This is what having the courage to stand up for your LGBT children looks like:
And here's Sean Chapin, taking apart the latest Yes on 1 ad:
Sean mentions Stand for Marriage Maine's Facebook page. Head over and check it out in order to appreciate the kind of folks who're really driving the Yes on One campaign. Try leaving a comment and then wait to see how long it stays up before getting deleted.
And finally, here's a photo from the boisterous Yes on 1 rally that Bob Emrich led over in Brewster, Maine yesterday:
All seventeen attendees came away totally energized and ready to roll.
A group of Maine businesspeople announced their support on Friday for same sex marriage.
The newly formed coalition, Maine Businesspeople For Marriage Equality, says that along with being the right thing to do, upholding the same sex marriage law will provide Maine with a powerful economic development tool.
Former Labor Commissioner Valerie Landry says Maine needs to do more to keep it's young people here and to attract other young workers to the state. She says the same sex marriage law will help do just that.
"When high wage companies consider where to locate they look for a place that has a workforce that is plentiful, well educated and diverse. Protecting same sex marriage will send a powerful signal that we welcome a diverse workforce. Repealing the law will say the opposite and create yet another economic barrier for Maine," says Landry.
Watch the hit job the Yes on 1 camp is trying to get away with in their latest ad:
I could write a dozen posts explaining why and how I know that Monique Hoeflinger is not a liar, but that's not what needs to happen.
Yes on 1 has leveled a serious accusation. Monique is more than capable of responding in person to this slur in a public forum. Is the Yes on 1 side up to the task of defending their ugly charge?
I challenge any representative of the Yes on 1 campaign to a public debate with Monique. As Americans, we all have the right to face our accusers.
We already know everything there is to know about same-sex marriage.
Arguments against same-sex marriage:
(1) Marriage is an institution defined historically as the union between one man and one woman. (2) Children are optimally cared for in homes with a mother and a father. (3) The purpose of marriage is procreation and societal stability. (4) Same-sex marriage is an untested and dangerous social experiment. (5) Same-sex marriage is part of a slippery slope to universal depravity. (6) Gay relationships themselves are immoral.
Arguments against the arguments against same-sex marriage:
(1) You don't have a bit of evidence for any of that, and (2) Please, quit being a jerk.
And if you're a Yes on 1 voter who finds yourself mystified regarding what I mean when I call you a jerk, please go read this post.
And whether you deign to follow that link or not, I trust you will listen to Philip's full remarks and weigh in below with a rebuttal explaining why you're not a jerk.
Because, as far as I can tell, if you're in favor of a Yes vote on Maine's Question 1, all that's left to ask is: On what planet are you not a jerk?
That used to be an invisible link to NOM's 2008 return. It's dead now.
But it was live when I first posted it, and soon after I did, NOM (finally) posted their 2007 and 2008 returns in plain sight on their own website.
Interestingly enough, the 2007 return they've posted there differs from the 2007 return I previously received from the IRS. For example, they have removed Common Sense America from the list of hired contractors in this latest version of their 2007 return.
What happened? Did they suddenly realize (in 2009!) that they hadn't actually paid Common Sense America $166,000 back in 2007 as previously reported?
Glaring discrepancies aside, is it SOP for a 501(c)(4) to file four different versions of the same return before finally making it public? Of course not. But that is exactly what NOM have done with their 2007 Form 990: one initial filing, three amended, none made public by NOM until now.
Absent an explanation regarding the disappearance of two highly-paid contractors from NOM's latest amended 2007 return, the time has come to stop carefully referring to the members of this confusing quartet as "initial" or "amended" and start applying the simpler and more accurate "fraudulent" to describe this bewildering bunch of 2007 returns.
Moving on to their 2008 return ... I enjoyed this snarky quip from Justin McLachlan: "How did [NOM] spend most of that money? Well, $2.1 million went to something they call 'all other expense.' How's that for disclosure and transparency?"
Of course, it's no secret that most of NOM's 2008 expenditures went to the Prop 8 battle, considering that NOM was the outfit that paid to get Prop 8 on the ballot in the first place. This is why NOM's fundraising and spending skyrocketed in 2008 compared to 2007. California is no "cheap date" (signature-gathering is a massive - and massively-expensive - undertaking in that huge state). This is also the main reason I'm highly skeptical of NOM's $7 million 2009 budget forecast (as reported by Brian Brown to the Maine authorities in this sworn statement). There is simply no comparable battle on the horizon in NOM's world that would require anything like the monies raised and spent during 2008's Prop 8 contest. As you peruse NOM's 2008 Form 990 below, please note that they finished 2008 with $78K cash on hand. In other words, this organization with a purported 2009 budget of $7,000,000 started the year with $78,000.
Which is why I suspect that all of Brian Brown and Barry Bostrom's talk about paying Iowa and Maine expenses out of NOM's general fund has been just that: talk.
And why I also suspect that one of the first things the Maine investigators are going to discover is that Brian's 2009 budget forecast was a calculated lie.
Why lie? Here's why: NOM needed to swear to an inflated $7 million figure in order to make their six-digit Maine expenditures look small by comparison. Otherwise, Maine law is clear: if NOM are allocating a substantial portion of their budget to a Maine ballot question, they absolutely must register as a Maine PAC.
It is now October 2009. If Brian was telling the truth in his September 2009 sworn affidavit to the Maine commission, he can prove it by confirming his year-to-date fundraising total. Considering that he began the year with $78K, Brian should by now have raised nearly $6.9 million. Has he?
The Maine investigators have subpoena power. I would suggest that there is no reason to delay asking Brian Brown this simple question under oath: What is the dollar amount of NOM's total contributions received so far in 2009?
A simple question and one that any executive director worth $130K/year ought to be able to answer off the top of his head.
In any case, enough of that. On to the actual 2008 return itself:
I'm waiting to hear from the commenter who tipped me off to this as to whether or not s/he'd like to be publicly credited. Thank you, Jack Tyler!!
Looking forward to reading what others notice in NOM's 2008 tax return.
P.S. My Thursday flashback:
By the way, Brian and his attorneys (Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom) are up in Maine today. Maybe some intrepid blogger can catch up with Brian there (at the meeting of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices to consider Fred Karger's request for an investigation of the S4MM PAC re violations of state campaign finance laws).
And let's hear it for the commissioners, too (three, to be exact): Bravo!
P.P.S. For those readers interested in hearing Brian Brown's side of this story before making your own determination, you may schedule a tête-à-tête with Brian by contacting Elizabeth Ray (x.130) or Mary Beth Hutchins (x.105) at 703-683-5004.
P.P.P.S. It's not harassment, Brian. It's curiosity. And you have only yourself to blame for stoking it.
NOM's Brian Brown besieged after the recent Maine Ethics Commission hearing:
Photo credit: Danielle Truszkovsky
CAH's Fred Karger elated after the recent Maine Ethics Commission hearing:
The numbers are encouraging, but it's that 9% undecided that will determine this race. The investment of our supporters has allowed us to get on TV before our opponents and counter every lie they have tossed at us.
Tonight at midnight is the end of the third quarter and all of you politicos know what that means: we will need to turn in our fundraising report.
Our campaign will be judged on the strength or weakness of this report.
Your help today is crucial to keep our campaign knocking on doors, calling voters and airing our television ads. Can we double the $4,733 raised on the Orange to Blue page?
When this report comes out, the media will turn their focus toward us to see if we're financially strong enough to win this election. It's extremely important that we demonstrate that the NO on 1 campaign has strong support. As Maine voters begin turning out to the polls during the early voting period, it's important that the story coming out about the campaign is positive and shows momentum.
From the beginning, we knew we'd be waging an uphill battle against the millions of dollars being poured into our opposition's campaign by national anti-equality groups. However, every time they've attacked marriage equality, our campaign has been able to respond to their lies and misinformation, and reinforce our message of respect and fairness for all Maine families. But we can't keep doing that without your help. Let's double the $4,733 already raised on Orange to Blue.
As we had seen in California, the No on Prop 8 campaign was ahead in September, too -- by as much as 14 points. But it was those undecided voters who ended up delivering victory to the anti-equality Yes on 8 campaign.
We aren't going to let that happen, but we need the resources to execute our campaign plan.
But to Maine's same-sex couples---many who've been together for decades and/or are raising families---it's much more than that. It's an elevation from second-class status to equal status. It's official recognition by the state that gay spouses and their families deserve the same benefits, services and protections across the board as straight spouses so they can more easily navigate life's little (and not so little) twists and turns. And, dammit, it's about being given the opportunity to summon the courage it takes to join the institution of marriage with all its obligations and responsibilities. This stuff about gay people wanting to "redefine" marriage is horse hockey.
Posts
