Findings by the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board show that the National Organization for Marriage spent $709,000 on radio and television ads during the gubernatorial campaign in 2010. Those ads targeted DFLer Mark Dayton and Independence Party candidate Tom Horner for their support for marriage equality and lent support for the campaign of Republican Tom Emmer who supported a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage.

The ads, paid for by the New Jersey-based NOM were created by the California-based Schubert Flint Public Affairs.

The ads were the subject of a campaign finance complaint that was dismissed Wednesday by the public disclosure board. The decision by the board provides some insight into the ad campaigns and how much was spent.

The first ad, “Your Right to Vote,” his television airwaves from May 18 to May 26 and cost $212,716:

A radio ad called “Who Should Decide?” ran from Aug. 12 to Aug. 20 at a cost of $96,050:

“The Most Important Civil Right,” aired on Minnesota television stations from Sept. 20 to Oct. 24 at a cost of $333,155:

Just before the election, from Oct. 13 to Oct. 24, the radio ad “The Most Important Civil Right” ran for a cost of $62,549:

The group also spent $4,700 in literature at the Minnesota State Fair.

According to the board’s findings, NOM paid Schubert Flint Public Affairs to create the ad campaigns. Schubert Flint was also behind the campaign in California to pass Prop 8, which halted marriage equality in 2008. Same-sex couples were granted the right to marry in that state in early 2008.

Frank Schubert and Jeff Flint discussed their strategy in a February 2009 interview with Campaigns and Elections magazine and in that interview the two laid out the strategy they used to win on Prop 8, including strategies the Minnesota Family Council has recently utilized to pass a similar amendment in Minnesota.

“We built a campaign volunteer structure around both time-honored campaign grassroots tactics of organizing in churches, with a ground-up structure of church captains, precinct captains, zip code supervisors and area directors; and the latest Internet and web-based grassroots tools,” the duo wrote.

As the Minnesota Independent reported last week, the Minnesota Family Council is organizing pastors, in particular, “church captains.”

Schubert and Flint also said they came up with messages that would “result in voters casting a Yes vote for traditional marriage.” That strategy is to assign “consequences” to the legalization of same-sex marriage.

We strongly believed that a campaign in favor of traditional marriage would not be enough to prevail. We needed to convince voters that gay marriage was not simply ‘live and let live’—that there would be consequences if gay marriage were to be permanently legalized. But how to raise consequences when gay marriage was so recently legalized and not yet taken hold? We made one of the key strategic decisions in the campaign, to apply the principles of running a “No” campaign—raising doubts and pointing to potential problems—in seeking a “Yes” vote. As far as we know, this strategic approach has never before been used by a Yes campaign. We reconfirmed in our early focus groups our own views that Californians had a tolerant opinion of gays. But there were limits to the degree of tolerance that Californians would afford the gay community. They would entertain allowing gay marriage, but not if doing so had significant implications for the rest of society.

We probed long and hard in countless focus groups and surveys to explore reactions to a variety of consequences our issue experts identified. The California Supreme Court ruling put gay couples in a protected legal class on the basis of sexual orientation, and then found that gay couples had a fundamental constitutional right to marriage. This decision significantly changed the legal landscape. No longer would it be enough for Californians to tolerate gay relationships, they would have to accept gay marriage as being equivalent to traditional marriage. Tolerance is one thing; forced acceptance of something you personally oppose is a very different matter.

Whenever a conflict occurred between the rights of a gay couple and other rights, the rights of the gay couple would prevail because of their “protected class” legal status. We settled on three broad areas where this conflict of rights was most likely to occur: in the area of religious freedom, in the area of individual freedom of expression, and in how this new “fundamental right” would be inculcated in young children through the public schools. And we made sure that we had very concrete examples we could share with voters of things that had actually occurred.

The firm noted that widespread dissemination of campaign literature helped persuade voters who might be uncomfortable voting against their neighbors rights.

“This intense commitment to distributing materials throughout the state was the result of another key strategic decision. Supporting traditional marriage is not considered to be ‘politically correct.’” Schubert and Flint said. “We wanted voters who supported our position to know that they were not alone and so we made sure they saw our signs in their neighborhoods and our campaign materials at their church. And if they were part of an ethnic minority, all these were in their native language.”

The campaign then pivoted to television ads that made the threat that homosexuality would be taught in the schools if Prop 8 did not pass. Here’s two examples of the ads used by Schubert Flint in California:

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.

“Judge Walker claimed ‘there was not a rational basis’ for excluding gays from marriage,” Bachmann said. “But if Proposition 8 doesn’t survive the rational basis test, then is Walker implying that the majority of California voters, those who voted for the measure, aren’t rational?

She predicts that Walker’s ruling will be appealed in district court — and will eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Watch Bachmann’s statement this morning:

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker decided today that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, thereby striking down Proposition 8 — the California measure narrowly approved by voters in 2008 that bans same-sex marriage.

“Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the judge wrote. “Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Lawyers on the both sides of the issue had previously vowed to appeal the decision, making it quite likely that the outcome today will not be the final word on the issue.

Looking ahead, it will be interesting to see what kind of role the issue of same-sex marriage, so incendiary in California in 2008, will play in the midterm elections in the state this November. The Courage Campaign, a progressive online organizing network based in California and formed partly in response to the passage of Prop 8, has been busy pointing out the role of the National Organization of Marriage (NOM), the main nonprofit behind the passage of Prop 8, in backing California candidates like GOP senate hopeful Carly Fiorina.

“In NOM, Carly Fiorina has aligned herself with a fringe group that relies on lies and fear to advocate discrimination and second-class citizenship for millions of loving American families,” Courage Campaign Chairman and Founder Rick Jacobs said in a press release. “Bigotry is not a family value and it has no place in the United States Senate.”

The National Organization of Marriage, already under fire for failing to disclose its donors to state election officials in Iowa and Maine, has now joined up with the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, an initiative of American Principles in Action, and the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life women’s network, to back Fiorina through the “Tus Valories” (Your Values) Campaign, an independent expenditure on the part of American Principles in Action.

Despite the ruling, marriage-equality advocates vowed to press on, possibly taking the issue to the voters again in the next few years.

“Today’s ruling is a huge blow to Americans everywhere who care about equality. The court has allowed a bare majority of voters to write same-sex couples out of basic constitutional protections,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “This ruling couldn’t be more out of step with what’s happening across the country. We have no choice but to return this basic question of fairness for the estimated 1 million LGBT Californians back to the voters.”

The Log Cabin Republicans also vowed to continue working with California’s Republican elected officials to ensure marriage equality in that state.

“While we were defeated in this ballot initiative, our cause is right and just,” said Leonard M. Lanzi, president of California Log Cabin Republicans “We will continue to work with our allies in the Republican Party and across the political spectrum in California to educate voters that marriage equality is truly a conservative value, along the lines of strengthening individual freedoms, limiting the role of government in our daily lives and preserving personal responsibility.”

The Mormon Church, which spent millions of out-of-state funds to pass Prop 8, released a statement today, as well:

“Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court is welcome. The issue the court decided was whether California citizens validly exercised their right to amend their own constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The court has overwhelmingly affirmed their action.

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the deeply held feelings on both sides, but strongly affirms its belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The bedrock institution of marriage between a man and a woman has profound implications for our society.”

Photo: Tony Webster

Listeners waiting to hear the reasoned arguments of “angry gay-rights activists” during an extended National Public Radio (NPR) report this morning on California’s new ban on same-sex marriage … are … still … waiting. After an interview with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (whose position against Proposition 8 could be discounted for being entwined with his clearly expressed political ambitions), Morning Edition reporter Karen Grigsby Bates gave over national airtime exclusively to Proposition 8 backers who she presented in only the most glowing terms. (Gay-rights voices were limited to a couple sound-bite chants and quick-take gripes.) The Stranger’s Dan Savage details NPR’s lapse, including contact info for complaints.

As many as 10 same-sex couples plan to file a lawsuit soon against the state of Minnesota for the right to marry. It’s a controversial move, one that some in the gay and lesbian community think is ill-timed, but those couples who are putting their money on the line — and their lives under a microscope — say the time is always right to fight for equality.

I sat down with Doug Benson, founder of Marry Me Minnesota, a nonprofit group that formed last year and is helping organize the lawsuit. Benson and his partner are also part of the planned suit.

Birkey: Why did you decide to sue the state of Minnesota?

Benson: My civil rights are being violated by the state of Minnesota. The injustice of our state government denying thousands of same-gender families across this state their constitutional right to the security, advantages and responsibilities associated with legal marriage cries out for a court challenge. The state has no compelling or even rational interest in denying this right, dividing Minnesotans into those with rights and those without. We should all have the same rights. The courts can put an end to the injustice in short order, and as citizens it is our right and our responsibility to petition the courts to do that.

Duane and I first tried to get legally married in our hometown of Duluth 16 years ago. We continue to see the need to challenge the state’s discriminatory marriage laws. Last year we had a discussion with two other couples we are friends with who had expressed a strong desire to sue the state for marriage rights. We believed that a group of litigants consisting of three couples, one with children, would present a strong case and we decided to seek counsel.

Birkey: How will the lawsuit work?

Benson: This is how I understand it: The case will be filed in District Court [in the coming months]. There will be a trial and a judgment. That judgment will most likely be appealed by either side. It will be heard by the Appeals Court, and a judgment will be rendered. That judgment will most likely be appealed by either side to the [Minnesota] Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may or may not hear the case, but if they do, the Supreme Court justices are not there to enforce their ideology or prejudices. They are charged with upholding the principles of the Constitution. If they do that, regardless of who appointed them, we will win.

One aspect of Marry Me Minnesota’s lawsuit against the state will be to challenge the state’s DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] law, which was passed in 1997. This law, among other things, prohibits the state from recognizing same-gender marriages obtained in other jurisdictions. Overturning this law would make it possible to have our out-of-state marriages recognized as legal here in Minnesota.

And, the DOMA law has a problem. It was passed by the Legislature in the same manner that the state’s recent “concealed carry” gun law was passed. That law was overturned by the Minnesota Supreme Court because of the manner in which the bill was passed [by being attached as a rider instead of a stand-alone bill].

Our law firm, Mansfield, Tanick and Cohen, is the law firm that brought that case against the concealed-carry gun law and won. They will take their experience and expertise in winning that lawsuit and apply it to our case against the state’s DOMA law.

We meet with the law firm this week to chart the course.

Birkey: Is a legal challenge necessary? Could marriage equality be sought through the Legislature?

Benson: It needs to be done in both places so the two avenues of redress work synergistically. It worked in California and it can work here. Unfortunately for California, they also have initiative and referendum. We don’t.

Birkey: How did you personally feel about the passing of Prop 8, the voter initiative in California that took away marriage rights for gays and lesbians?

Benson: Disgusted and actually the same thing I have felt for any of these anti-gay referenda … dismay that the rights of a minority have been put to a popular vote in the first place. The courts really need to step in and stop that practice. Allowing voters to decide on whether or not their neighbors will have the same rights as they do is just crazy.

Birkey: What types of couples have expressed interest?

Benson: We have couples both male and female, younger and older, with and without children, legally married in other jurisdictions and not. One couple just celebrated their 35th year together!

Birkey: Have you encountered any resistance from members of the LGBT community, or are community members nervous about your strategy?

Benson: Sixteen years ago the establishment activists in the metro [area] were saying it isn’t the right time to fight for our rights in court. They’re still saying the same thing. There hasn’t been an identifiable advance in gay rights in this state during that period. That fact, plus wide spread discontent over the lack of progress, bolsters our resolve to move forward with the suit, with or without the blessing of establishment organizations.

As citizens, we have to fight even though we may not be assured of victory. We have to believe we can win. If everyone waited for an absolute guarantee of success before they tried to change things, nothing would ever happen. The truth is, we don’t know what the outcome of this suit will be, and neither does anyone else, no matter how much they may profess to be able to predict the future. We could win it all or have a partial victory or be turned away. Whatever happens, it will advance the cause of marriage equality in Minnesota by showing our opponents and supporters alike that we’re willing to fight for our rights and our families with all means available.

Birkey: How would you respond to religious right folks who criticize using the courts to seek equality?

Benson: The courts exist to protect the rights of individuals. The instant the religionists perceive any bias directed at them, they’re in court.

Birkey: Do you think you will see marriage equality in your lifetime?

Benson: Yes … and soon, in the courts or the Legislature. It’s coming.

The signers of the ad, a cadre of religious-right figures calling themselves No Mob Veto, said, “beginning today, we commit ourselves to opposing and publicly shaming anyone who resorts to the rhetoric of anti-religious bigotry.”

Sporadic skirmishes have arisen since the passage of Proposition 8, a California initiative that rescinded the right for same-sex couples to marry in that state. Someone sent an envelope containing white powder to Mormon temples in California and Utah recently — owing to the church’s investment in supporting the measure — and a school board member punched and kicked a gay man in Bakersfield, Calif., during a Prop 8 protest in October.

And the ad has touched off another round of heated rhetoric by both sides.

“Several signatories to the ad are generals in the culture wars,” said Rev. Susan Russell of All Saints [Epsicopal] Church in Pasadena, Calif. Russell works on religious issues with the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), an LGBT group that opposed Prop 8.

“They lied about gay people in the campaign, and now they are lying again when they say we are in favor of mob intimidation and violence,” she said.

The No Mob Veto ad vows to shame anyone who resorts to anti-religious bigotry — and the ad’s signers know something about anti-religious bigotry: Many have engaged in it themselves.

Click to view the ad in a new window.

“Mormonism either affirms historic Christianity, or it doesn’t. Since it doesn’t, it can’t call itself Christianity — a fact that all the good will and public relations in Utah can’t change,” wrote Chuck Colson, a central Watergate figure who, after being “born again” as a Christian, started the Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Colson is a signer of the No Mob Vote ad. He also told The Washington Monthly in 2005, “While Mormons share some beliefs with Christians, they are not Christians.”

On Muslims, Colson told ABCNews in 2007, “Islam is a vicious evil.”

Meanwhile, National Association of Evangelicals lobbyist Rich Cizik, another signer of the ad, spoke for the majority of evangelicals on Mitt Romney’s chances as a Mormon presidential candidate. “Most evangelicals still regard Mormonism as a cult,” he told Washington Monthly in 2005. “That will shape, I’d imagine, their reactions to Romney as a candidate for the White House.”

Signer William Donahue of the Catholic League also has a laundry list of controversial statements to his credit.

“Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, OK? And I’m not afraid to say it,” he told MSNBC when asked about opposition to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. “That’s why they hate this movie. It’s about Jesus Christ, and it’s about truth. It’s about the Messiah.”

Donahue also went after President Bush in 2005 for allowing the White House to hand out holiday cards that didn’t specifically reference Christmas. “The Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and … they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture,” he said, according to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).

He has also gone after Sen. Charles Schumer, folk singer Joan Osborne for her God-inspired song “One of Us,” ABC drama Nothing Sacred, indie filmmaker Kevin Smith, alt-rocker Marilyn Manson, the fantasy film The Golden Compass, conservative radio host Michael Savage, comedian Kathy Griffin, CBS’ prime-time series “CSI: Crime Scene Investigations” and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.

Donahue blamed gays for the sexual abuse scandals plaguing the Catholic Church. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said in 2005, “Since 2002, Donahue has continued to opportunistically exploit the crisis in the Catholic Church to link adult homosexuality (and gay people in general) with child sexual abuse — ignoring the fact that such abuse of power is not reflective of any healthy adult sexual orientation — gay or straight.”

Not all religious leaders agree with the latest religious tactic to paint themselves as persecuted.

Bishop John Selders of Amistad United Church of Christ in Hartford, Conn., commented in an HRC press release Monday, “As an African-American, I’ve heard this before. A few frustrated members of a minority group respond in anger to a new indignity and the oppressor calls them anarchists,” he said.

“Satan, sometimes called the Father of Lies, is at work when powerful people seek to dehumanize those who are less powerful.”

Rev. Russell agreed. “Many of the leaders cited in this ad preach hate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, then look the other way when LGBT people are the victims of hate crimes,” she said. “This ad is an act of individual and corporate hypocrisy.”

“We are all for a boycott if that is what brings about a sense of community for people,” said Sean Hetherington of West Hollywood, Calif. Hetherington dreamed up the idea as a protest to the passage of California’s Prop 8. “You can take away from the economy and give back in other ways,” he told the Associated Press.

Hetherington’s website has serves as a portal for the event, connecting participants to volunteer organizations. For those that live in the 30 states where it is still legal to fire someone just for being gay or lesbian, the website offers other ways to get involved without risking employment.

In Minnesota, some of the opportunities to get involved include the following:

The Hub Bike Co-op will be hosting free classes in honor of the event. The University of Minnesota Human Rights Center is looking for volunteers to help run an event featuring the film A Promise to the Dead: The Exile Journey of Ariel Dorfman. Open Arms of Minnesota, a nonprofit that delivers meals to those with severe illnesses, including AIDS, has openings for drivers. Family and Children Service will be wrapping presents for those in need and Avenues for Homeless Youth need assistance cleaning and painting the shelter.