Ethics rejects NOM request for dismissal
By Susan M. Cover scover@mainetoday.com
MaineToday Media State House Writer
The ethics commission today rejected a request from the National Organization for Marriage to end an investigation of the group's finances.
The group, which was the biggest contributor to the successful Yes on 1 campaign to repeal the state's same-sex marriage law, argued in a letter to the commission that it did not have the legal power to conduct an investigation.
But on a 4-0 vote this morning, the commission rejected that argument.
"It seems to me if this was such a compelling issue for them they would have brought it earlier," said Commission Chairman Walter McKee. "I have no doubt this will be appealed to Superior Court."
Last October, the commission voted to have staff investigate the fund-raising tactics used by the group. That investigation has been stalled by legal challenges in both state and federal court.
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form
Most...
Copyright ©2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.
33 COMMENTS
chet said...
This is not right. Things like this is what is going to drive the elections this fall and a massive shift in power is about to come in the States and Washington DC. People are fed up with the minority of people making the majority miserable. This Country is on the wrong track, and things will change this November. We had an election in Maine the Gays don’t like the outcome so they are making trouble. They have woken a sleeping giant, now it is time for the right to stand up for what is right and we will not stop until it is done.
June 24, 2010 at 11:27 AM Report abuse
Roxieow said...
AR5 you forgot chet. Too bad the naysayers just don't get the simple fact that what they did is against the law.
June 24, 2010 at 11:36 AM Report abuse
henryelm said...
IN my review of the campaign contribution to ALL the groups supporting yes on one there were a grand total of 27 individual Mainers who felt compassionaely enough about the issue to put their money where there mouth was. 27, TWENTY SEVEN!!! Heck they even had to ship people in from out of state and PAY them to collect the needed signatures!!! There is NO sleeping giant here.ONLY 27 MAINERS contributed ANY money!!! The sleeping giant is a figment of your imagination funded BY OUT OF STATE interest promoting a HATEFUL agenda.
June 24, 2010 at 11:38 AM Report abuse
henryelm said...
Can well funded outside interests create a slick and dishonest campaign to FOOL the Maine voters??? Apparently so!!! Maybe THAT is what they have been trying to HIDE!!!ONLY 27 Maine individuals are listed as giving ANY money to ANY of theses "groups".
June 24, 2010 at 11:44 AM Report abuse
chet said...
Unions (with out of State money) run political ads and donate money to Democrats. Maybe we should investigate where the unions get all there money.
June 24, 2010 at 11:47 AM Report abuse
AR5 said...
Chet, NOM is trying to break a law. Why are you supporting that? And, you are miserable because a minority is fightig for equality? That is more of a reflection on how you live your life, not what other families are trying to accomplish.
June 24, 2010 at 11:53 AM Report abuse
mutt said...
Chet if you had ur way there would still be segregation because that is what the majority wants.Typical republican using ancient terms "sleeping giant" that has nothing to do with the situation. I don't think gays should be allowed to marry but that doesn't mean I fear them and hate them like you a small minded fear driven bigot.
June 24, 2010 at 11:54 AM Report abuse
chet said...
All men are created equal in this Country; we do not need a special law for all these little groups of people who have insecurity complexes.
June 24, 2010 at 11:58 AM Report abuse
henryelm said...
chet didn't the supreme court just give corporation ( and unions) cart blanche to advertise up the ying yang!!!PS they get the money VOLUNTARILY from their members. Chet who do you expect unions to contribute money to, that other party that likes to bash them and characterize them useless dreggs of society??? The D's call them VOTERS!!!
June 24, 2010 at 12:00 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
It's called minority rights chet. Read the federalist papers or the constitution or the bill of rights.
June 24, 2010 at 12:02 PM Report abuse
chet said...
Mutt; I do not believe in segregation, I have Black friends. I do not fear or hate gay people, I have gay friends. Just because I do not agree with the ruling or gay marriage does not mean I hate gays, blacks, and minorities. Get a life.
June 24, 2010 at 12:03 PM Report abuse
chet said...
I actually have a friend who is gay and black, so shut up.
June 24, 2010 at 12:11 PM Report abuse
AR5 said...
Chet, focus. This has nothing to do with whether you like blacks, gays, etc. It has to do with the commission upholding the law. We get that you think families that don't look exactly like yours should have less rights. That will change with or without you.
June 24, 2010 at 12:24 PM Report abuse
chet said...
AR5; The only people in this Country with less rights are White Christians. All the other people have special rights and protections.
June 24, 2010 at 12:34 PM Report abuse
AR5 said...
Chet, very, very wrong. Nice try though. Perhaps you have been posted for a while under a different nickname? Again, nobody care how you voted. That isn't what this is about.
June 24, 2010 at 12:42 PM Report abuse
Chew said...
Good ruling. The law is the law regardless of what side of the issue people are on. As far as equality, marriage rights, priviledges, and heartbreaks should apply equally to all who enter into it, regardless of their private plumbing.
June 24, 2010 at 1:07 PM Report abuse
HesterPrynne said...
"chet said... This is not right."_____. Why is this not right? It was the law. They knew it was the law but they chose to NOT obey the law. What is not right about holding them accountable? Another poster on here asked it best. What if an out of state organization came into Maine, raised & spent $1.2 million dollars & successfully made changes AGAINST gun ownership BUT they refused to disclose who that money came from? What if they didn't even want to disclose how much money they raised? Try to think about it from that perspective & see if it changes your opinion. It's the law. They were asked to follow the law & didn't. Should you be able to drive drunk because you think you are an especially good driver even drunk? What if you chose to beat your children or wife, because you think you know what's best for your family? What happens if you get caught fishing without a license? Rules are for a reason. Don't like it, OK. Get it changed. But until it's changed, it's still the law.
June 24, 2010 at 1:16 PM Report abuse
Lee79 said...
Whats left to be said? It is clear that this state if full of bigots that can not see past the tip of there nose let alone look and plan for the future. I say let the homophobes keep there crumby "marriage" word. Just give EVERYONE the same, EQUAL rights. People are born gay, black, white etc. That can not be helped. Also I severed all ties with any "friends" that voted Yes on 1.! Clearly they are no friend of mine if they voted yes!!!
June 24, 2010 at 2:32 PM Report abuse
tenacity said...
nullbrain.........NOM has sued the state in federal and state courts. On June 10, Kennebec County Superior Court Justice Donald Marden granted a stay to NOM that PREVENTS the ethics commission from continuing with the investigation until another court hearing can be held......well that seems to be the normal way to proceed NOT your guilty until proven innocent liberal ways.
June 24, 2010 at 4:01 PM Report abuse
null said...
Really, and how would you know that? To answer your question, if you're going to give money to a campaign, per Maine elections law your rolls have to be open. NOM's aren't. Thus we have a problem. But seriously, dude, why don't you figure out something about the person you're criticizing before you make such rash generalizations. At least my criticisms of you are based on what you're saying.
June 24, 2010 at 4:29 PM Report abuse
Sam said...
The Supreme Court just shot down an attempt by NOM's allies to keep themselves hidden in Washington State in an 8-1 ruling that should pretty much seal the fate of NOM's attempts to put themselves above Maine's disclosure laws. http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/06/24/Supreme_Court_Rules_for_Petition_Disclosure/
June 24, 2010 at 4:58 PM Report abuse
tenacity said...
you're believing your own deception....NOM has not broken any laws..... they did not raise or spend the money they contributed to the YES campaign. Stand for Marriage Maine SPENT and RAISED the money. SFMM filed all necessary paperwork. NOM is listed as a contributor not as the campaigner for YES on ONE thus they provided everything required of them.....but that's not good enough for sore losers so taxpayers are wasting more money on something NOM's lawyers have already preempted. .......................... So are they guilty like you said ... "NOM broke the law and got called on it"...(those are your words).....without a court case....or as I said "you find them guilty until proven innocent"........................ put down the drugs and try to maintain a clear train of thought!
June 24, 2010 at 6:21 PM Report abuse
tenacity said...
The liberal censors are at it again.....too sad.......Sammy, try actually reading..... the ruling was on the 'Petitioners' those who sign the petition to have the referendum, not the donors.....keep hoping though and don't forget to click those ruby slippers of yours
June 24, 2010 at 6:24 PM Report abuse
FlexSF said...
The Catholic Corporation, Evangelical Mega Franchise, and Mormon inc., who've laundered millions of dollars in the NOM, are guilty and have everything to hide. These christianist radical cowards are guilty, and deserve to suffer the maximum penalties under the law!
June 24, 2010 at 8:06 PM Report abuse
tenacity said...
sfu cowards? that's laughable the churches have been upfront that they have put the money where their beliefs are......now you.. not allowing them the due process of law would be the coward!
June 24, 2010 at 8:23 PM Report abuse
Sam said...
Goodness tenacity - Do you stick you fingers in your ears and yell "na-na-na I can't hear you" when people try to talk? That's the impression you give here! The Supreme Court ruling is discussed by legal analysts and is expected to be used as an excellent and VERY pertinent precedent for cases concerning state laws about required disclosure whether it concerns petitions or contributions. It's not ME saying this - it is the legal experts who have analyzed the ruling!
June 24, 2010 at 8:57 PM Report abuse
MEVisitor said...
Hey Teeny!!! Due process of the law? Check some facts....they tried to stop the investigation to even determine guilt or innocence. They have already admitted they don't want to follow the law. Get over it, they are hosed. Poor little mormon boy.
June 24, 2010 at 8:59 PM Report abuse
MEVisitor said...
and, teensy, tell us how you feel about the Ethics Commission ruling on the LePage campaign calls that support gay marriage.
June 24, 2010 at 9:06 PM Report abuse
MEVisitor said...
Awwwww, teeny, can't answer my questions, huh? How shocking. Little mormon boy. Don't worry, you can visit your mormon daddies in prison
June 24, 2010 at 9:36 PM Report abuse
cablegirl said...
Mevisitor, isnt the vacation over ????Time to go back to vermont!!This is a done deal so all you lefties just need to get over it!What a bunch of sore losers.
June 25, 2010 at 7:15 AM Report abuse
JazzBox said...
"It seems to me if this was such a compelling issue for them they would have brought it earlier," said Commission Chairman Walter McKee. "I have no doubt this will be appealed to Superior Court." - From the Article.----------- Funny, I thought only liberals wasted time with the courts?
June 25, 2010 at 7:54 AM Report abuse
YXNkNTY1NjZzZA%3D%3D said...
This forum is a joke. So many replies to censored posts that the thread looks like a moth eaten sweater.
June 25, 2010 at 8:18 AM Report abuse
Nietzsche said...
Bigotry and hate will never win in the long run. Once again the religious right apologists are on the wrong side of the argument.
June 25, 2010 at 10:31 AM Report abuse