Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  lawsuits

Should NOM Really Have to Disclose Its Contributors List?

brian_brown_copy1

The National Organization for Marriage isn’t content raping American gays of their rights. Now they’re clogging up the court system with frivolous lawsuits. Their latest? Suing the State of Maine, claiming its campaign finance laws — which require disclosure of cash contributors to any organization putting more than $5k toward a voter ballot campaign — are so onerous, they violate the U.S. Constitution.

It’s NOM’s knee-jerk reaction to an official investigation from Maine’s Ethics Commission into whether its involvement in Question 1 — which NOM has funneled more than $500k to Stand for Marriage Maine to get voters to say “yes” to” — violates state law.

But we hear them. We’re big First Amendment lovers here, and any government action that infringes on that right scares us, too. But more scary? Not knowing, via public disclosure, who is trying to influence a political outcome. When it comes to lobbyists, corporations, and yes, even political action committees, we want to know who’s funneling money where. Including NOM.

Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown will argue that disclosure requirements invite harassment and ridicule among their supporters. Crossing the legal line into harassment isn’t something we advocate, but holding those accountable who are financially diluting American civil rights? Yeah, we want those names.

By:           editor editor
On:           Oct 23, 2009
Tagged: , , , , , ,

  • 8 Comments
    • Richard in DC
      Richard in DC

      How come we don’t talk more about the marvelous case of “Gay Face” Brian Brown has? Can’t somebody please just get him on camera picking up a rent boy in an ally way and finish off this putz for good?

      Oct 23, 2009 at 10:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ajax
      ajax

      If NOM doesn’t want to play by Maine’s rules, they shouldn’t play in Maine. Nothing compels them to be in Maine.

      Oct 23, 2009 at 10:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Swimmer
      The Swimmer

      @Richard in DC

      I was just thinking the same exact thing. He probably had to fight real HARD for those votes in DuPont to repeal DC marriage. So hard he was probably begging on his KNEES!

      How can one look at this guy and not think Ted Haggard 2.0? My theory is the more homophobic the more fucked up they are personally.

      Larry Craig: Homophobic Senator: Restroom Sex
      Ted Haggard: Homophobic Evangelical Nazi Overlord: Gay sex with hooker and crystal meth.

      Brian Brown: Leader of the Evangelical/Mormon funded NOM: Bareback orgy with a bunch of basketball playing black dudes in an alley? One can only hope.

      Oct 23, 2009 at 11:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill
      Bill

      “Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown will argue that disclosure requirements invite harassment and ridicule among their supporters.”

      Someone might want to remind Chicklet-smiled Fat-Boy and Gimlet-eyed Donut-Face that is is THEY who are bullying law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, NOT the other way around.

      Is there a law against fighting back when your life and your civil rights are ATTACKED by fat straight people?

      Oct 23, 2009 at 12:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cr8nguy
      cr8nguy

      any lawyers have insight??

      Oct 23, 2009 at 2:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tommy
      Tommy

      Transparency is the public’s right to know who and how government reaches the decisions that it does. It’s the cornerstone of a republic.

      As far as I’m concerned, if you intend to insert yourself into the legislative process, then you have to obey the same disclosure rules as the legislators themselves.

      The anti-equality folks are worried about their big-money supporters incurring the economic wrath of the pro-equality crowd. Despite what they claim about the safety of the “common man” donation, this is nothing but an effort to hide the identities of the religious groups and businesses who stand to lose face should they be found out for their bigoted ways.

      Oct 23, 2009 at 4:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sapphocrat
      Sapphocrat

      What Ajax said. You don’t sign your kid up for cricket, and then sue the coach because the team isn’t playing baseball.

      Oct 23, 2009 at 4:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      They tried to run the same thing by the courts in California and lost. They’ll argue that people will be hurt economically if their businesses lose customers. That of course happened – you actually had gays (gasp) picking different dentists after learning that their current dentist wanted to interfere with their marriage plans. Would you want some dude who thought you were an abomination holding a sharp instrument in your mouth? If a straight guy thought his dentist wanted to break up his marriage, what would happen?

      There’s a legitimate argument that people who make small, token contributions to campaigns (e.g., $10 or $20) should not be list in publicly accessible documents, but someone donating $10,000 or
      $20,000 certainly should.

      Oct 24, 2009 at 9:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    !-- Sailthru Horizon -->
    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.