 |
| James Bopp, Jr. |
The Iowa Independent had this to say:
Even before the final ruling on Citizens United, however, Bopp had begun new campaigns into election law and specifically chose to represent predominantly anti-gay, socially conservative groups who wished to hide the donors that funded their political activities. His firm — Bopp, Coleson and Bostrom — has represented such groups in Iowa, California and Maine, petitioning that laws which require the groups to form Political Action Committees (PACs) and disclose their donors are unconstitutional. Many anticipate that the questions presented by Bopp and his associates in such cases will also be eventually heard before the nation’s high court.On December 10, Maine's Free Press reported:
Bopp... represents the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). Last year NOM gave nearly $2 million to the committee that was working to repeal the same-sex marriage law that had been passed by Maine's legislature. NOM challenged Maine's law that requires any group that spends over $5,000 to influence a ballot question vote to disclose donors who gave more than $100 and is challenging Maine's disclosure rules for political action committees. The court has ruled that the "influence" standards are unconstitutionally vague, but that, otherwise, Maine's laws governing PACs, independent campaign expenditures and attribution requirements are constitutional.Read the ruling here; names from Bopp's law firm are all over it.
Common Cause and Public Campaign commissioned a report by Klein Research Services dated October 25, 2010. It devastatingly exposes James Bopp Jr. Its title?
The Man Behind our Secret Elections: James Bopp Jr.
New Report Examines Radical Activist and His Drive
to Dismantle Election Laws.
New Report Examines Radical Activist and His Drive
to Dismantle Election Laws.
In the report is a collection of outrageously creepy assertions called The Quotable Bopp.
Campaign-finance reform, I consider mainly a slogan. I believe that this court, if pushed, would be willing to dump all campaign-finance regulations. [Gannett News Service, June 28, 2007]Lurleen at Pam's House Blend has been on to this man's modus operandi for some time:
I'm a guy that specializes in loopholes. [New York Sun, May 9, 2008]
We had a 10-year plan to take all this down. If we do it right, I think we can pretty well dismantle the entire regulatory regime that is called campaign finance law. ... We have been awfully successful and we are not done yet. [New York Times, January 25, 2010]
Groups have to be relieved of reporting their donors if lifting the prohibition on their political speech is going to have any meaning [New York Times, January 25, 2010]
The problem is having to file a report at all. To be regulated at all. To be accountable to the government at all. [Washington Independent, February 3, 2010]
NOM and friends have been pursuing a two-prong agenda. These groups are using anti-LGBT political campaigns as a vehicle to challenge the public disclosure and campaign finance laws. The pattern that has emerged is this: They attack LGBT civil rights via referenda/initiatives or by backing anti-LGBT candidates or attacking pro-equality candidates, but they refuse to divulge the identities of their petition signers or campaign donors. Then, when pressed for the information that law-abiding organizations provide, they sue the state to challenging the law.
The lawsuits they file are purely challenges to campaign finance and public disclosure laws and are not in any way "LGBT cases". But because they oppose equal rights for LGBT Americans and oppose any campaign regulations or public disclosure requirements, NOM often launches their lawsuits off of controversy they create with their campaigns attacking LGBT rights or pro-equality candidates. NOM & friends work hard to cloud their real intent in the public's eye. They conflate the vehicles for their cases with the goal of their cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment