Just today the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from National Organization for Marriage after it tried to thwart Maine’s campaign
disclosure law requiring it to release its donor list. Well, they are doing the same crap again     this time in Minnesota. Shocking, I know.  I have traded some emails with the campaign board and the latest one follows. It is most unfortunate that this is done so late in the cycle. It is more unfortunate that the holier than thou NOM continues to skirt reporting requirements. I am just getting started:

The campaign finance report filed by Minn Family Council Marriage
Protection Fund follows my complaint:

There are three entities involved.
According to campaign reports and reports filed with the IRS, the CEO
of all three is John Helmberger thus they are related entities under
common control. The three entities are:

  1. Minn Family Council Marriage
    Protection Fund, a campaign committee, registration number 50039

  2. Minnesota Family Council, a
    501(c)3, EIN 41-1863170 (“MFC”)

  3. Minnesota Family Institute, a
    501(c)3, EIN 41-1439560 (“MFI”)

For the period ended September 18, 2012
– the campaign committee reports total contributions of $293,836.
$268,835 of that (or 91.5%) came from MFC The remainder came from
just four donors.

Additional receipts of $156,839 came from
MFI or MFC (more on that transaction later).Therefore, $425,675 of
the total of $450,675 or 94% of receipts came from a related entity.
I would argue that MFI and MFC were, in effect, unregistered
campaign committees
free of reporting requirements.

A. The sole purpose of Minn Family
Council Marriage Protection Fund is to obscure and frustrate
reporting requirements.

kindly consider the financial position of the committee as of June
12, 2012.

As of
June 12, the committee claims to have donations of $141,294 plus a
loan repayment of $123,547 from MFI for a total of $264,841. They
claim a disbursement of 113,364 on June 12 for “various allocated
overhead” to MFC and a contribution to Minnesota for marriage of
$150,000. Expense disbursements for the period ended June 12 were

B. The numbers don’t add up. They
claim to have disbursed $14,038 more than they received.

C. With a zero balance at the
beginning of the reporting period, at no time did they ever have the
funds to have loaned $123,547 to MFI.

you look at Schedule A2, Miscellaneous Income, there is an alternate
explanation due to name ambiguity. This could be a donation from MFC
from the proceeds of a loan repayment by MFI. In that case, why is
this reported on Schedule A2 rather than schedule A1? The source of
MFC’s funds is irrelevant to this report. If that’s the case thenthey are trying to obfuscate the concentration of receipts
from related entities under common control in order to skirt
reporting requirements

After June 12, there are similar
payments to MFC, disbursements to Minn. for Marriage and loan
“repayments” from MFI. Similar economic logic applies. Confining
this to the period ended June 12 simplifies the issues.

Minn Family Council Marriage Protection Campaign Finance Report

Enhanced by Zemanta

By David Cary Hart

Retired CEO. Formerly a W.E. Deming-trained quality-management consultant. Now just a cranky Jewish queer. Gay cis. He/Him/His.