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.

From the Maine Public Broadcasting Network:

NOM Ordered to Hand Over Donor Information
06/08/2010 12:03 PM ET

The National Organization for Marriage has been fighting the state’s efforts to find out who bankrolled the group’s $2 million contribution to last year’s successful campaign to overturn the Maine’s gay marriage law.

A federal appeals court in Boston has ordered the National Organization for Marriage to hand over information about its donors to the state.

The group, known by its initials “NOM” contributed nearly $2 million to last year’s successful campaign to overturn Maine’s gay marriage law. Opponents say NOM has failed to comply with the state’s financial disclosure law, a claim that is nowunder investigation by the state Ethics Commission.

NOM, meanwhile, has filed its own constitutional challenge of the state law, and Kate Simmons of the Maine Attorney Generals’ office says Monday’s ruling will help the state defend itself.

“NOM must reveal to the state how they raised the money, for what purpose and who it came from,” she says. “They were the largest single contributor to Stand for Marriage Maine, and as a part of Maine’s campaign finance laws, the state is working to find out how they raised that money and for what purpose.”

The court has ordered that any information handed over by NOM would have to remain confidential. Still, NOM president Brian Brown said Tuesday that his group will appeal the latest ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

From The Maine Public Broadcasting Network:

Magistrate Judge says NOM Should
Turn Over Donors’ Names

A federal magistrate judge has ordered the national group that provided most of the funding to repeal Maine’s same-sex marriage law to turn over information about its donors. The magistrate rejected claims by the National Organization for Marriage that the donor names aren’t relevant to the issue before the court, and that releasing them would have a chilling effect on the group’s future fundraising efforts.

(Listen to the audio at the link)

The National Organization for Marriage, or NOM, contributed $1.9 million dollars to last year’s successful campaign to overturn Maine’s gay marriage law. But NOM has refused to comply with demands from state elections’ officials to hand over the names of donors, as required by Maine law.

While challening the Ethics Commission’s case, NOM has issued its own challenge in federal court, claiming Maine’s elections law is uncontitutional. In a preliminary ruling on evidence in that case filed on Sunday, federal Magistrate John H. Rich III ordered NOM to provide the Maine Attorney General’s office with donor information dating back to January 1st of last year.

“And we’re pleased with the federal magistrate’s preliminary decision that as a part of this litigation, NOM must share information about their donors with the Office of the Attorney General,” says AG spokeswoman Kate Simmons.

Simmons says the magistrate rejected NOM’s claim that releasing the names would have a chilling effect upon future fundraising efforts, in large part because of the court’s requirement that the information be kept confidential. “The information about their donors would only be disclosed to this office, and would not be a public document nor able to be shared with the public at large.”

NOM has claimed that the donor information might be used by the Ethics Commission in its case against the group. Simmons says it’s true that the information could be viewed by the Commission, but the magistrate has ruled that it may not be used against NOM in other legal challenges.

That issue, and others are now under appeal in federal court. While the appeals continue to fly, critics of NOM see the latest ruling as a victory.

“This decision is in keeping with every other decision that we’ve seen, in that they are just crying wolf,” says Fred Karger, founder of the group Californians Against Hate, which has been actively challenging NOM’s refusal to disclose the names of its donors. Karger alleges that they are, largely, members of the Mormon Church.

Karger says he applauds the ruling in Maine as another step in forcing NOM to open its books. “The National Organization for Marriage has spent the last three years trying to avoid that; they’ve conducted their business in secrecy,” Karger says. “They’re under investigation now in two states, and possibly a third, for this very action, and so I just commend the judge magistrate for trying to get to the bottom of their financing, which is one of the great mysteries of the world.”

Ethics Commission Executive Director Jonathan Wayne declined comment on the magistrate’s ruling. A spokesman for NOM could not be reached for comment by airtime.

Check out this excellent Bangor Daily News Editorial (12/26/09) calling out NOM for violating Maine’s election laws. NOM did not report any of its contributor’s names, and it gave $1.9 million (64% of all money raised) to defeat same-sex marriage in last month’s election. Then NOM sued Maine election officials to invalidate all campaign reporting:

Campaign Clarity Needed

By BDN Staff

A lawsuit involving a national group opposed to gay marriage has far-reaching implications for the state’s campaign reporting and financing laws, especially since the National Organization for Marriage said it plans to advocate for supporters of “traditional marriage” in next year’s election.

In October, NOM filed suit in federal court claiming Maine’s referendum campaign finance reporting requirements were overly burdensome and, therefore, unconstitutional. Earlier this month, the group amended its complaint to U.S. District Court to include candidate elections. If its challenge is upheld, it would leave a big hole in the state’s reporting requirements and its Clean Election financing program, which relies on candidates’ reporting of donations to determine whether matching funds are warranted.

The group, based in New Jersey, contributed nearly $2 million to Stand for Marriage Maine, which successfully advocated a repeal of the state law allowing same-sex couples to marry. NOM has refused to disclose to state election officials where its money came from. State law requires groups or individuals that raise more than $5,000 to support or oppose a ballot question to register as a ballot question committee. Anyone who donates more than $100 to the committee must be identified in campaign finance reports.

The Commission on Governmental Ethics and Elections Practices is investigating whether NOM violated state campaign finance laws by refusing to name its donors in connection with Question 1 on the Nov. 3 ballot.

Attorneys for the group have argued that listing donors would discourage contributions because people would be afraid of retaliation.

Gay marriage is an emotional issue, but citing fear as a reason to flout the law is an unpersuasive argument, especially when thousands of donors are named — complete with their home or businesses addresses and occupations — on campaign finance reporting forms filed by groups on both sides of Question 1. National groups have been involved in many contentious campaigns since Maine’s reporting requirements have been in place. None has refused to comply with the law.

At the same time, there are varying levels of compliance. Some groups simply list “fund transfer” as a source of funding.

NOM’s argument that it raises money nationally to be used in many different states, rather than for a campaign in a specific state, is more complex. A close look at the group’s fundraising literature will clarify whether it was raising money for the Yes on 1 campaign in Maine. If it was, reporting is necessary, as it should also be for other national groups that contribute to Maine campaigns.

It may be that lawmakers need to reconsider Maine’s ballot committee law to clarify how such national fundraising should be handled, especially since it could influence Clean Election funding next year.

The bottom line is that Maine voters should be able to know who is trying to influence their vote.