Backers of gay marriage ban seek to prevent disclosure about campaign spending, donors

I want to know who is trying to impose their beliefs/biases on the entire state. Names, addresses and amounts please. The citizens have a right to know.

Praise Jebus, God hates transparency, Amen.

My question is, if the amendment is so benign, why are these donors afraid of being associated with it? Don’t the shareholders of these corporations (i.e., their owners), have a right to know what causes their money is being spent on? As they say, sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Full disclosure is a good idea.

Prichard says he shouldn’t be FORCED to disclose anything. Well how about other human beings being FORCED to not marry.
The only hate crime that will occur is toward the LGBT community.

You raise millions of dollars to dictate the boundaries of my private life, you now demand that the law let you do so anoymously? Full Immunity for Bullies law.

If donors are ashamed to be associated with this legislation, they should re-evaluate their donation. If they are proud of their beliefs and their affiliations, they should not have a problem with their name being recorded.

“Honesty is the best policy.” Ben Franklin

Jeff Wilfahrt, Rosemount, MN

Fascinating comment by Mr. Prichard:

“If I know I have to disclose my name, I’m not going to get involved with the Minnesota Family Council.”

I suspect he’s correct, not because people fear violence, but because MFC is an extremist group.

It’s also fascinating that MFC apparently doesn’t want donors who will stand up publicly for what they believe.

In the words of Gomer Pyle – “Surprize, Surprize…Surprize” !!!! ..of course they want to Block thier Donors list……….. hmm, I wonder why…??????

In the words of Gomer Pyle – “Surprize, Surprize…Surprize” !!!! ..of course they want to Block thier Donors list……….. hmm, I wonder why…??????

..People NOM did this in MAINE…..and if I remember as of now – their Donor list from Maine is STILL Blocked ie: in Litigation …2yrs later after they STOLE Marriage Equality………whats that tell u????

I’m from California, and this argument that Prop 8 supporters were harrassed, had property damage, were threatened, and basically that it had a chilling effect on their right to free speech is such a complete and total lie, that it drives me to distraction. There is not one filed police report in the entire state of California to back up their claim, and out here all donors from both sides had to disclose donations. People have a right to know who is funding these campaigns, and for how much. It’s part of the democratic process, and if you’re not willing to put your money where your mouth is, then you don’t have to and can just vote according to your conscience. ..privately. They tried to do this in Maine and Washington as well, and lost every single court battle in both states. Fight them all the way to the State Supreme Court if necessary, but make them disclose their donors. Otherwise, the reality is that democracy will be dead, and religious institutions who want to maintain their tax-exempt status will flood all campaigns with money to turn this nation in to nothing but a corporate theocracy.

Prichard: where’s your evidence?

Even if there were isolated instances, it would be utterly understandable given the legal violence being done to GLBT people by Prop 8. In Prichard’s inhumanity and mindlessness he possibly doesn’t even realize the connection between his bigotry and its implicit validation of violence, harassment, bullying and discrimination against GLBT people.

Why fight it so hard if you got nothing to hide?

Why in the name of FU*K is there an ad for Michelle Bachmann on this site?!?

Eli,

Money talks.

I meant to address evolution in that last comment. My apologies.

[...] Full Story from the MN Independent [...]

The worst idea of the 21st Century so far is that corporations have “personhood.” They can’t be jailed nor executed, yet they can commit crimes, bribe and influence our lives negatively.

This man lives a block from me in a neighborhood with quite a few GLBTQ folks and straight allies. That is why he wants to hide.

Duane, Do you mean Tom Prichard?

I really doubt many business corporations are going to donate money to either side from the corporate checking account on this issue. The issue is to divisive and they wouldn’t gain anything if it passes. They have plenty of other constitutional amendments to contribute toward that have an actual tangible benefits to their bottom line. The corporations they don’t want to expose are the anti-gay religious and hate group corporations that only want to keep gays in the closet or worse.

Prichard wants to hide the fact that this ballot initiative is purely and simply a means for getting Republican voters to the polls. The money will be coming from the usual Republican sources. He’d like to keep that secret.

This notion that people and organizations that give money to promote the Marriage Discriminiation Act should be protected from harrassment by gay people is laughable. Gay people have been bullied and harrassed from time immemorial with no protection whatsoever until recent years. Maybe if Prichard and his ilk got a taste of what that’s like they’d have a little more compassion. But probably not. This is politics to them. Gay people are irrelevant, except as scapegoats to be used in getting more power for Republicans’ corporate masters.

This is the same feeble scare-tactic they used in California and elsewhere. Unfortunately for them, the facts don’t support this laundry list of accusations. But thats all they’ve got. That and that oogy-creepy future-predicting wiejie board they use.

Hoods OFF in Minnesota Prichard..

@Wendy Leigh

Wendy, I love that one liner;

“Hoods OFF in Minnesota Prichard.”

Excellent, just excellent. I’ve always loved a well turned phrase.

Jeff Wilfahrt, Rosemount, MN
(or shouldn’t I be disclosing that? what would Prichard do?)

We, the citizens of Minnesota, have an absolute right to know who is paying big bucks to manipulate our state constitution.

In the name of state sovereignty, we should have an absolute ban on out-of-state money or campaigning. Conservatives would thoroughly hate the idea of exercising our sovereignty if it worked against them.

Only state citizens should have the right to campaign for or against state constitutional amendments.

This pointedly excludes businesses and religious institutions. It does include individual state citizens and groups of state citizens, and PACs funded entirely by state citizens.

If you believe in state sovereignty and government by the people.

[...] of gay marriage ban seek to prevent disclosure about campaign spending, donor http://minnesotaindependent.com/8275…pending-donors [...]

A list of backers of Prop H8

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/26/143221/27/386/666760

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/01/667005/-A-Portrait-of-Christian-Hate:-Prop-8s-Elsa-Prince-of-Michigan

Don’t know for a fact but you can bet your bottom buck that the pedophile/polygamy alliance(catholic/mormon churches) will be mailing out a sh*tload of $$$ for this BS!!

They are just scared that their children, and grandchildren and family in general will be disgusted!! Those who give this $, especially in large amounts, know exactly where the monies are going and are too ashamed to “come out of the closet” for being the real immoral humans that they are!!

@evolutionisfact… they will be the biggest contributors.. along with many republicans who are “one man one women” believers.. its gonna get ugly!

Has anyone come across recent MFC and MfM financial and donors data?

I emailed some state legislators expressing my concern that existing MN disclosure laws may not be strong enough, that the penalties may not be severe enough should these organizations – especially NOM – intend to flout those laws. This needs to be watched very closely with all due media exposure at the first whiff of impropriety.

Parody of NOM’s HATE Message against Marriage Equality……..THINK people, THINK!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIefEZhW8T0&feature=related

Message FOR Marriage Equality!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IykVCU0_xs&NR=1

“Corporations are separate legal entities, they are legal persons,” argued Neeley. “A corporation does not fall into the definition of association.”

It does not fall into the definition of a citizen, either. As such, corporations, AKA “artificial persons”, have no moral right to influence the text of the state constitution, or any other law.

Neeley’s assertion, within the context of politics, corrupts the definition of democracy and threatens our representational form of government. In short, it is anti-America.

[...] At a public hearing by the campaign finance board involving rules regarding ballot initiatives, representatives of NOM and the Minnesota Family Council argued against any disclosures. [...]

[...] was affiliated with Protect Marriage Washington) is already playing a similar disclosure game in Minnesota.  Nevertheless, case after case has shown that this is a fight NOM is not going to [...]