From the Kennebec Journal:

Federal judge approves most of Maine’s campaign law

Group opposed to same-sex marriage optimistic about appeal

A U.S. District Court judge on Thursday delivered a ruling that protected the core of Maine’s campaign finance laws against a challenge from a national marriage advocacy group regarding their constitutionality.

U.S. District Judge D. Brock Hornby, however, did find parts of state’s campaign finance laws as “unconstitutionally vague.”

Thursday’s decision is viewed as critical, as it sets the possible statutory parameters by which the National Organization Marriage will become involved in politicking for, or against, candidates for statewide office this fall.

Judge Hornby struck down rules requiring 24-hour disclosure of independent expenditures over $250 — not just before an election, but whenever they occur — saying the rule “has not been justified … is impermissibly burdensome and cannot be enforced.”

He also declared “Maine’s use of the words ‘influence’ and ‘influence in any way’ … are unconstitutionally vague.”

“Otherwise,” Hornby wrote, “Maine’s laws governing PACs, independent campaign expenditures, and attribution and disclaimer requirements are constitutional, and survive NOM’s challenges that they are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.”

The National Organization for Marriage had contested the constitutionality of Maine’s campaign finance laws, prior to perhaps engaging in activity to influence outcomes of upcoming legislative elections.

The group, which supported the repeal of same-sex marriage legislation in Maine in 2009, has said it would work against the re-election efforts of Maine lawmakers who voted to support same-sex marriage in the Legislature.

Attorney General Janet Mills applauded the ruling on Thursday, saying it upholds the state’s campaign reporting and disclosure law.

Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, called the ruling mostly positive.

“Mostly, the decision appears to be very good news from the standpoint of the public understanding of who is raising and spending money to influence elections,” Wayne said. “There are a couple of aspects of the disclosure law that the judge found to be vague and have been severed from our statutes. Mostly it’s a clean bill of health for the disclosure laws.”

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said Thursday his group is disappointed in the ruling, but feels its arguments will hold sway with an appeals court.

NOM will pursue an expedited appeal to the U.S. First Circuit Court in Boston, he said, because of the short time before the upcoming election season.

Though Thursday’s decision will delay NOM’s plans for political activity in Maine, Brown said, the group is reviewing the decision to gauge a potential timeline for action.

NOM plans activity in Maine both on behalf of candidates that support “redefining marriage,” said Brown, and on candidates that support traditional marriage. He declined to say whether NOM would be active in the state’s governor’s race, as well as the legislative races.

Brown also expressed frustration at the legal hurdles spurred by what he called “frivolous” lawsuits filed by their political opponents, one of which, Californians Against Hate [now Rights Equal Rights], asked the Maine ethics commission to investigate NOM.

That group, one of the primary advocates for preserving California’s gay marriage law that was repealed by voters there in 2009, questioned whether NOM raised more than $5,000 to directly repeal Maine’s same-sex marriage law.

If it had, it would have been required to file campaign finance reports with the state and disclose who donated the money.

The state is seeking a list of donors so it can determine whether the group asked for money specifically to help repeal gay marriage in Maine. The group filed suit in state and federal court to try to stop the investigation, saying it fears disclosure would lead to harassment of donors.

In response, the group has said that although it donated nearly $2 million to Stand for Marriage Maine, the political action committee that worked to repeal Maine’s same-sex marriage law in 2009, it did not ask donors to give specifically to help in Maine.

That case remains pending.

---

Staff Writer Betty Adams and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

From Peter Cassels at Edge Boston:

NOM challenges orders to report donor names

Frank Schubert, campaign director for Stand for Marriage Maine, claims victory for Yes on 1 on Nov. 3, 2009, in Portland, Me.
(Source:Robert F. Bukaty (AP))

The National Organization for Marriage is going to court in two states to prevent revealing its list of donors to campaigns against marriage for gays and lesbians.

It was among the litigants that filed Protect Marriage v. Bowen, a lawsuit against the California secretary of state challenging the Golden State’s election laws requiring the reporting of names of contributors of at least $100, last December. And NOM joined with two other conservative groups this month to challenge Maine’s ten-year-old Clean Elections law in federal court. The plaintiffs contend the law is unconstitutional because it infringes on First Amendment free speech rights.

NOM has been fighting elections commissions in both states, which have ordered it to reveal donor names and addresses.

The organization contributed millions to campaigns that successfully overturned, through ballot referendums, legalized marriage for gays and lesbians in both states. Voters passed Proposition 8 in California in 2008 and Question 1 in Maine in 2009.

A U.S. District Court judge in San Francisco ruled on Aug. 4 Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, but the case is expected to go the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Maine suit, filed by NOM, the Maine Heritage Policy Center and the James Madison Center for Free Speech of Terre Haute, Ind., focuses on matching funds provided to publicly financed candidates. The suit seeks to halt such payments.

James Bopp, Jr., the attorney NOM hired in its fight with the Maine Ethics Commission over revealing donor names, is representing all three organizations in the case.

In late June, the ethics commission once again rejected NOM’s attempt to block an order requiring it to reveal donors. And a U.S. District Court judge earlier this year overruled NOM’s request that it not have to comply with the commission’s order. The lawsuit appears to be the latest tactic to avoid compliance.

Maine Citizens for Clean Elections called the lawsuit “an attack on the will of the people” and claimed it’s the “latest attempt in a national strategy to buy influence and bypass the will of the people in Maine and around the country.”

The organization termed the suit to be frivolous. “Mainers have spoken, and Maine people overwhelmingly support Clean Elections,” said co-chair Alison Smith in a statement.

The law “keeps big-money special interests at bay and keeps Maine citizens at the table when decisions are made about what is best for our state,” she added. “Clean Elections requires campaigns to be open, fair and honest. This lawsuit is meant to undermine the will of Maine people.”

Maine was the first state in the nation to pass a Clean Elections law, which a federal court found to be constitutional in a challenge 10 years ago.

Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate (now called Rights Equal Rights), began the controversy over campaign funding by marriage opponents when he filed complaints with the California and Maine ethics commissions.

As part of the California lawsuit, plaintiffs have subpoenaed all of Karger’s records that led to his complaint with the state ethics commission. He is fighting the subpoena.

Karger is exploring running for the Republican nomination for president in 2012. He would be the first openly gay presidential candidate in history if he decides to seek the nomination.

“The super-mysterious National Organization for Marriage is relentless in its desire to intimidate and harm people through its mean, untruthful and potentially illegal activities,” Karger told EDGE in e-mail when asked to comment on the lawsuits. “The ones hurt the most by NOM are the very ones they claim they want to protect, our LGBTQ youth. A Congressional Investigation is needed of the National Organization for Marriage.”

Peter Cassels is a recipient of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association’s Excellence in Journalism award. His e-mail address is pcassels [at sign] edgepublications [dot] com.