integrity to publicly stand behind their hate-filled convictions, or (iii) an effort to hide the fact that the source of funding in reality flows only from a small handful of individuals. Perhaps it's a mix of all three, although my money is on option (iii) based on some of the information that has come out indicating that the National Organization for Marriage is largely funded by a dozen big donors and that it is anything but the grassroots organization it pretends to be. In any event, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has told Family Policy Institute of Washington - an affiliate of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council and also linked to National Organization for Marriage - that they can’t hide the identity of donors to their political action committee “Family PAC“. This statement from Pam's House Blend sums up how these hate groups seek to operate:

They want to lurk in the shadows and attack LGBT families in secret, but the Constitution penned by our Founding Fathers and the laws passed under its authority mandate sunshine.

These "family values" organizations have about as much integrity as organized crime rings or the Klu Klux Klan and are probably even less truthful given their constant dissemination of deliberately false information about LGBT individuals and false claims that the "religious freedom" of Christianists is being threatened. Here are additional highlights from Pam's House Blend:

Yesterday a 3-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit released a 23-page opinion affirming an earlier federal district court ruling that upheld Washington’s campaign donor disclosure laws.

Washington’s Pulbic Disclosure Law and related code requires political committees to disclose the names and addresses of contributors giving more than $25, and in addition the occupations and employers of contributors giving more than $100. FPIW alleged that these laws are unconstitutional because potential donors to Family PAC “have indicated that they are unwilling to donate if Family PAC is required to report their name and address.” They offered no evidence to back up that claim, however.

In their opinion yesterday the Court of Appeals concluded that “the requirements impose only modest burdens on First Amendment rights, while serving a governmental interest in an informed electorate that is of the utmost importance.” That important governmental interest is in “allowing voters to ‘follow the money‘ behind ballot measures”.

FPIW is an affiliate of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council and is linked to National Organization for Marriage. NOM has been a major donor to FPIW’s past efforts. FPIW believes that “discrimination is not only appropriate, it is necessary for survival” and created Family PAC in 2009 to help finance anti-gay ballot measures. Family PAC’s campaign manager and treasurer is FPIW’s executive director Joseph Backholm.

Kudos to the 9th Circuit. My question is, when will the folks at FPIW begin to be criminally prosecuted if they continue to refuse to comply with the law? Nothing warms my heart more than the thought of these spineless thugs behind bars.

NOM's Constant Circumventing of Campaign Finance Laws

Maggie Gallagher and her fellow self-enriching whores at the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM") like to depict themselves as law abiding protectors of "traditional marriage." The truth, of course, is something far different. NOM believes itself above the law and in terms of its anti-gay message is getting to the point where it deserves a hate group designation by the Southern Poverty Law Center. NOM's lawlessness is particularly acute when it comes to ignore campaign finance disclosure laws. While NOM claims compliance with such laws would open its donors up to abuse and intimidation, I suspect the reality is one of two things: (1) NOM only has a few big dollar donors and is not a broad grass roots organization as Gallagher and her fellow whore claim or (2) NOM's main donors are organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church and/or the Mormon Church that would suffer political and/or IRS consequences if their true role in NOM became public. NOM Exposed has a nice summary of NOM's lawlessness. Here are some highlights:

The nation’s leading anti-gay group, the National Organization for Marriage, opposes marriage and civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. Earlier this month, many of the leading Republican presidential candidates signed NOM’s pledge calling for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

NOM has filed a raft of lawsuits to shield its donors from public disclosure. But, as this memo outlines, courts and state election boards have consistently disagreed and rejected NOM’s challenges. Donor disclosure is uniformly required across the country for federal, state and local campaigns and is widely accepted as a vital means to ensure that elections are conducted transparently and fairly.

Given the recent historical record, states do in fact take disclosure, and legal compliance, in earnest. NOM has unsuccessfully challenged disclosure laws in Maine, Minnesota, New York, California, Rhode Island, and Iowa.

–MAINE. Throughout 2009, NOM provided $1.8 million to oppose the ballot referendum on marriage equality in Maine, but it illegally failed to disclose where the money came from. Maine law requires that any funds raised to support or oppose a ballot question be made public. The Main Ethics Commission launched an inquiry and unanimously denied NOM’s request to dismiss the state investigation into the organization’s finances. NOM sued the Commission in February of this year, but a federal judge sided with the Commission and upheld Maine’s campaign finance disclosure law as constitutional. NOM then took its case to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with the State of Maine earlier this month. (NOM remains under investigation by state officials.)

–MINNESOTA. In June 2011, the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board ruled that groups advocating for or against a ballot measure on gay marriage are subject to certain disclosure requirements under state law. NOM had falsely argued that supporters of marriage equality would harass and intimidate their donors, and cause property damage if they were made public. The Board rejected NOM’s bid for nondisclosure. The Board’s decision followed a federal court ruling in September 2010 that upheld the state’s campaign finance disclosure laws against challenge by NOM’s lawyers.

–NEW YORK. NOM wanted to run ads in support of Carl Paladino for Governor in 2010 but didn’t want to make donors’ names public. Under New York law, running ads in support of any candidate could classify the group as a political committee. As a political committee, it, like every other organization, would then be subject to several reporting and disclosure requirements. NOM refused and filed suit. U.S. District Judge Richard Arcara rejected NOM’s suit in February.

–CALIFORNIA. In January 2009, NOM sued the California Secretary of State in federal court to avoid disclosing donors to the Proposition 8 ballot initiative. California law requires campaign committees to report information for any contributors of $100 or more, which is then made publicly available. Rather than follow the decades-old California Public Records Act, NOM suggested that it was entitled to a blanket exemption. The court rejected NOM’s suit, upholding California’s campaign finance reporting laws and noting that “disclosure… prevents the wolf from masquerading in sheep’s clothing.”

–RHODE ISLAND. Last September, NOM sued the state of Rhode Island to keep its donors secret, arguing the state’s restrictions on political advertising and campaign finance disclosure requirements were unconstitutional and overly broad. A district judge disagreed, and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Judges upheld the district judge’s ruling.

–IOWA. In 2009, NOM fought to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would reverse the state Supreme Court’s unanimous decision recognizing marriage equality. NOM asked its supporters to contribute to the Iowa campaign in a nationwide email by saying that “…best of all, NOM has the ability to protect donor identities.” The e-mail and subsequent complaints prompted a letter from the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Finance Board stating that state law requires disclosure of political contributions solicited for the Iowa campaign.

Even U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has come down on the side of public disclosure and against NOM’s secrecy crusade. In Doe v. Reed, he wrote: “Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously…and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.”

NOM's funding sources need to be exposed and the sooner the better for democracy in general.

Federal Court Upholds Donor Disclosure requirements in California

The cry babies in the "Yes on 8" camp just got bitch slapped by a federal court judge who rejected their crocodile tears over their alleged mistreatment as a result of their contributions to write discrimination into the California Constitution being publicly disclosed. The Christianists would love nothing more than to be able to operate and seek to undermine the civil laws anonymously in their quest to build a theocracy. It's always all about them and they always want "special rights" that exempt them from the requirements applied to everyone else. Here are some highlights from the San Francisco Chronicle:

*

Proposition 8 proponents' complaint that a California campaign-finance disclosure law has led to harassment of same-sex marriage opponents failed to sway a federal judge, who refused Thursday to throw out the law or shield donors' names.

*

A lawyer for the Prop. 8 campaign said it would ask an appeals court to modify or overturn the law, which requires disclosure of all contributors of $100 or more. . . . The federal lawsuit, unrelated to the validity of Prop. 8, was filed Jan. 8 by the ballot measure's sponsoring committee, Protect Marriage. The suit said Internet disclosure of donors' names and other identifying information in state-mandated reports has led to consumer boycotts, picketing and even death threats.

*
By requiring disclosure, "the government is getting in the middle (of the issue) and saying, 'Here are the people to go after,' " Richard Coleson, a lawyer for the committee, told England. . . . If the Prop. 8 campaign was exempted from disclosure because of reports of harassments of individual donors, said Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, the same case could be made for any controversial initiative. Courts would have to "keep the entire California electorate in the dark as to who was funding these ballot measures," he said. England agreed.

*
He noted that some of the reprisals reported by the Prop. 8 committee involve legal activities such as boycotts and picketing. Other alleged actions, such as death threats, mailings of white powder and vandalism, may constitute "repugnant and despicable acts" but can be reported to law enforcement, the judge said.

*

Any desire by donors to remain anonymous is outweighed by the state's authority to require "full and fair disclosure of everyone who's involved in these political campaigns," England said.