Leave a Comment Johan
NOM affiliate must obey donor disclosure laws, says Ninth Circuit
January 2, 2012
By Jacob Combs
Another year, another defeat for anti-gay groups seeking to keep the identity of their donors secret. On Thursday, a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision holding that the Family Policy Institute of Washington, a NOM affiliate, must disclose the names of its donors as dictated by Washington state law.
In its opinion, the Court concluded that Washington’s laws requiring political committees to release the names and addresses of individuals contributing over $25 and the names and occupations of those contributing over $100 are constitutional. The district court had ruled that the disclosure laws do serve a legitimate government interest because they allow voters to “follow the money” being contributed to fund ballot measures. From the decision:
“It is true that the public disclosure of a single $25.01 contribution to a ballot measure campaign may provide little relevant information to voters. As the district court recognized, however, small contributions may provide useful information to voters when considered in the aggregate. On the PDC’s website, voters can conduct detailed searches and sort ballot measure contribution data by city, state and zip code.
Voters can use this geographical information to determine, for example, whether statewide ballot measures are financed by out-of-state contributors, or to determine whether county-wide ballot measures are financed by out-of-county interests. With respect to contributions exceeding $100, voters can also aggregate the data by employer and occupation to determine whether particular economic interests stand to benefit from the legislation.”
The 9th Circuit’s decision follows several other cases in Washington where anti-gay organizations have lost in court and been required to disclose their donors. Still, the issue is most likely not going away–the 2012 elections will feature marriage equality ballot fights in several states, and NOM and its allies will no doubt endeavor to keep their contributions secret, as they have failed to do in Washington.
Filed under: Marriage equality,Right-wing
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
18 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
menergy | January 2, 2012 at 4:08 pm
As I've read asked elsewhere repeatedly (other blogs) — at what point do the Federal Courts find the NOMbies and their ilk in contempt of court, send the US marshals out to arrest the organizations' officers, sentence them to jail time for contempt of court, fine them, seize assets, etc.? Please!!!!
Really, smaller cases seem to warrant incarceration for people found in contempt of court orders to do certain things in obeisance of judicial verdicts/decisions. What can we do to move this along to cause more than a gnat's annoyance of a court decision for these contemptible (yes, for sure) organizations?
2.
menergy | January 2, 2012 at 4:10 pm
that was supposed to be "obeying" …..
3.
Ann S. | January 2, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Free the names!
4.
thark | January 2, 2012 at 5:18 pm
in THIS economy, all LGBT people have the absolute right not to waste their hard-earned and over-taxed money on the well-being of antigay freaks, when that same income for our daily necessities could just as easily go to american businessed that DON'T harbor traitors that habitually gravitate toward shredding the US constitution every single time they are confronted by some bit of it they don't happen to "like".
If there's a household out there, bent on harming gays and only gays, I am comfortable at the prospect of seeig its demonic inhabitants homeless and starving forever. Or at least until they stop bullying good people they will never have the pleasure to know…
5.
thark | January 2, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Relax, Dollinx. No Spelling Nazi's here, so your point's well taken!
6.
Dana Jeanne | January 2, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Now if only we can keep republicans out of DC….
7.
thark | January 2, 2012 at 9:45 pm
The repubs are doing a *swell* job of attaining that All-American goal all by themselves, by the looks of it…
8.
Jacob | January 2, 2012 at 10:36 pm
I think we can all agree on the broader ideas, but maybe we should dial some of that down a bit…
9.
Reformed | January 3, 2012 at 8:21 am
We answer only to the supreme court little judge!
10.
_BK_ | January 3, 2012 at 11:10 am
o.O
11.
Carpool Cookie | January 3, 2012 at 11:32 am
Re: "If there's a household out there, bent on harming gays and only gays, I am comfortable at the prospect of seeig its demonic inhabitants homeless and starving forever."
Hmm. I think this might need a little MOM-style spin: "Of course, we still LOVE them. But it's not bad to treat different things DIFFERENTLY!"
12.
Carpool Cookie | January 3, 2012 at 11:33 am
Damn it…I meant "NOM-style" spin….not MOM-STYLE!
13.
Mark | January 3, 2012 at 1:48 pm
I don't think I could have said it better. I was thinking the same thing. What good are laws if they are not enforced?
14.
fiona64 | January 3, 2012 at 1:52 pm
It depends on who your Mom is, LOL. (Ref: Maggie Gallagher's kid.)
15.
Carpool Cookie | January 3, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Jeez….I didn't think of that.
Poor, poor kid.
16.
Carpool Cookie | January 3, 2012 at 2:12 pm
In case anyone missed the news, he's a musical theater junkie in NYC who was in a production called Sodom with one of the Village People (NO LIE!)
17.
Guest | January 3, 2012 at 6:08 pm
The problem is that when presented with a loss like this NOM's lawyers will immediately appeal the decision to the next higher authority or, as I predict will happen in this case, will seek to appeal to the full 9th Circuit in session (I believe the term used is "en banc"), and if granted NOM will once again be given permission to hold back the names until a decision is rendered all in the name of "fairness". Wash, rinse, and repeat and in the end we will all die of old age before NOM has to release any names.
18.
Carol | January 5, 2012 at 11:06 am
How cool is that!
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.