October 2, 2012

Court refuses to hear appeal by anti-gay-marriage group in Maine case

Maine can now demand that the group identify donors to its 2009 campaign.

By Kevin Miller kmiller@pressherald.com
Staff Writer

Today's poll: Disclose donors?

Should the National Organization for Marriage be required to disclose the names of its donors?



View Results

Related headlines

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear an appeal of a Maine law that would require a national anti-gay-marriage group to name its contributors.

The decision clears the way for Maine officials to demand the group identify donors who helped bankroll the 2009 ballot campaign that overturned a state law allowing same-sex couples to marry. But the public release of any donor list could still be months away -- if one is released at all.

The National Organization for Marriage has spent three years fighting to keep its donor list confidential. NOM was the largest donor in the 2009 campaign and is believed to be a major player in this year's effort to defeat same-sex marriage rights in Maine.

Maine's ethics commission is still investigating whether NOM is covered by the state disclosure law, an effort that has been hampered by several court cases, including a separate legal challenge by NOM in the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. In that case, NOM argues that the commission has limited authority to subpoena documents as part of its probe. No ruling is expected in that case till next year.

Maine's campaign disclosure law requires groups spending more than $5,000 to influence the outcome of referendum elections to register as ballot question committees with the state ethics commission. NOM's legal challenge to the federal high court claimed the law is too vague and inhibits free speech by discouraging donations.

Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the Maine ethics commission, called Monday's decision "another affirmation that our campaign finance laws are constitutional."

"The key for us is NOM should have to play by the same rules as everybody else," said David Farmer, spokesman for Mainers United for Marriage, the group behind the effort to legalize same-sex marriage in November. "If they come into the state of Maine and spend millions of dollars, they should have to disclose the source of that money."

NOM officials said they were disappointed with Monday's decision. But the group also said Maine "substantially narrowed the type of information they were requesting" in the state's filings with the Supreme Court.

"Had the state taken the position they took recently back in 2009, this litigation might well have been avoided," John Eastman, NOM's chairman said in a statement. "We will be reviewing the requests for information that the state has made in light of the narrow interpretation the state has now provided to its own statute."

Assistant Maine Attorney General Phyllis Gardiner disagreed with Eastman's statement.

"Our interpretation and the commission's interpretation of the Maine statute has not changed during the course of this litigation," Gardiner said.

NOM's case against the ethics commission is one of several donor disclosure cases to reach the federal court system in recent years. Several observers who have followed these cases said they were not surprised that the high court sidestepped the Maine case.

"The Supreme Court decision not to get involved is further evidence that the court believes disclosure laws play a constitutionally vital role in our election system and, except in extreme cases, will be upheld," said Adam Skaggs, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice within New York University's School of Law.

In their petition to the court, NOM's attorneys had argued, among other things, that Maine's "unconstitutionally vague and overbroad" disclosure law ran counter to the court's decision in Citizens United.

(Continued on page 2)

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form

Send question/comment to the editors

Further Discussion

Here at PressHerald.com we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion. To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use.

Questions about the article? Add them below and we’ll try to answer them or do a follow-up post as soon as we can. Technical problems? Email them to us with an exact description of the problem. Make sure to include:
  • Type of computer or mobile device your are using
  • Exact operating system and browser you are viewing the site on (TIP: You can easily determine your operating system here.)

Today's poll: Disclose donors?

Should the National Organization for Marriage be required to disclose the names of its donors?



View Results