Prop 8: Judge rules against NOM, ProtectMarriage.com in campaign finance case

October 20, 2011

By Adam Bink

From the AP:

Supporters of the 2008 ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriage in California have lost a lawsuit that sought to block their past and future campaign finance records from public view.

A federal judge in Sacramento on Thursday ruled against ProtectMarriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage, saying the two groups failed to prove they should be exempted from the state’s campaign disclosure laws.

Mollie Lee, a lawyer in the San Francisco City Attorney’s office, says U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. ruled from the bench after a brief hearing and plans to issue a written opinion later.

The two groups, which sponsored and helped finance the gay marriage ban known as Proposition 8, filed the lawsuit in January 2009, claiming their donors were harassed after their names appeared on the Secretary of State’s web site.

 

Filed under: NOM Exposed,Prop 8 trial,Right-wing

35 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Gregory in SLC  |  October 20, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    Ha!

  • 2. Ronnie  |  October 20, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    Double Ha!!…….. : ) …Ronnie

  • 3. Sheryl_Carver  |  October 20, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    While this is a good thing, it seems like nothing ever actually happens to NOM or its executives in spite of similar rulings in other states. This may make me a bad person, but I really, really want to see BB & MG do some jail time for pulling this over & over again.

  • 4. Fr. Bill  |  October 20, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    My guess is that they will do what they have done in other states – appeal and appeal and file motion after motion. The courts should take notice of their abuse of process in other states and fast track this – if only to get it off the courts' calendars. It is past time to call them accountable and to shine spotlights on their finaces and supporters.

  • 5. Bryce  |  October 20, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    If I were the legal team at AFER, I would be writing a letter drawing the court's attention to this. It really helps us in our quest to have the videos released, because the legal reasoning indicates that the incidents of "harassment" that Cooper and Co. say their witnesses will face are unsubstantiated.

  • 6. Gregory in SLC  |  October 20, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    O.T. – Here Come the (Stylish) Grooms (for same-sex weddings) :
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/fashion/dressin…

  • 7. jpmassar  |  October 20, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    What's that now? 0 for 892 in these kinds of cases for NOM?

  • 8. Ann S.  |  October 20, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    I'll see your Double Ha and raise you! Triple Ha!!!

  • 9. grod  |  October 20, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    Cheryl and Bill.
    I agree with you. With this and the Washington State disclosure decision against NOM and their proxies, it’s been a set-back week for them. But these decisions are expected to be appealed. http://washingtonindependent.com/113904/supporter… http://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-appe….
    In Minnesota, it is expected that NOM & proxies will challenge the initiative disclosure laws there. As Fr. Bill says these cases warrant an expedited hearing with the goal of shutting doe this abuse of judicial process.

  • 10. elliott  |  October 20, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    I'm having a mind-fart. Does anyone remember when the Mormon Church first said that they only donated a miniscule amount to the Prop. 8 campaign and then later, under threat of scutiny, disclosed another (larger) insanely miniscule amount as their contribution? Does this mean that even better and more accurate numbers must be disclosed? Since they are so closely entangled with NOM and ProtectMarriage.com?

  • 11. Ronnie  |  October 20, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    More Than 900 Methodists in NY and CT Defy Church in Pledge to Support Same-Sex Marriage: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/10/more-than-900-me…

    More than 900 members of the Methodist church in New York and Connecticut, including "clergy members who will perform weddings for gay couples, lay members of the denomination who support them, and congregations who have adopted policies to formally make weddings available to all couples," signed a covenant this week in defiance of the denomination's ban, to support same-sex marriage.

    Write the signers, in part:

    "Pastoral care and the sacraments and rituals of the church are means of grace by which the lives of all Christians are blessed by God. Therefore we, as congregations and as individual laypersons and clergy, declare our commitment to offer such means of grace to all persons on an equal basis. We refuse to discriminate against any of God’s children and pledge to make marriage equality a lived reality within the New York Annual Conference, regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression…………… We seek to embody the beloved community of hope by openly and joyfully affirming the lives and loves of all United Methodists, regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression."

    <3…Ronnie

  • 12. jpmassar  |  October 20, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    Another earthquake! Berkeley hit twice in one day.

  • 13. Mark ;-)  |  October 20, 2011 at 8:51 pm

    I wonder who NOM has been protecting, should make for interesting reading.

  • 14. AnonyGrl  |  October 20, 2011 at 8:57 pm

    That is God, trying to shake NOM up a bit… :)

  • 15. Sheryl, Mormon Mom  |  October 20, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    Probably not as the donations to Protect Marriage and NOM would be from individual members and not from the Mormon church as an organization. Now if donations from the Mormon church (the corporation, not the members) do show, that would be most interesting.

  • 16. Lynn E  |  October 21, 2011 at 1:03 am

    There's nothing left but the coup-de-grace…. the sinister Triple-Dog Ha!

  • 17. Erica  |  October 21, 2011 at 1:49 am

    In some countries people who make repeated applications or suits totally without merit can be declared vexatious litigants, so that they then can make no applications etc without the leave of the court. Are there any similar declarations federally or in individual states that could be made against NOM?

  • 18. Phil L  |  October 21, 2011 at 4:21 am

    I believe THAT would be a better excuse for trying to hide their finance records than simply saying, "Our donors will be harassed because they're mean bigots!"

  • 19. Sagesse  |  October 21, 2011 at 4:47 am

    NOM exploited the Civil Rights Movement in California case loss
    http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.co…

  • 20. AnonyGrl  |  October 21, 2011 at 6:49 am

    That's it… I'm out.

  • 21. chris  |  October 21, 2011 at 7:52 am

    "donations to Protect Marriage and NOM would be from individual members and not from the Mormon church as an organization."

    I think there should be a law prohibiting ANY religious organization from mentioning ANY political initiative because I don't think telephones, let alone television, radio and the internet existed when these laws were written. What difference does it make that each individual member of the mormon church donated, as apposed to coming from the church treasury? The ability to mobilize hundreds of thousands of church members in a matter of weeks to donate to a political campaign didn't exist back then. We have to understand how these church/PAC's work: Go to any small town, and look how many churches there are. In places like Moberly, MO, churches aren't just for worship, they are multipurpose civic centers where everyone within a small geographic radius gathers to do the local agenda. Maybe we need to use some more community centers to help us organize. And by offering things like games, bowling tournements, sewing classes, etc, we can build community.

  • 22. Alan_Eckert  |  October 21, 2011 at 8:58 am

    I didn't feel the first one, but the 2nd one made us spill some beer. I was very upset.

  • 23. DaveP  |  October 21, 2011 at 9:01 am

    Yup. I would love to see BB and Maggie push their luck just a little too far and end up being charged with contempt for not complying with a court order and end up actually suffering some real, tangible consequences. We could send them postcards from, oh, I don't know, anywhere outside of a jail, with the comment "having a wonderful time? Wish you were here?".

  • 24. DaveP  |  October 21, 2011 at 9:15 am

    Wow, I'm kinda surprised to hear that the Methodist church 'officially' objects to same-sex marriage. Out here in California, there are many Methodist churches that have been completely supportive of marriage equality for a long time. The two in my neighborhood even display a rainbow pride flag right on their sign on the front of the building. Here's a link to a list of LGBT-friendly churches in California, which includes lots of methodist churches: http://www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/united_sta…

  • 25. DaveP  |  October 21, 2011 at 9:18 am

    Yeah, I was at home during the aftershock Thursday evening. it was short, only a second long, but really powerful and LOUD. Like a medium-size explosion. No damage here.

  • 26. DaveP  |  October 21, 2011 at 9:22 am

    We do have this sort of thing here in the States too. I know it applies to people who repeatedly try to sue, but I don't know if it applies to people who repeatedly lose what is essentially the same case over and over again in different courts and repeatedly try to appeal ech of these cases over and over again. Any of our legal smart folks want to inform us?

  • 27. maggie4noh8  |  October 21, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Lord the load is heavy today…

    I just come across this:
    http://gcmwatch.com/

  • 28. Steve  |  October 21, 2011 at 11:37 am

    Doesn't make much of a difference. The Mormons basically extorted some its members to donate against Prop 8. Some leaders commanded their followers to donate. Given the power they have over people and the means to punish them with things like social ostracism or the withholding of temple privileges, that's the same as donating themselves

  • 29. Carpool Cookie  |  October 21, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    Their legal strategies are like when the rich villian hisses in the movies, "I will tie you up in court for YEARS…!!!"

    Of course, everyone hates that character.

  • 30. Carpool Cookie  |  October 21, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    I think part of their undisclosed donations (including labor, etc.) was documented in the movie 8: The Mormon Proposition.

  • 31. John_B_in_DC  |  October 22, 2011 at 7:44 am

    Great news but as always, my question is when is NOM actually going to, you know, COMPLY with these laws?

  • 32. MJFargo  |  October 22, 2011 at 8:08 am

    Love your posts :)

  • 33. Tom B.  |  October 22, 2011 at 9:15 am

    I know of one example off the top of my head – Jack Thompson, the infamous lawyer who repeatedly tried to get video games banned and made thousands of frivolous lawsuits, then threatened the judges when he didn't get his way. First they made it so he couldn't sign onto a lawsuit on his own, another attorney had to co-sign on any lawsuit he put forward, and he was eventually disbarred for his frivolous filings, as well as harassing his opponents and making false statements.

  • 34. _BK_  |  October 23, 2011 at 3:56 am

    Headline: "Christians imprisoned for their beliefs!"

    Yeah, right.

  • 35. Sheryl, Mormon Mom  |  October 23, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    The difference is that the donations will show from individuals and not from the church, therefore, nothing illegal on those records. And, just to set the record straight, social ostracism and the threat of withholding temple privileges was not ward wide, there were indeed some wards where this happened, but not all. AND, not all Mormons donated.

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

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.

Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!