Photo: Opponents of Proposition 8 in California protest. Source: Dannyman, Flickr

The Minnesota for Marriage coalition, a group that is is urging voters to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, has told the media and the Minnesota campaign finance board that if they have to disclose their donors, they will be subject to violence by supporters of marriage equality.

But a string of court cases across the country have shed serious doubt on those claims, with courts finding that conservative leaders were unable to provide credible evidence of threats or violence.

Avoiding disclosure in Minnesota

The Minnesota Family Council and the National Organization for Marriage lobbied the campaign finance board to loosen disclosure on campaign spending by arguing that their donors will be targeted if their names are disclosed.

“To require groups, non profits like the Minnesota Family Council, to disclose their donors and make their donors names public would have a significant chilling effect on free speech. Even in Minnesota already it’s gotten heated in some respects,” Tom Prichard, president of MFC, told the board in June. “The concern is harassment, property damage, a chilling effect. If I know I have to disclose my name, I’m not going to get involved with the Minnesota Family Council.”

Prichard said he had knowledge of violence against donors to the Prop 8 campaign in California.

“They went after their employment, by challenging their employers. There was vandalism on certain organizations. I can think of one individual that his business suffered because he had to disclose,” he said. “I don’t think our organization should have to disclose our donors, period. We just don’t believe we should be forced to.”

Conservative Catholic columnist for the Star Tribune, Katherine Kersten, recently echoed the Minnesota Family Council’s claims.

“A block thrown through a home window. Cars vandalized. Hate-filled anonymous phone calls at home and work. Swastikas scrawled on houses of worship. Physical assaults. Dismissal from employment because of political views,” wrote Kersten. “[T]his is the sort of intimidation that Americans who support marriage as the union of a man and woman can face today. Persecution of opponents is becoming a tool of the trade for some gay-marriage activists, who—ironically—seem to view themselves as beacons of tolerance.”

She added, “Now, the groundwork for such intimidation is being laid in Minnesota.”

The groundwork is actually being laid for a lawsuit by NOM and the Minnesota for Marriage coalition against the state of Minnesota. When the campaign finance board rejected Minnesota for Marriage’s arguments that full disclosure of donors would put them at risk, the coalition announced that it would not follow the board’s disclosure rules.

But history shows that launching a lawsuit in Minnesota based on the possibility of violence against marriage amendment supporters would be an uphill battle.

Protect Marriage Washington falsified or exaggerated about threats

NOM’s claims were tested this fall in Washington state when Protect Marriage Washington (PMW), a group affiliated with NOM, lost its case in court. PMW wanted to overturn that state’s domestic partner laws through an initiative called R-71. The group was successful in gathering enough signatures to put the repeal on the ballot, but it did not want those signatures to be public arguing that “militant homosexual activist groups” would target them.

After a local paper did a feature with state legislator Elizabeth Scott, a feature that included her contact information and talked about her support for repealing the domestic partner law, she said she received death threats.

“Extremists issued multiple death threats to me and my children due to my being publicly questioned about my personal beliefs,” Scott told the Faith and Freedom Network. “I am greatly concerned for both the safety and the freedom of speech of those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

The court found that Scott’s story did not stand up to scrutiny.

“However, other than speculation, Scott does not attribute to R-71 this death threat or any other incident that she claimed could be considered harassment,” the court wrote.

After the court decision, she wrote, “I guess when the First Amendment is eliminated, we drop back to the Second.”

Gary Randall, who runs the Faith and Freedom Network that spearheaded the effort to repeal the domestic partner law, also had his own complaints about death threats, which he later retracted.

“Randall testified that he received death threats via a blog site; however, when asked to demonstrate where in the copy of the blog posting he believed a threat of his or another’s life was made he could not do so without relying on assumptions,” the court wrote, adding that Randall “finally conceding that no actual death threat was made on the website”

The court noted that Randall was referring to the website, PinkPistols.org, which is a group for LGBT people who hold conceal and carry licenses.

“This website appears to advocate for homosexuals to be armed if desired to use only in self defense,” the court said in a footnote. “[Randall] has not supplied competent evidence to the contrary.”

As a matter of fact, the website no longer exists and according to the Wayback Machine hasn’t been updated since 2006, well before Washington’s enacting of the domestic partnership law.

Other witnesses provided testimony in the Washington case that the court found lacking. One witness testified that he was harassed when two women came up to him while he was gathering signatures for R-71 and one said “we have feelings too.” Another said he found three Post-It notes on his car with vulgar language. Still another felt harassed when a passing motorist made offensive gestures at him.

In the court’s conclusion, Judge Benjamin Settle wrote:

Applied here, the Court finds that Doe has only supplied evidence that hurts rather than helps its case. Doe has supplied minimal testimony from a few witnesses who, in their respective deposition testimony, stated either that police efforts to mitigate reported incidents was sufficient or unnecessary. Doe has supplied no evidence that police were or are now unable or unwilling to mitigate any claimed harassment or are now unable or unwilling to control the same, should disclosure be made.

The court did say that they’d demonstrated that there was some hostility to a same-sex marriage ban in the state, but not that it could lead to threats or violence, and that there had been no evidence that advocates had been harassed in the two years since the ballot question was introduced to Washington state voters.

California and Prop 8

In October, NOM and ProtectMarriage.com lost their bid to keep donors to the Proposition 8 campaign anonymous. The groups worked to pass Proposition 8, which repealed the state’s legalization of same-sex marriage in 2008. NOM had argued that disclosing its donors would chill free speech and that widespread violence against Prop 8 supporters would put its donors at risk.

But the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Morrison England, a Bush appointee, found the evidence a bit thin.

[T]he vast majority of the incidents cited by Plaintiffs are arguably, as characterized by defendants, typical of any controversial campaign. For example, picketing, protesting, boycotting, distributing flyers, destroying yard signs and voicing dissent do not necessarily rise to the level of “harassment” or “reprisals,” especially in comparison to acts directed at groups in the past.

Moreover, a good portion of these actions are themselves forms of speech protected by the United States Constitution.

The court also rejected the idea that any activity directed at entities that backed Prop 8, such as the Mormon church, necessarily meant it was due to Prop 8.

“Plaintiffs have produced insufficient evidence that the more incendiary events on which they rely were connected to Proposition 8 or to gay marriage at all,” the judge wrote. “Rather, a number of these incidents were directed at the Mormon church, which, though a backer of California’s proposition, may also have been a target for any of a number of other reasons.”

And while NOM and other anti-gay marriage amendment backers said that the violence against them was widespread, the judge disagreed.

Accordingly, while Plaintiffs can point to a relatively few unsavory acts committed by extremists or criminals, these acts are so small in number, and in some instances their connection to plaintiffs’ supporters so attenuated, that they do not show a reasonable probability plaintiffs’ contributors will suffer the same fate. Given the grand scale of plaintiffs’ campaign and the massive (and national) support they garnered for their cause, plaintiffs’ limited evidence is simply insufficient to support a finding that disclosure of contributors’ names will lead to threats, harassment or reprisals.

The future in Minnesota
Government transparency advocates have been watching NOM’s actions in Minnesota very carefully. In addition to California, Washington, and Minnesota, NOM has also unsuccessfully challenged disclosure laws in Iowa, Maine, New York and Rhode Island.

“Proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage certainly are engaged in a heated debate,” wrote Common Cause Minnesota’s Mike Dean and Mark Ladov of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York Universtiy School of Law in a column for the Duluth News Tribune. “But it is insulting to claim transparency would leave major campaign donors vulnerable to the violent intimidation tactics civil-rights activists faced in the era of Bull Connor.”

Dean and Ladov pointed back to the outcry when Target Corporation gave money to a group supporting an anti-gay marriage candidate.

“[R]emember how these same groups howled about so-called ‘harassment’ when gay-rights advocates called for a boycott of Target over contributions supporting Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. But that isn’t harassment. It’s a boycott — one of the time-honored ways in which ordinary people, without access to wealthy corporate treasuries, can organize for change and make sure their voices are heard in the political process.”

The board’s rulings have come under heightened scrutiny in recent months as the board works to adjust its policies to new laws passed in 2010. The board has been receiving feedback from both anti-gay marriage amendment supporters that want as little disclosure as possible and open government groups that favor full disclosure.

The board rejected a recommendation by campaign finance staff to relax some of the campaign finance guidance that had been considered at the agency’s June and October meetings, but board members also voted to carry forward with more research into the several aspects of ballot campaign disclosure.

Specifically, the board is looking into how to classify expenditures and if only “expressed advocacy” should be counted as an expenditure. For instance, in the 2010 gubernatorial election, the National Organization for Marriage launched more than $700,000 in campaign ads on the amendment and suggested that Republican Tom Emmer was the only candidate that supported a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. But because the ads did not explicitly tell voters who to support or take a position on whether the amendment should make it to the ballot, the ads were not subject to campaign finance disclosure rules.

The board’s proposed guidance would close that loophole.

“The vote is a temporary victory for disclosure because it is still possible that the board will only require disclosure of political advertisements that expressly advocate the election or defeat of the ballot campaign,” Mike Dean of Common Cause Minnesota told the Minnesota Independent. “This could mean that advertising that does not explicitly state ‘vote for’ or ‘vote against’ the constitutional amendment would not be required to disclose the sources of their campaign contributions.”

Common Cause sent a letter to the board just before the meeting citing statute and case law that supports its position.

The letter asked the board to implement rules to help “steer the debate about what is ‘electioneering’ and what is ‘issue advocacy’ back to a conversation that makes sense to average voters and not just election law lawyers.” It also asked the board to adopt the Federal Elections Commission standards.

“This letter was instrumental in convincing board members to reject the staff recommendations,” Dean said. “The next step is that the staff is going to provide additional language on what is a ballot question expenditure that is not so narrowly defined that it creates a giant loophole. Staff acknowledged during the meeting that if they adopted the guidance as recommended by staff, that it would create a loophole that could allow millions of dollars in undisclosed money to be spent on the ballot question next fall.”

Minnesota for Marriage, composed of the Minnesota Family Council, the National Organization for Marriage and the Minnesota Catholic Conference, has vigorously opposed any expansion of campaign finance laws that require a greater amount of disclosure.

The campaign board is proposing changes to its recently released guidance documents. Those documents tell political committees and other groups that get involved in the ballot campaigns how to account for political donations and political expenditures.

The board is considering dropping a section that directed the board’s staff to look into donations that don’t fit neatly into the disclosure requirements.

Already the board has set up disclosure requirements for money spent “that expressly advocates the adoption or defeat of a ballot question measure” or communications that are “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a ballot question measure.”

But there may be campaign activity that isn’t as cut and dry. The board had included a provision for fundraising appeals that were more ambiguous:

The Board recognizes that communications beyond express advocacy or its functional equivalent may be communications to promote or defeat a ballot question. Staff is directed to provide further research and options for language to extend the definition of ballot question expenditure to these communications.

But at Tuesday’s meeting, the board is considering dropping that provision and that is a problem for government transparency groups like Common Cause Minnesota.

“The staff recommendation could allow millions of dollars of undisclosed money to flow into the ballot campaign in Minnesota,” Mike Dean, the group’s executive director, said in an email to the Minnesota Independent. “At the June 30 meeting, the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board took an important position to protect Minnesotans right to know what special interest are funding the ballot amendment campaigns. Since then the board has begun to reverse that decision because of threats and intimidation from organizations that want to keep Minnesotans in the dark.”

Though two sides of the debate over the anti-gay marriage amendment will be subject to the board’s guidance, only one side has threatened not to follow the rules.

Earlier this month, Minnesota for Marriage said it would not comply with any of the new guidance set forth by the board opting only to follow older rules set up well before the Legislature created a new campaign finance reporting system in 2010. The group is urging Minnesotans to support the constitutional amendment.

Minnesota for Marriage is a partnership between the Catholic bishops, the Minnesota Family Council and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). NOM and groups affiliated with it have attempted to shield donors and supporters by challenging existing public disclosure laws in almost a dozen states. It has also lost in almost every state the group has launched a challenge.

The board will take up a recommended changes at its meeting on Tuesday which will also include some language tweaks.

The board is dropping its plan to research when and how an organization might be given a waiver that would allow them to opt out of disclosing their donors or expenditures. The board is also proposing changes to language regarding implied fundraising pleas.

Dean said those changes could have serious consequences and that campaign finance loopholes can add up.

“Experience at the federal level has shown this approach creates a huge loophole,” Dean said. “For example, Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, a Section 501(c)(4) organization that reported over $16 million in independent campaign expenditures during the 2010 congressional campaign, disclosed none of its donors because none of its contributions were expressly earmarked for political ads.”

Dean added, “This recommendation will only further erode public confidence in government by allowing special interests to hide behind the loopholes created by the board.”

Minnesota campaign finance board requires disclosure
In 2010, the Minnesota Legislature unanimously passed, and Gov. Tim Pawlenty signed into law, legislation that outlined disclosure requirements in the wake of the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United that gave corporations the right to make expenditures in political campaigns, including ballot initiatives. Minnesota had previously banned corporate involvement in elections, and the state needed a new set of requirements.

Earlier this month, the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board released guidance for organizations working to gain support or opposition to ballot measures on how to disclose contributions and which donors should be disclosed.

In the Star Tribune on Friday, John Helmberger, chair of Minnesota for Marriage and CEO of the Minnesota Family Council, blasted the campaign finance board rules saying they would chill the free speech of churches.

“Nobody disagrees that voters are entitled to know who contributes to the marriage campaign. But the changes the Campaign Finance Board proposes are not authorized by law and would mislead the public, resulting in the disclosure of people who did not contribute to the campaign,” Helmberger wrote.

Minnesota for Marriage refuses to disclose
Minnesota for Marriage says it will not comply with the board’s requirements in the run-up to the 2012 election.

“Nobody disagrees that voters are entitled to know who contributes to the marriage campaign,” Helmberger wrote in Friday’s opinion piece, but the group was singing a different tune earlier this year.

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.

“To require groups, non profits like the Minnesota Family Council, to disclose their donors and make their donors names public would have a significant chilling effect on free speech. Even in Minnesota already it’s gotten heated in some respects,” said Tom Prichard of the Family Council. “The concern is harassment, property damage, a chilling effect. If I know I have to disclose my name, I’m not going to get involved with the Minnesota Family Council.”

He added, “I don’t think our organization should have to disclose our donors, period. We just don’t believe we should be forced to.”

Minnesota for Marriage sent an email to supporters on Monday claiming that the disclosure rules—which apply to both sides—were an attack on religious people.

The email title read, “Star Tribune Escalates Attack on Churches and Religious People” in reference to a Star Tribune editorial earlier this month in support of the campaign finance rules.

“Clearly, this is a blatant attempt to intimidate churches and other groups that take a stand for marriage and silence discussion of the marriage amendment; a clear violation of religious freedom and free speech,” wrote Helmberger. “Now that the marriage amendment has qualified for the ballot, the board is all of a sudden trying to change the rules of the game despite the fact there has been no change in state disclosure laws.”

Raising the specter of persecution
One of Helmberger’s main arguments is that if it’s required to disclose its donors, members of the LGBT community will attack those donors.

“Regrettably, some gay-marriage activists have seen that intimidation can be an effective campaign tactic, and it has become standard fare in any marriage campaign,” he wrote. “Evidence in various court proceedings document case after case of harassment—phone calls at home and work, calls and e-mails to employers, boycotts of someone’s employer, calls to clients, etc.”

But on Monday, a federal court in Washington found that claims by NOM, a member of Minnesota for Marriage, that it’s donors were harassed to be without merit. In that case, Doe v. Reed, NOM argued it didn’t have to disclose signers of a referendum petition for fear that people who sign the petition would be subject to harassment and violence. The court strongly disagreed:

Applied here, the Court finds that Doe has only supplied evidence that hurts rather than helps its case. Doe has supplied minimal testimony from a few witnesses who, in their respective deposition testimony, stated either that police efforts to mitigate reported incidents was sufficient or unnecessary. Doe has supplied no evidence that police were or are now unable or unwilling to mitigate any claimed harassment or are now unable or unwilling to control the same, should disclosure be made. This is a quite different situation than the progeny of cases providing an as-applied exemption wherein the government was actually involved in carrying out the harassment, which was historic, pervasive, and documented. To that end, the evidence supplied by Doe purporting to be the best set of experiences of threats, harassment, or reprisals suffered or reasonably likely to be suffered by R-71 signers cannot be characterized as “serious and widespread.”

Setting up for a lawsuit
Transparency groups like Common Cause say that Minnesota for Marriage’s protestations are likely laying the groundwork for a lawsuit challenging the disclosure rules. NOM has filed suit in a half dozen states to try to shield its donors in ballot initiatives, elections, and lobbying efforts. It has yet to succeed.

“This is just another attempt to strike down Minnesota disclosure law,” said Mike Dean. “NOM has a long history of unsuccessfully challenging disclosure laws across the country.”

Rep. Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley, echoed Dean’s sentiments in his own opinion column in the Star Tribune.

“Given these groups’ actual record of avoiding disclosure and suing to block disclosure laws, the concern expressed by Helmberger about innocent small donors is an obvious smokescreen. The Minnesota rules they challenge already protect small donors, and protect donations made without an earmark for political spending,” Winkler wrote. “Here’s a good rule of thumb: Never trust a well-funded group hiring lawyers to hide information from the public. Especially if their only argument is the need to protect the privacy of donors whose donations are already safely hidden.”

The law Winkler refers to was a campaign finance bill passed by the Minnesota Legislature and signed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

Dean wondered why groups like Minnesota for Marriage wanted to shield their donors from disclosure.

“Being part of a democracy is about standing up for what you believe in, not cowering in the bushes because you are afraid of what others will think. The real question is, what do these groups have to hide?”

Open government advocates say current regulations inadequate
Contrary to Helmberger’s claims, a churchgoer’s donation would likely never be reported to any government entity as long as her church never asked her to specifically contribute to the church’s efforts to pass the amendment.

For transparency groups like Common Cause Minnesota, that’s a problem.

“The Campaign Finance Board, against Common Cause’s advice, is actually making it easier for groups to avoid disclosure,” Common Cause’s Mike Dean told the Minnesota Independent. “They have said that those groups only need to disclose if they make an explicit request of financial support for the constitutional amendment.”

Dean said the campaign finance board watered down a statute passed in 2010 that called for stringent disclosure rules. In a letter to the board earlier this month, the group argued that the “express” and “implied” request scenarios were confusing and unnecessary and gave groups a loophole to get out of disclosing contributions.

“Instead of requiring organizations to comply with this lengthy and multi-pronged definition, the board could simply require disclosure of contributions made in response to any solicitation that mentions a ballot question—end of story,” Common Cause wrote. “The current definition, with its discussion of ‘express’ and ‘implied’ requests, is unnecessarily confusing and complicated. Moreover, the fact that the board believes it is obligated to include such a distinction suggests that the Board is taking a far more conservative approach to disclosure than is required or warranted.”

Dean said the board’s current rules would “open up an enormous and unnecessary loophole in Minnesota law.”

“Experience under comparable federal rules has shown that sophisticated donors are able to exploit such loopholes to avoid the transparency that is necessary for a well-informed democracy,” Dean said.

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.”

For the first time in almost three weeks, the Minnesota State Capitol will be open to the public Tuesday at 9 a.m.

The State Capitol, often referred to as the “People’s House,” has been closed since the state government shutdown started on July 1. Republican legislative leaders and Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton have agreed on a budget framework but, until Tuesday, the Capitol doors have remained barred as lawmakers ironed out final bills.

Common Cause Minnesota had asked the governor’s office to open the Capitol so the public could be present. Prior to Dayton’s Monday evening announcement that he would allow the public to enter, Common Cause Minnesota had planned to ask the judge to reopen the Capitol for as long as the shutdown continues.

Common Cause’s Mike Dean told the Minnesota Independent Monday it’s likely more costly to keep the public out of the Capitol, which is still open to some staff, than to let the public in. He said that barring the public while elected officials made decisions inside the building would have been an “affront to democracy.”

The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board ruled today that corporate donations to groups advocating for or against a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage must be disclosed. The Minnesota Family Council (MFC) and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) argued that supporters of marriage equality would commit violence against their donors if they were made public. On Thursday, the board disagreed.

The campaign finance board met in mid-June to vote on how to implement new independent expenditure rules and how they would apply to the 2012 ballot initiative campaign to ban same-sex marriage in the Minnesota Constitution. NOM and MFC argued that no disclosures should have to be made for fear of reprisal from supporters of marriage equality.

“To require groups, non profits like the Minnesota Family Council, to disclose their donors and make their donors names public would have a significant chilling effect on free speech. Even in Minnesota already it’s gotten heated in some respects,” Prichard told the board. “The concern is harassment, property damage, a chilling effect. If I know I have to disclose my name, I’m not going to get involved with the Minnesota Family Council.”

He added that he had knowledge that in California during the 2008 Prop 8 campaign same-sex marriage supporters engaged in violence.

“They went after their employment, by challenging their employers. There was vandalism on certain organizations. I can think of one individual that his business suffered because he had to disclose. I don’t think our organization should have to disclose our donors, period. We just don’t believe we should be forced to.”

But a coalition of groups advocated just the opposite, that full disclosure is essential to a healthy democracy. Common Cause Minnesota, the League of Women Voters and the Brennen Center for Justice sent a letter to the board on Thursday morning criticizing the statements of NOM and MFC and urging the board to make the ballot process more transparent.

“Much like the boy who cries ‘wolf,’ it has become routine for groups like the National Organization for Marriage to complain that disclosure will leave them vulnerable to threats and harassment,” the letter stated. “The evidence shows otherwise. In reality, groups like NOM are largely complaining about the ordinary rough and tumble of political debate, particularly on an issue that touches people as personally and deeply as same-sex marriage.”

The groups said that full disclosure would ensure that voters have the best available information when they go to the polls.

“Knowing the author and funder of an ad campaign can help voters evaluate the credibility of the messenger, especially in the absence of active media scrutiny of the issue,” the letter said. “Voters would like to know: Is the majority of the money coming from out of state? Is the support from a large base of supporters or a few wealthy individuals? What interests do those contributing individuals represent? Knowing who is likely to benefit, or lose, from the outcome of a ballot question will help voters to evaluate both sides of a ballot initiative debate.”

On Thursday morning the board agreed and voted in favor of a resolution that would require disclosure of corporate donors to the campaigns involved in wooing voters in 2012.

“Disclosure is essential to ensure a fair and open public debate on the marriage amendment,” said Mike Dean of Common Cause Minnesota in reaction to the board’s decision. “The adopted rules will allow the public to know who is truly behind the political ads. This decision will hopefully bring some additional civility to the debate by forcing groups and donors to be accountable for the ads they run.”

NOM has attempted to shield its donors from disclosure requirements in many states including Maine, California, New York, Rhode Island, Minnesota and Iowa, and been the subject of campaign finance complaints or has sued to prevent the disclosure of its donors in those states.

When the National Organization for Marriage and the Minnesota Family Council spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads promoting a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions last fall, the groups should have reported those expenditures, according to a complaint filed with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board earlier this month. The complaint, which focuses on ads launched throughout the 2010 campaign cycle in support of gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, asks for financial penalties as well as an audit of NOM’s spending in Minnesota.

The filing by Common Cause Minnesota alleges that the Minnesota Family Council — and in particular its lobbyist, Tom Prichard — failed to report lobbying expenses related to several ads. Since the ad urged the public and legislators to act on legislation, in this case a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, it constitutes lobbying, the group argues in the complaint. The ads in question include references to an actual bill, SF120, and were created and distributed in partnership with NOM.

Here’s the ad:

The complaint also addresses three other ads by MFC and NOM, charging that each of the ads, two for radio and one for television, constituted lobbying, yet went unreported:

First, it tells the public to contact DFL lawmakers. The ad states: “Most DFL lawmakers don’t want you to have a say. When they ask for your support, ask them if they will guarantee your right to vote on marriage.” Second, it identified a legislator who could vote on the legislation by specifically mentioning a state representative at the time, Rep. Kelliher. It also included the name of the current governor.

One such ad also featured the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., asserting that he would have wanted a statewide vote on gay marriage.

The complaint, which cites Minnesota Independent’s reporting on the ads throughout the election cycle, asks for a penalty of $3,000.

The filing also notes that Prichard and MFC have been dinged for the same thing in the past: “Considering the nature of the scheme and the fact that this is the second time that Mr. Prichard has violated this very statute by failing to disclose lobbyist expenditures associated with urging public action to influence legislative action, we believe that there is clear intent to violate the statute. Mr. Prichard cannot claim that he did not know about the reporting requirements.”

Common Cause also filed a second complaint that alleges that NOM failed to register as a lobbying group in the state.

“[T]he group should have registered with the Campaign Finance Disclosure Board as a principal lobbyist,” the complaint states. “The Campaign Finance Disclosure Board (‘CFDB’) website clearly states that groups that intend to influence legislative action must register with the CFDB.”

It continues:

On May 18, 2010, the Minnesota Independent ran a story on how the National Organization for Marriage and the Minnesota Family Council were coordinating a $200,000 media buy in Minnesota to oppose legislation to “redefine marriage.” In a press release, the National Organization for Marriage “called on elected officials to let the people vote on this critical issue.” This makes it clear that their intent was to influence legislative action.

Common Cause is seeking specific penalties against NOM. It’s urging the board to fine NOM $1,000 and to conduct an audit of NOM’s financial records to ensure that the reporting requirements are satisfied.

The campaign finance board has accepted Minnesota Common Cause’s complaint and is in the process of investigating.

“Minnesota’s lobbyist disclosure laws are designed to shine some sunlight on how special interests attempt to influence decisions at the capitol,” Mike Dean, Executive Director of Common Cause Minnesota, said in a statement. “Both organizations have attempted to operate in the shadows by failing to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars spent influencing legislators at the capitol.”

The Minnesota Independent raised questions about NOM’s and MFC’s activities in Minnesota last fall, in particular a mailer that attacked openly gay Republican Sen. Paul Koering. He lost reelection in 2010.

Read Common Cause’s complaint alleging failure to register as a lobbyist:

NOM_complaint_FINAL

Read Common Cause’s complaint alleging failure to disclose expenditures:

MFC complaint FINAL2

Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, R-Big Lake, told Minnesota Public Radio on Thursday that if Gov. Mark Dayton vetoes a controversial voter ID bill, she will seek to put it on the ballot in 2012. The bill, which is currently winding its way through the Legislature, would require photo ID of all voters. Dayton hasn’t indicated whether he’ll veto such a measure, but election integrity advocates say the proposal could run into constitutional problems.

“We’re going to keep working with Gov. Dayton and continue to do that but if we have to at the end, that is probably a back-up option because this is something that the voters do want,” Kiffmeyer told MPR. “So if we need to, we’ll take it to the voters.”

Pro-voter ID groups had already threatened to advance a constitutional amendment last November following the defeat of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, a strong supporter of the measure.

But, Minnesota Common Cause noted that the current bill would not spend enough on voter education to ensure that all voters know they need an ID at the polls:

A revised estimate of the costs, savings, revenue gains, and losses projected for Minnesota’s voter ID bill, SF509, fails to adequately account for the costs of the legislation required by the courts. If the legislation is to be constitutional, the estimate–called a fiscal note–must include additional costs for public education and providing the free ID to individuals.

The courts have repeatedly required that states adopt expensive measures to mitigate the burdensome effects that voter ID mandates have on seniors, students and the poor. If legislators fail to account for these costs, this legislation will be held unconstitutional by the courts.

Common Cause estimates that voter education will cost $19.48 million, while Kiffmeyer estimates $2.7 million.

A bill requiring voter identification cards, electronic rosters and a slew of other changes to election laws was heard in the House Government Operations and Election committee Thursday. A large number of groups testified that the bill would disenfranchise voters, especially students, the elderly and the disabled, while several testified that the bill is needed to prevent voter fraud. A presentation by Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer on the technological improvements her bill would make to the voting process was derailed when the hearing room technology failed.

“You need a photo ID to buy alcohol, cigarettes, drive a car to the polling place,” said Rep. Mike Benson, a Republican from Rochester. Benson is the author of one of two bill introduced in the Minnesota House that would require photo identification for voting. Benson said his bill is intended to prevent voter fraud.

“It is very easy to impersonate someone if you don’t have to show identification,” he said. “More and more you hear questions about the real integrity of the system.”

Former Secretary of State and current Republican Rep. Kiffmeyer offered another more expansive photo identification bill that would include an electronic system that scans IDs at the polling place.

She said it was simple technology “that will help take some of the burden off of election workers.”

But, a technological glitch prevented a short video that Kiffmeyer has planned to show. “It’s something with the House technology here. We will save the video for Tuesday, Madame Chair,” Kiffmeyer said. The committee will be continuing testimony on the bill on Tuesday.

Fraud prevention?

Dan MacGrath, executive director of Minnesota Majority, a group that pushed for the Kiffmeyer bill and was led by Kiffmeyer several years ago, said that Minnesota’s election system is “concerning.”

“I hope that other states do not adopt our system,” he said.

He decried the state’s same-day registration because he says it requires less information than what’s needed to register prior to election day.

“It’s an injustice to grant preferential treatment and trust to some voters just because they decide to register at the last minute,” he said.

Dale Erickson of Blaine, who was a recount observer for the campaign of Sen. Norm Coleman, said, “It’s been in the last 10 or 15 years that the integrity of the system has been called into question.”

He said the bill would prevent non-citizens from voting. “Previous speakers have been talking about residency as if it were the same thing as citizenship. We have to know if you are eligible to vote because you are a citizen.”

Laura Norlander, an election judge who has Republican ties, said, “This was my first time to be an election judge in 2010. It was an eye opener to receive the training and realize how many opportunities for voter fraud in our system.”

But that voter fraud doesn’t seem to have materialized. Last fall, the Minnesota County Attorneys Association called allegations of voter fraud in Minnesota “frivolous” and that only 26 people had been convicted of voting as a felon in the last two years.

Teresa Nelson, legal counsel for the ACLU of Minnesota told the committee that two close elections, in 2008 and 2010, “have not led to a single conviction for voter impersonation fraud — the only type of voter fraud that photo ID requirements could possibly address.”

“Moreover,” she added, “there were only 26 felon voting convictions out of 2.9 million voters. Contrast that miniscule number with the thousands of voters who may be disenfranchised because of a new photo ID requirement.”

She said the bill would appear to violate the Constitution.

“Supporters of Jim Crow justified their voter suppresion laws as equal treatment of all voters,” she told the committee. “Vote no on this voter suppression bill.”

Too costly?

Mike Dean, executive director of Common Cause Minnesota, said that the bill would prevent people from voting.

“This does not make sense when we could have improved our system by implementing the registration modernization bill that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed last year,” he said.

He pointed out that Utah, a very Republican state, recently enacted a similar system to the one vetoed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty and did it with support of both Democrats and Republicans. Minnesota should follow the lead of Utah’s system, Dean said, instead of “wasting time playing partisan politics.”

Dean also said the bill would cost the state too much money at a time of a massive budget deficit.

The cost issue is one that other states are grappling with as Republicans move to implement the same system outside Minnesota as well. The Institute for Southern Studies released a report this week on a similar initiative in North Carolina and found that the state simply couldn’t afford it. The costs associated with a voter ID program would include a massive publicity campaign to ensure all citizens know about the new law, training programs for elected officials and the cost to the state to create voter ID cards for residents who cannot afford to pay for them.

All told, North Carolina would pay out $18 to $25 million over the next three years if the bill passed. The institute found costs associated with a similar plan in Missouri to be close to $20 million. “Lawmakers routinely failed to include at least one basic expense needed to implement a voter ID law in their cost estimates, such as voter education,” ISS reported.

Disenfranchised voters

Advocates for students, battered women, the elderly and the disabled told the committee that the bill would have significant impacts on those populations as well.

Mary Lou Hill, a 94-year old member of the League of Women Voters, was concerned about the effect of the bill on seniors. She said she was born four years before the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote.

“I believe the right to vote is among our most important rights,” she said. “Whatever the authors’ intentions, the effect of the bills would be to take the vote away from United States citizens.”

She said the bill’s requirement that all voters obtain a photo ID from the Department of Public Safety would be an obstacle to older voters.

“It is easy for one of you to run down to the government center and to update your drivers license. Senior citizens may have a number of problems with this simple activity. They might not drive and might not have anyone to take them.”

“There’s no question these bills will disenfranchise thousands of senior citizens.”

Dierdre Keyes, of the Battered Women’s Legal Advocacy Project, said the bill, which would do away with Minnesota’s vouching system, would have a profound impact on women who have been victims of domestic violence.

“Women who stay at our shelters are required to make no contact with their former residence and it is not likely that they will want to be anywhere near their old polling place for fear of being seen,” she said. “These women are able to vote because of the vouching system. The staff of the shelter goes with the women to the shelter’s precinct and vouches for them as a resident of the shelter.”

She added, “They are interested in voting, yet on election day they were residents of the battered women’s shelter with ID’s stating the address of the of the residence they just fled. With the current vouching system in place we are able to assist them to vote and be safe.”

If the bill becomes law, “these women would choose safety over voting and their voice would not be heard at the polling place,” she said.

Several students recounted their experiences voting and how the law change might affect them.

Matt Butler, co-chair of the Macalester College chapter of MPIRG, said the bill would put a “burden on college students’ ability to vote,” and Peter Randall, a University of Minnesota student and also a member of MPIRG, said that he’s changed his residency five times in the last three years.

“There’s no need for more barriers to Minnesota’s nation leading youth vote turnout,” Randall said.

St. Paul City Councilmember Melvin Carter represented the City Council and Mayor Chris Coleman at the hearing and recounted how he was turned away from the polls in Florida during the 2000 election.

“I’m here today because I am confused by these efforts. We heard testimony today that you need a photo ID to buy alcohol or take the ACT or write a check at CVS as though those things are anywhere in comparison to the fundamental right to vote,” he said. “We should always agree that every eligible American should be welcomed at the polls.”

Justin Page, an attorney with the Minnesota Disability Law Center, said the bill would create unnecessary barriers for people with disabilities.

“An individual is entitled to have personal assistance by someone of his or her own choosing,” he said, regarding a provision in the bill that bans health care workers from assisting disabled voters. “That is what federal law requires.”

He said he has been assured by the bill’s authors that the language is going to be changed.

The bill would also prohibit people under guardianship from voting, he said. “It’s hard for me to believe that you can talk about the civic duty to vote while at the same time disenfranchising a whole group of people.”

An extension of the hearing will be held on Tuesday.