IN THE RED

Money Talks: NOM Fundraising Dropped By A Third In 2011

If the coffers over at the National Organization for Marriage seem lighter, that’s because the anti-gay activist group saw a drop of almost a third in the amount of money it raised last year—from $9.1 million in 2010 to $6.2 million in 2011.

Good thing they didn’t have any big campaigns to pay for.

Another item uncovered when NOM made its financials public on Friday is that just two anonymous donors were responsible for 75% of its funding, about $2.4 million each.

This past year NOM spent $5.7 million to block marriage equality in Maine, Maryland, and Washington; pass a gay-marriage ban in Minnesota and oust an Iowa judge who ruled for same-sex marriage.

“The National Organization for Marriage continues to push the notion that there is some sort of grassroots support for their discriminatory anti-gay agenda,” said HRC spokesman Fred Sainz. “Last week, that notion was soundly rejected by voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington State. Now, NOM’s own financial records are serving as the latest proof that support for LGBT equality is common-sense and mainstream. “NOM is nothing more than a conduit channeling the anti-gay agenda of a few secretive, wealthy donors.”

 

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #fredsainz #fundraising #humanrightscampaign(hrc) stories and more

4 Comments

  • Dumdum

    Too bad we can’t find out who the secretive wealthy donors are. Guess they are trying to protect their business interests.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    Smell the formaldehyde yet, NOMsters? That funky jar with the aged patina awaits you on the biology lab shelf. Furtive glances at your bigoted carcasses floating in its own juices await you. Equality is inevitable.

  • Cam

    Two Wealthy Donors?

    Let me guess, the LDS Church, funnelling the money through a shell organization and…..

    The Catholic Church doing the same thing.

  • CivicMinded

    Two wealthy donors? Let’s see: the Koch bros. One is supportive and one isn’t. Let’s forget that there’s a third.

Comments are closed.