Monday, October 1, 2012

Initial Complaint to Minnesota Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board

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.

Moreover, 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 $15,515.

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.

If 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 then they 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

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.