National Organization For Marriage - Disclosure Violation Allegations

Disclosure Violation Allegations

In 2009, Californians Against Hate (CAH) filed a formal complaint with the IRS against NOM, saying that NOM had refused to make its IRS 990 forms public, as required by law. CAH representatives went to "the Princeton, New Jersey, offices of the National Organization for Marriage twice to get copies of their IRS 990 reports, to no avail," said CAH's president, Fred Karger. "Then our representative, Ben Katzenberg, sent two certified letters to the NOM office on March 18, 2009, requesting its two 990 forms. Federal law requires NOM to furnish copies of these IRS filings within 30 days after the request has been received. And 40 days later, still no 990s." NOM has since posted 990 forms for 2007 and 2008 on their website.

In March 2009, Karger filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission alleging that the National Organization for Marriage was established by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in order to direct church funds toward the passage of Proposition 8. A church spokesman and NOM's then-president Maggie Gallagher both denied the allegations.

Accusations by Karger also lead the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices to schedule consideration of an investigation. Maine laws require organizations that solicit more than $5,000 for a ballot question campaign to file disclosure reports. NOM contributed $1.6 million to Stand For Marriage Maine as of October 23, 2009, without filing any disclosure reports. The commission approved an investigation on a 3–2 vote, overriding the recommendation of their staff. NOM responded by filing suit, claiming that the state's election laws violate the Constitution. NOM, arguing that their lawsuit was likely to succeed, sought a federal restraining order to avoid having to provide donor names before the date of the balloting, which U.S. District Court Judge David Brock Hornby denied. In January 2010, representatives of the group were subpoenaed to appear before the commission. In February, the group requested that those subpoenas be dropped, but the commission voted unanimously to deny that request. On May 23, 2010, Magistrate Judge John H. Rich III of the U.S. District Court of Maine ordered NOM to submit bank statements and similar documentation, covering the dates from January 1, 2009 forward, to Maine's Commission on Government Ethics and Election Practices within seven days. On June 24, 2010, the commission rejected NOM's claim that the commission lacked appropriate authority and should cease its investigation. In February 2011, Hornby issued a summary judgment ruling that Maine's disclosure law was valid, a decision NOM appealed and lost in August 2011. In September 2011, the federal court denied NOM's request to have the case reheard, and in February 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court rejected NOM's request to hear the case. In January 2012, NOM lost another federal appeal on a different aspect of their Maine case, but said that they would take that issue to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on October 1, 2012. After hearing arguments on April 11, 2013, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court on May 30 affirmed the lower court ruling and rejected NOM's challenge to the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Elections Practices's subpoenas.

In Iowa, the organization faces accusations from the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa Action Fund and One Iowa that it has failed to properly disclose its contributors. NOM's efforts in that state included spending $86,060 on the failed state House of Representatives campaign of Stephen Burgmeier.

NOM executive director Brown has stated that the group does not release donor names to prevent donor intimidation by proponents of same-sex marriage. The group used that argument in an unsuccessful lawsuit seeking to exempt them from California's disclosure laws, losing with each hearing so far.