Leave a Comment Johan
NOM produces (part of) its long-awaited 2009 tax returns
January 5, 2011
NOM Exposed
In the midst of the Prop 8 ruling coverage, Kevin broke this story at NOMExposed.com, a project of the Courage Campaign and Human Rights Campaign.
Who wants to do some digging? -Adam
Cross-posted at NOMExposed.com
By Kevin Nix
Following our trip to the National Organization for Marriage office yesterday asking for their 2009 tax returns, we can report this afternoon that the organization was compelled to hand over a hard-copy of its c (4) Form 990. My colleague Dan Rafter went asking for it. And got it here.
The Form 990 is the tax return NOM is required to submit to the IRS. NOM dated its 990 November 14, 2010, yet did not disclose it publicly until today when it gave an HRC representative a hard-copy of the tax return.
We haven’t had a chance yet to cull through it with a fine-tooth comb but here’s an observation regarding the group’s donors. Most of the $7.1 million in revenue in ’09 came from a few very large donors. These donors could be individuals or corporations. Here is how NOM’s top donations break down.
1. $2,475,000
2. $1,230,000
3. $1,100,000
4. $400,000
5. $150,000
Running the numbers, this means that 3 wealthy donors contributed 68% of their total donations; 4 donors gave 73% and 5 donors gave 75%.
These figures reinforce what we and others (Fred Karger) have been saying: the National Organization for Marriage does not represent some sizeable (or even small) grassroots constituency. The only “constituency” they represent is that of a few anti-gay folks who have a lot of money. NOM’s reluctance to make their tax returns available publicly is par for the course in their pattern of secrecy and shadowy dealings.
On Monday, January 3, HRC went to the Washington, D.C. NOM office and asked for a copy of its 2009 990 for both its (c) 3 and (c) 4 organizations. Video of the exchange is here. On Tuesday, January 4, HRC went back to the office and obtained a hard-copy of the (c) 4 990. It appears NOM did not provide us with a complete return.
Filed under: NOM Exposed,Right-wing
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
55 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Straight Ally #3008 | January 5, 2011 at 12:36 am
Wow, that's a lot of money that could be used to feed the hungry and house the poor. Wonder how much money, in today's dollars, was used to support Jim Crow laws?
2.
Ronnie | January 5, 2011 at 12:45 am
NOM = "I am above the law"….. : I ….Ronnie
3.
Sagesse | January 5, 2011 at 12:46 am
I assume there is no requirement to disclose the names of the donors in the returns?
4.
AndrewPDX | January 5, 2011 at 12:49 am
Scribing…
5.
Hank (NYC) | January 5, 2011 at 1:13 am
After watching the Morman Proposition – one can only imagine that the #1 Donor is somehow the Morman church.
6.
Alan E. | January 5, 2011 at 1:16 am
If only I weren't so busy, I would love to go through this report.
7.
Ed Cortes | January 5, 2011 at 1:17 am
NOMore NOMsense!!
(checking the box)
8.
Alan E. | January 5, 2011 at 1:17 am
Or Knights of Columbus
9.
Ed | January 5, 2011 at 1:21 am
If this is a duplicate, I'm sorry…
Good news
http://newmexicoindependent.com/68490/king-says-n…
10.
Ed Cortes | January 5, 2011 at 1:32 am
Why are there no names listed in the donors section?
11.
anonygrl | January 5, 2011 at 1:38 am
That is great news!
12.
anonygrl | January 5, 2011 at 1:45 am
75% of their budget comes from 5 sources. That is interesting news on its own. Of course, the first and biggest donor on the list is most likely the Catholic Church, followed by the Knights of Columbus and the Mormon Church, and then possibly an individual or two… but it is still interesting news that their base is so obviously narrow.
Grassroots? Not at all.
13.
Joel | January 5, 2011 at 1:52 am
Great news, and from a rather unexpected place.
I wonder, does the US government recognize the plural marriages of Muslim diplomats who have more than one spouse?
14.
dr. bob | January 5, 2011 at 1:57 am
How can you validate these contributions without divulging the names of the donors?
15.
Ed | January 5, 2011 at 1:58 am
So that makes 4 states (plz correct me if i am wrong) that will recognize (but not perform) marriage equality. New York, Maryland, Rhode Island and New Mexico. plus the 5 other states where it's legal (plus DC of course), and we are up to 9 states. NOM isn't gonna like this…..
Do the math, and those 9 states add up to about 37 million people. So 8-9% of US citizens now live in a place where Marriage equality is either performed or honored. Once prop 8 falls (and it should), the 37 million number will go up to 74 million. Meaning that almost 25% of the country will have or honor marriage equality. Pretty damn exciting
Note to NOM…..
You spin me 'round like a record baby….Right round…..
16.
Ann S. | January 5, 2011 at 2:19 am
Great news, Ed! Thanks for sharing.
17.
Straight Ally #3008 | January 5, 2011 at 2:39 am
As I often say, this makes me smile because of 1) equality and 2) Schadenfreude.
18.
Bob | January 5, 2011 at 2:52 am
well done guys, you see how that happened, they just walked in to the NOM office and demanded a copy of the return, cause it's public information,,, just like that,,,, I love it,, and gotta say keep it up,,, keep on them,,
so we are the grass roots, look what we do, to keep them in line,,, with very small donations in comparison.
we're doing great work,,,,,,, woot woot
19.
Gregory in Salt Lake | January 5, 2011 at 3:13 am
subs
btw, I can't get the video link to work: http://prop8trialtracker.com/2011/01/03/breaking-…
get error:
Error 404 – File not Found
Sorry, but the page you were looking for could not be found. Why not try searching for what you were looking for?
20.
Lesbians Love Boies | January 5, 2011 at 3:26 am
Here is the video link on the page: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiEAhLevRcg
21.
Lesbians Love Boies | January 5, 2011 at 3:26 am
Here is the correct link to the page: http://prop8trialtracker.com/2011/01/04/tackling-…
22.
Lesbians Love Boies | January 5, 2011 at 3:27 am
Nope my links are wrong – sorry! lol
I gave up caffeine for the new year!
23.
Ronnie | January 5, 2011 at 3:47 am
See this is why I call the anti-gay people the "Gay Whisperers"….I mean in this case Maggie "I can read people's minds" Gallagher is pretending to know how, why & what Vice President Biden was thinking when he said, "I think the country's evolving, and I think there's an inevitability for a national consensus on gay marriage."
Jeremy over at Good As You, expresses my opinion very well…..
01/03/2011
Biden misspoke, says she who misspeaks every time she purports to 'protect marriage' http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2011/01/bide…
"Though regardless of where you stand, you cannot fairly call Biden's statement a misrepresentation, a slip of a tongue, or a "big f—in'" mistake. And you certainly can't fairly call his opinion a "gaffe." Not this time."……."Yet "gaffe" is the exact label that Maggie Gallagher and NOM are trying to attach to V.P. Biden's words:"
This is what Maggie G. had to say via someone else's opinions & twisting it with her "psychic" reading of VP Biden's inner most thoughts:
"Biden's Gay Marriage Gaffe
On Bill O'Reilly's show last week, Democratic pollster Doug Schoen responded to VP Joe Biden's strange and silly claim that a "national consensus" is developing in favor of gay marriage.
"The only place there's a 'consensus,'" Schoen contended, "is among the hard core left of the Democratic Party. Joe Biden was reaching out to that constituency and throwing them a bone." THIS ENTRY WAS WRITTEN BY MAGGIE [NOM Blog]"
(Me) Jeremy pointed out all the stats & achievements that prove that national consensus is changing in our direction & yet Maggie stills ignores the facts….Oh they keep throwing out that number of how many states do not have Marriage Equality…but with every passing poll, which in the past she has relied on to beg for money…I mean garner support for her ill-fated "cause", the trends show support for Equality is growing & opposition is shrinking quicker then you can spell "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" without Googling it (reassuring that with every click on Google is another click for Equality…..snark)……
Jeremy ends with this……"So it may strike the "marriage protection" crowd as annoying or unfortunate or dangerous to the bottom line — but it's certainly not "silly" to look at the reality of marriage in this country and see one decided trajectory! The gaffe here does not belong to forward thinking folks like Biden, but rather to those who think that dwindling public opinion and past historical missteps somehow equal merit, and that anti-gay regression is going to replace pro-gay "Glee" as 2011's hottest trend."
(me) Totes…..<3…Ronnie
24.
Kathleen | January 5, 2011 at 3:50 am
just scribin.
25.
Gregory in Salt Lake | January 5, 2011 at 3:58 am
tx for effort and response LLB…but neither link is what looking for….
the one in the sentence (from this post):
"On Monday, January 3, HRC went to the Washington, D.C. NOM office and asked for a copy of its 2009 990 for both its (c) 3 and (c) 4 organizations. Video of the exchange is here."
2011 resolution: learn how to use WordPress with italics, bold, Http etc….
p.s. I give up coffee about every other week ; ) I just like it so much! I don't eat meat, drink alcohol, eat gluten, but love the coffee!
26.
grod | January 5, 2011 at 4:02 am
25% of 7.1 million is not peanuts. So, it’s a reach to say ‘not at all’. While not liked or likable, that's not a reason to exaggerate our understanding of their facts. Let's leave it to NOM to be labeled 'distorters'.
27.
Jon | January 5, 2011 at 4:27 am
NOM goes on and on about "the will of 7 million voters" as if it represented them. The fact is, without its top 10 donors, NOM would not exist. In a word: astroturf.
I can see why NOM has tried so hard to hide the money.
28.
nightshayde | January 5, 2011 at 4:32 am
I believe the US government only officially recognizes the marriage to the first wife.
29.
Lightning Baltimore | January 5, 2011 at 4:33 am
Per the IRS,
So they promote discrimination against a portion of society, rather than a good for all, and they’re non-profit because the employees get all the left over cash. How absolutely revolting.
30.
Lightning Baltimore | January 5, 2011 at 4:34 am
link to above IRS info: http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0…
31.
Lightning Baltimore | January 5, 2011 at 4:36 am
why won't it let me subscribe?
:'-(
32.
Lesbians Love Boies | January 5, 2011 at 4:56 am
This is my first day Gregory – lol – I realized the links weren't right after the fact and laughed it off as ruh roh's.
33.
Maggie4NoH8 | January 5, 2011 at 5:18 am
How can they get away with NOT DISCLOSING the donor's identity?
On the large donations, they clearly mark "individual" – probably to "protect" KoC, the Moron Church, etc…
How come the IRS hasn't raided their offices and shut them down?
I am glad this information was posted here, but not glad that I am this irritated today (I am in the Finance/Accounting field, so malfeasance in such matters bugs me to NO END!).
GRRRRRRR!
34.
Maggie4NoH8 | January 5, 2011 at 5:20 am
No joke! I'm always amazed at the money laundering under the auspices of religious organizations.
35.
atty79 | January 5, 2011 at 5:24 am
Line 24(a), Page 10. NOM claims to only have spent $11,000 on direct candidate support? I don't follow the numbers, but I find that hard to believe. Anyone have any information on how much NOM likely spent on direct candidate support in 2009?
36.
anonygrl | January 5, 2011 at 5:31 am
They do divulge them to the IRS but are not required to tell anyone else the names, just the amounts.
37.
anonygrl | January 5, 2011 at 5:37 am
Really hard to say. They argue that just because they send out a bus tour or run an ad campaign or send out a mailing in favor of a candidate, it is not "DIRECT" support because it was done "without the candidate's approval or input" or something along those lines. Basically they claim that if they didn't GIVE the money to the candidate to spend, it is not direct support. It seems a load of hooey to me, but I am not sure what various states election law says about it.
I believe this is one of the areas that they are constantly being taken to court over by various state election boards.
38.
Phillip R | January 5, 2011 at 6:15 am
I love how they constantly try to interpret tax and donation laws to their own benefit and it keeps backfiring on them. It's just too bad that their consistent flaunting of the system hasn't turned around and given them more than just a fine.
39.
Rhie | January 5, 2011 at 6:24 am
Watching
40.
Bill | January 5, 2011 at 6:50 am
You're only citing opinions by these states' respective attorneys general. The governments of these states has rarely implemented these opinions. New York is the only state that truly respects out-of-state marriages. Rhode Island is judged on a case by case basis, depending on circumstances, and same-sex couples cannot get divorced there. Maryland is also a case-by-case basis. New Mexico is not currently recognizing any out-of-state same-sex marriages.
41.
truthspew | January 5, 2011 at 8:49 am
I read through the filing. They openly lie in several sections of the 990. Lobbying for instance, they answer in the negative when asked if they lobbied but then list expenditures for lobbying of $30,000.
From page 3, question 4:
They didn't answer on lobbying. Both spaces are blank.
But on page 10, 11d they say the spent $30,000 on lobbying. Naughty naughty!
42.
Richard A. Jernigan | January 5, 2011 at 11:09 am
Will read in greater depth later. Still experiencing the post-holiday overload.
43.
Lightning Baltimore | January 5, 2011 at 3:10 pm
NOM is a 501(c)(4) non-profit, and, therefore, is allowed to lobby and is not required to answer question 4.
As I wrote above, they claim tax exempt status as their mission is promoting social welfare (and they are allegedly non-profit).
Since NOM's sole purpose is to promote discrimination, and Maggs has finally admitted* that the issue is that same-gender couples are morally inferior and, thus, not deserving the civil rights, benefits, and privileges awarded to opposite-gender couples when they marry, I wonder if it would be possible to take them to court and have their tax exempt status stripped?
I mean, the Aryan Nations promote "social welfare" (exterminate the filthy Jews, subhuman blacks, and abominable gays), so shouldn't they, too, be able to claim 501(c)(4) status? How are they that different from NOM, really? The main difference would appear to be the Aryan Nations folks will use violence to achieve their goals, whereas NOM just foments hatred, which, in turn, incites people to violence.
*The Economist Debate: Single-sex marriage – rebuttals, paragraph 20:
44.
Mandi | January 5, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Scribing
45.
JonT | January 5, 2011 at 5:50 pm
☮
46.
JonT | January 5, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I was thinking too.
Would love to see who these organizations are though. What we need is a NOM Wikileaks dump
47.
BK | January 5, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Ooooh. Interesting idea… (wink)
48.
Mandi | January 5, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Don't know how to link (especially from my phone) but the knights of columbus have disclosed their spending. They admit to giving NOM 1.4 million dollars in 2009.
Not sure how that compares to NOM's list of donations recieved…
)0( Mandi<3
49.
Sagesse | January 5, 2011 at 9:42 pm
Thanks for the reminder to check back in on that debate. Been sorta drowned in e-mail for a couple of days.
50.
BK | January 6, 2011 at 12:08 am
I have this same issue too. Any help would be nice. (Help as in posting a proper link or the video.) Thanks.
51.
Kathleen | January 6, 2011 at 1:12 am
Does this work? (And is this the link you're looking for?)
http://bcove.me/wgvewxmx
52.
anonygrl | January 6, 2011 at 2:05 am
If 75% of your funding comes from a very few, rich sources you are not a 'grassroots' organization. This is not a 'from the ground up' movement.
That they can attract enough small donors to make up 25% of their budget is not to be sneered at, certainly, but do you think the wishes of those smaller donors are what drives this organization? I think not. I think policy is decided by the big donors, and again, this makes it not grassroots, as I see it.
53.
anonygrl | January 6, 2011 at 2:13 am
Probably that puts them at #2 on NOMs list… they say they got $1,230,000 from someone, which is the closest comparison. The rest might be listed separately for some reason.
54.
Bob | January 6, 2011 at 4:30 am
great find Mandi,,,, that takes care of #2 I'm guessing #1 Catholic Church #3 Mormon Church ,,,,,,
can those churches say that amount came from millions of donors???
i.e. when you go to church and put a few bucks in collection plate then all that money becomes one hudge lump sum,,, and the church gets to decide how they use your donation to influence people polictically,,,,,, means those Mormon moms are on the right track, by telling their churches,,, they don't agree with anti gay stand…
do individuals need to get more involved at the parish level in terms of specifying where their individual contribution should go,,, i.e. feed the kids, absolutely NO to NOM??
perhaps that's another way to take back some individual power,,, in the pews,,,,
55.
Richard A. Jernigan | January 6, 2011 at 3:15 pm
And that is only the MONEY they contributed. I wonder how many Knights "earned" Knight of the Month from their respective councils for going out door-to-door lying to people and contributing to the passage of Pro H8 in 2008, and how many got the same award in various months for other work they did for NOM in other parts of the country?
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.