Family Council, NOM: Lobbyist complaint is harassment
Tuesday, August 23, 2011 at 10:06 am
- 14 Comments
The Minnesota Family Council, the National Organization for Marriage and Common Cause Minnesota have all weighed in on a complaint that was dismissed by the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board last week. The Minnesota Family Council and NOM said they were victims of the complaint, which was filed by Common Cause Minnesota, and characterized it as harassment, intimidation and an “attack.” Common Cause said the complaint highlights a loophole in Minnesota’s lobbying laws.
Minnesota for Marriage, a partnership between NOM and the Minnesota Family Council, released a statement on Monday that “calls on opponents to abandon tactics of intimidation and harassment.”
“Sadly, complaints like these are too often used as bludgeons by political groups to silence, harass, intimidate and drain the resources of their opponents,” said Minnesota Family Council CEO John Helmberger. “We’re thankful the board dismissed the complaint and we call upon our opponents to abandon these types of tactics.”
Helmberger added, “We believe this was a frivolous complaint. It was obvious that MFC didn’t have any costs to disclose because the ad costs were covered by NOM.”
According to the findings by the board, it wasn’t until the Family Council’s lawyers provided invoices to the board that it was revealed that NOM paid for the $709,000 ad buy.
NOM also claimed to be the victim of an attack.
“This was not a close call. By making these legally absurd complaints, Common Cause Minnesota revealed that it has gone from being a non-partisan good-government group to, on this issue at least, becoming a partisan in a culture war, ” said NOM’s Brian Brown in an email to supporters. “We expect more of these sorts of attacks in coming weeks—because we are making a difference.”
The Minnesota Family Council has been making the case frequently that it and its supporters have become victims of harassment by the LGBT community. At a June meeting of the campaign finance board, Family Council president Tom Prichard warned that if the group is forced to disclose donors to its campaign to pass an amendment banning same-sex marriage, its staffers would suffer intimidation and violence.
And NOM has repeatedly called pushback against its agenda by supporters of marriage equality “harassment” and “intimidation,” and claimed that supporters of its message have encountered “hatred.”
Common Cause Minnesota said the dismissal of the complaint shows that there are loopholes in Minnesota lobbying disclosure laws.
“The ruling uncovers a giant loophole in Minnesota campaign finance and lobbyist disclosure rules that needs to be fixed before the next election,” the group said in a statement. “It is time to close the Sham Issue Ad Loophole by requiring that groups that engage in electioneering communications 90 days out from the general election and 60 days out from the primary election disclosure their funding sources. The Campaign Finance and Disclosure Board categorized the advertising that was the subject of the complaint as “electioneering communication” because the intention of the ads was to influence the outcome of the election. However, because the ads did not call for the election or defeat of a specific candidate, they were not deemed to violate the law as currently written.”
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter14 Comments
Comment posted August 23, 2011 @ 10:23 am
The MFC and NOM perps should know about harrassment and victimization. They’ve made their living harrassing and victimizing LGBT people for decades. I’d say they can dish it out but they can’t take it. If they want to play hardball, they’d better be prepared to face some resistance.
MFC and NOM are nothing more than clandestine arms of the Republican party. Their only purpose is to mobilize voters to vote for republican candidates. They could care less about familiies and marriage when it comes down to it. All they care about is political power and money – including fat salaries for themselves.
Comment posted August 23, 2011 @ 11:21 am
Typical…..the bullies playing the victim card.
Comment posted August 23, 2011 @ 12:35 pm
Sounds a lot like the wife beater proclaiming “you made me hit you!”
Of course they see themselves as “victims”. Perpetrators always see themselves as victims, that is how they justify being perpetrators.
The State of Minnesota ought to sue them for intentionally misleading Minnesotans with ideological junk science clearly refuted by all credible science authorities and put an end to this HATE CRUSADE.
Comment posted August 23, 2011 @ 3:16 pm
Asking who is spending money on campaigning is a serious question, not “harassment.”
Comment posted August 23, 2011 @ 4:13 pm
It has become the standard for NOM to cry ‘foul’ when someone does their job in a manner which doesn’t suit NOM. Their extensive campaign in Iowa claimed the Iowa Supreme Court created legislation, in violation of the Constitution…when in fact, they struck down a law for its inability to withstand scrutiny, an act entirely within their scope.
Unfortunately, as we discovered here, some people will vote for whatever message is played loudest, most often, and in the most easily understood language.
Comment posted August 24, 2011 @ 6:40 am
One only needs to do some internet research to see that NOM has a history of ignoring state election and campaign laws and ends up tying up valuable court resources in defiant and frivolous exercises to support their ongoing bigotry. Just this month in Maine and Rhode Island for example, NOM lost their case all the way through Federal Court but still refuse to comply with local laws.
Based on their previous record elsewhere, these out of state bigots should have to file a hefty deposit against what is certain to be future court action. Let’s get these hate mongers out of our state.
Comment posted August 24, 2011 @ 2:39 pm
I have always wondered what a “homosexual agenda” is and no-one can answer the question. I have a wonderful family of my husband and I are our puppy. We are a happy family but we get annoyed when people use the word family to mean only one set definition of a man and woman with 2.4 kids. The majority of families do not fit in to this narrow minded definition.
Comment posted August 24, 2011 @ 11:55 pm
NOM has lost six lawsuits over campaing finance disclosure. They are liars for their deity and a front group for a couple of huge Catholic and Mormon contributors. They profit from hate and hatemongering. They align themselves with hate groups FRC and AFA, and others and their long term goal is to help create a theocracy in America. Look at all their rhetoric and it’s filled with religious dog whistles, logical fallacy and virulent bigotry. I hope the good people of Minnesota see through this sham for what it is – hate cloaked in bible verses.
Comment posted August 25, 2011 @ 7:12 am
It really does seem that people are upset because both sides are being heard. While you may not agree with their position, NOM, and the other groups, should have the same rights to express their opinion as everyone else.
I find it interesting that Common Cause would be filing suit to silence someone. Aren’t they supposed to be supporters of democracy and transparency?
Comment posted August 25, 2011 @ 10:51 am
@ Kicker…. silence??? More like make them communicate!
Common Cause filed suit to reveal a campaign loophole that was being manipulated by MFC and NOM. Do you read?
“According to the findings by the board, it wasn’t until the Family Council’s lawyers provided invoices to the board that it was revealed that NOM paid for the $709,000 ad buy.”
In other words, NOM was pulling the same shenanigans by FAILING TO DISCLOSE ITS EXPENDITURES ON ELECTIONS IT INTENDS TO INFLUENCE until forced to by this complaint, similarly to what it is pulling in other states currently.
Please pay attention.
Comment posted August 25, 2011 @ 10:55 am
Poor babies NOM and MFC have to play by the Minnesota election rules. Waaaaah!!!
Comment posted August 25, 2011 @ 10:58 am
btw… NOM also had not registered as a lobbiest at the time of the ad buys nor by the time the complaint was made. Why do you suppose?
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
