The Des Moines Register's Jennifer Jacobs reports that the Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board has voted unanimously to
investigate gay 2012 presidential candidate Fred Karger's complaint against antigay National Organization for Marriage, sugar daddy of
, saying that if the
allegations against it are proven true, the marriage group’s actions
Below: Bob Vander Plaats and Tamara Scott viciously attack Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins in Council Bluffs in 2012 after accusing Wiggins supporters of turning their defense against the Iowa Family Leader's abuse of the Judicial Retention Vote procedure "personal." The attack failed; Iowa voters retained Wiggins, in part due to an unprecedented campaign by the Iowa Bar Association, which sent a truck across Iowa, stopping everywhere NOM/Vander Plaats did, countering their agenda point by point.
for that complaint, in its entirety. Enjoy.
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) violated Iowa
Code Section 68A.404(3)(a)(2) by making independent expenditures in
excess of $750 in Iowa for the purposes of the 2010 judicial retention
election with donations made for the purpose of furthering this specific
independent expenditure without disclosing the source of their funding.
June 12, 2013
Megan Tooker
Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board
510 East 12th Street, Suite 1A
Des Moines, IA 50319
Re: National Organization for Marriage
Dear Mrs. Tooker,
I would like to file a formal complaint against the National
Organization for Marriage (NOM) for violations of Iowa’s campaign laws
in the 2010 and 2012 judicial retention elections. In both campaigns,
NOM engaged in express advocacy without disclosing donors and specific
in-kind contributions made in furtherance of their campaign against
Iowa’s judges.
Complaint One: The National Organization for Marriage (NOM)
violated Iowa Code Section 68A.404(3)(a)(2) by making independent
expenditures in excess of $750 in Iowa for the purposes of the 2010
judicial retention election with donations made for the purpose of
furthering this specific independent expenditure without disclosing the
source of their funding.
The National Organization for Marriage has a long history of refusing
to disclose its donor’s names as required by state and federal law and
NOM is under a nearly four year investigation in Maine for not reporting
the names of its donors after it gave $1.9 million or 2/3 of all the
money raised to pass Question 1 in that state’s November 3, 2009
anti-gay marriage election.
In Maine an organization is required to disclose its contributor’s
names after it raises or spends $5,000 for an election. NOM claimed
that it had the $1.9 million in its general fund, which was not true
after donation records were subpoenaed by the Maine Attorney General, it
was revealed that at least $1.7 million of the money came in to NOM
during the month of October only weeks before the election in three
separate checks; one for $1 million, one for $400,000 and one for
$300,000.
In California where NOM was the largest donor to the Yes on
Proposition 8 campaign in 2008, the California Fair Political Practices
Commission (FPPC) has been investigating NOM’s failure to report
$345,000 for over a year in money it raised to pass Prop 8, that state’s
anti-gay marriage law.
It certainly appears that NOM did exactly the same thing in Iowa in
advance of the November 2, 2010 Supreme Court Judicial Confirmation
Election.
NOM did not even file its first report of the nine it eventually did
file until September 13, 2010, even though it had been working on the
campaign well prior to that date.
NOM’s Iowa filings never listed where it got its money from, which
totaled $635,627.95 in 2010. Just as it did California and Maine during
the two preceding years, it is highly unlikely that NOM had this much
money just sitting in its bank account, but instead raised it
specifically for the campaign it ran and funded to remove three Iowa
Supreme Court Justices from office.
If these funds were raised through calls and emails for the specific
purpose of furthering the removal of Iowa Supreme Court Justices from
office, those donations should have been disclosed to the Iowa Campaign
and Ethics Disclosure Board, and the lack of disclosure is a clear
violation of Iowa Code section 68A.404(3)(a)(2).
Independent Expenditure Filings by NOM (copies attached):
September 13, 2010 $ 235,037.00
October 19, 2010 $ 200,000.00
October 24, 2010 $ 60,000.00
October 24, 2010 $ 20,000.00
October 24, 2010 $ 3,071.00
October 28, 2010 $ 90,000.00
October 28, 2010 $ 6,613.02
October 29, 2010 $ 15,691.39
October 29, 2010 $ 5,215.54
Total $ 635,627.95
Complaint Two: The National Organization for Marriage made
in-kind contributions of time and travel to assist Bob Vander Plaats and
the Family Leader’s “No Wiggins” campaign in their efforts in the 2012
judicial retention election, and did not disclose those in-kind
donations in violation of Iowa Code Chapter 68A.201A.
NOM’s Unreported Involvement in the 2010 Iowa Judicial Retention Election
August 11 2012 Brian Brown, the President of the National
Organization for Marriage flew to Iowa to be at the Iowa Retention
Campaign Kickoff and announced NOM would match up to $100,000 in
donations for the retention campaign:
http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2012/08/iowans-for-freedom-initiative-launched-to-unseat-judge-david-wiggins/
- NOM did not report Brian Brown’s travel to and participation the Iowa Retention Campaign Kickoff.
August 13, 2012, The National Organization for Marriage’s
official blog, NOMBlog, begins to campaign against Justice Wiggins: NOM
Pledges $100,000 to Defeat Pro-SSM Iowa Judge.
http://www.nomblog.com/26874/
- How much does NOM pay a staff member to blog?
- How many readers does NOM’s blog usually receive?
- Why did NOM not report the in-kind contributions for this Anti-Wiggins communication on their official blog?
September 7, 2012: The National Organization for Marriage
posted Brian Brown’s speech at the No Wiggins Kickoff on its official
YouTube page video about judicial retention
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUY5RBZ1tN4&list=UUymdt3zjrVFXztmhlsVQNMQ&index=38
- How much did NOM pay for the equipment and the videotaping of this video?
- There are multiple camera angles and the ending has been edited. How much did NOM pay for the editing of this video?
- This is a campaign communication that has been viewed by thousands of people, how much would that cost in in-kind contributions?
September 21, 2012: The National Organization for Marriage
sent an email to all its members, communicating the need “to oust Judge
Wiggins” and asks for members help to oust Judge Wiggins. (email
attached to this complaint)
”In Iowa, we’ve helped launch the “No Wiggins Bus”, as the Sioux City Journal recently noted.
Our special thanks go out to Sen. Rick Santorum and Gov. Bobby Jindal
for joining the effort to oust Judge Wiggins, one of the Iowa judges who
voted to impose gay marriage on the people of Iowa without their
consent!
… “The judiciary’s usurpation of authority in recent years is
completely unacceptable,” Santorum said in a statement. “It is obviously
clear the people’s Constitution gives the judicial branch the least
power, and yet these appointed judges continuously legislate from the
bench whether it is gay marriage in Iowa, collective bargaining in
Wisconsin, or resulting in the death of millions of lives caused by the
opinion of Roe v. Wade.”
The “No Wiggins” bus tour—sponsored by CitizenLink, Patriot Voices,
the Family Leader, the National Organization for Marriage and
CatholicVote.org—seeks to mobilize opposition among Iowa voters to oust
Wiggins.
You will remember that in 2010 the first three judges who invented a
right to gay marriage in the Iowa Constitution came up for election—and
for the first time in history, Iowa voters turned out all three! It
will be a tougher battle this time, as pro-gay marriage money will swarm
the state. But with God’s help, and yours, we will stay in this fight,
too—and win!”
- The National Organization for Marriage claims to have more than 2
million members. How much does a campaign email to more than 2 million
individuals cost?
- How many of NOM’s email list members are Iowa voters?
- Why did the National Organization for Marriage not report the in-kind contribution for this email to its millions of members?
September 23, 2012: The National Organization for Marriage was
a part of the No Wiggins bus tour which began on September 24. NOM did
not report its involvement in the Iowa bus tour until September 26.
http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2012/09/santorum-jindal-join-iowans-for-freedom-on-no-wiggins-bus-tour/
- When did Brian Brown and other NOM staff members actually arrive in Iowa?
- When did Brian Brown and other NOM staff members actually purchase tickets to Iowa?
- When did NOM pay for its involvement in the No Wiggins bus tour?
September 27 2012: The Official National Organization for
Marriage official YouTube page uploaded a video of Louisiana Governor
Bobby Jindal urging voters to vote against Justice Wiggins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwB6HkE8wBA&feature=player_embedded
- How much did NOM pay for the equipment and the videotaping of this video?
- How much did NOM pay for the editing of this video?
- This is a campaign communication that has been viewed by thousands of people, how much would that cost in in-kind contributions?
September 29, 2012: The official National Organization for
Marriage Blog, NOMBlog, posts updates about the No Wiggins campaign and
includes the video they made of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal urging
voters to vote out Justice Wiggins. The Blog post includes this
official legal language: “Paid for by National Organization for
Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC, Brian Brown,
President. Not authorized by any candidate, candidate’s committee, or
ballot issue committee.”
http://www.nomblog.com/28641/
- How much does NOM pay a staff member to write this blog?
- How many readers does NOM’s blog usually receive?
- Why did NOM not report the in-kind contributions for this Anti-Wiggins communication on their official blog?
October 1, 2012: The Official National Organization for
Marriage official YouTube page uploaded a video of NOM President Brian
Brown urging voters to vote against Justice Wiggins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S5snnTQepQ&list=UUymdt3zjrVFXztmhlsVQNMQ&index=32
- How much did NOM pay for the equipment and the videotaping of this video?
- How much did NOM pay for the editing of this video?
- This is a campaign communication that has been viewed by thousands of people, how much would that cost in in-kind contributions?
October 10, 2012: The National Organization for Marriage
created this “Best of No Wiggins Reel” and uploaded it to its official
blog. After the video, it clearly states that this video is “Paid for
by National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300,
Washington, DC, Brian Brown, President. Not authorized by any candidate,
candidate’s committee, or ballot issue committee.”
http://www.nomblog.com/29136/
- How much did NOM pay for the equipment and the videotaping of this video?
- How much did NOM pay for the editing of this video?
- This video contains a pop/country song. How much did the National
Organization for Marriage pay for the rights to use this song in its
video?
- This is a campaign communication that has been viewed by thousands of people, how much would that cost in in-kind contributions?
November 6, 2012: The National Organization for Marriage sends
an email to all its members explicitly telling them to Vote No on
Wiggins: “In Iowa, vote NO on retaining pro-gay marriage Judge David
Wiggins” (email attached to this complaint)
- The National Organization for Marriage claims to have more than 2
million members. How much does a campaign email to more than 2 million
individuals cost?
- How many of NOM’s email list members are Iowa voters?
- Why did the National Organization for Marriage not report the in-kind contribution for this email to its millions of members?
Each of these activities appears to constitute an in-kind
contribution to Bob Vander Plaats’ and the Family Leader’s “No Wiggins”
campaign that were not reported to the Iowa Campaign and Ethics
Disclosure Board in violation of Iowa Code Chapter 68A.201A.
I respectfully request a thorough investigation into NOM’s activities
in the 2010 and 2012 Iowa judicial retention election, including a
detailed accounting of any and all in-kind contributions made, and the
specific funding sources thereof.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
___________________________________
Fred Karger