Tuesday, August 13, 2013

NOM Launches Bizarre Attack Against Iowa Ethics Board Chair

Brian Brown compares Megan Tooker to Judge Vaughn Walker. Calls Ms. Tooker a liar.

I am sure that there are better ways to raise money than pissing off the people investigating your activities. In an email blast and blog post, Brown implores his base; Don't Let Iowa be the Next California.

I am guessing that NOM is strapped for cash. Over the years, they have relied on just a handful of donors. Any one of them pulling the plug leaves NOM insolvent. Nevertheless, Brian Brown has come unglued.

Drat, National Organization for Marriage has been victimized — again!
Dear Marriage Supporter,

Last Friday I told you about the witch hunt in Iowa initiated by a homosexual activist whose sole goal is to silence NOM and people like yourself from standing up in public for the truth of God's design for marriage. If you have not been able to give an emergency donation to help us fight this frivolous complaint, please do so today because the story is even more outrageous than even we realized.

Get this: Megan Tooker, Chief Executive and General Counsel for the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board — the very person charged with conducting a fair and impartial investigation into the complaint — worked for Supreme Court Justice Michael Streit, one of the judges we helped remove from office during the 2010 judicial retention campaign!
"Witch hunt?" This is the same crap that they pulled in Maine. They lost that case and yet continue to refuse to obey a court order to turn over donor records. The vote of the Iowa Ethics Board to further investigate the issue was unanimous. Yes, Ms. Cooper clerked for Justice Streit out of law school. So what? NOM's trial counsel, Charles Cooper, clerked for William Rehnquist. So did Chief Justice John Roberts. Oh my!
Talk about an apparent conflict of interest. ... Ms. Tooker has revealed her deep bias and animosity by declaring, without seeing any evidence in the case, that NOM is "absolutely false" and "absolutely wrong" in its position. Worse, she has blatantly lied to the public and media by misrepresenting our views on what must be disclosed under Iowa campaign finance laws. Her impertinent behavior is an attempt to poison the well of public opinion against NOM before anyone reviews the actual evidence.
What's missing is a bit of hyperbole to drive the point home. First of all, no evidence is required for Ms. Tooker to have arrived at the conclusion that NOM's understanding of state campaign finance laws was incorrect. It was on that basis that the board voted to continue the investigation. To suggest that a difference in legal views means that Ms. Tooker "blatantly lied" is not only absurd but counter-productive.

Finally, the notion that this has anything to do with public opinion is moronic. Either NOM complied with the law or they did not. My understanding is that, if you bundle donations, those individual donors must be disclosed. The amount involved in this matter is roughly $650,000. NOM's cash positions at the end of 2010 and 2011 were $16 thousand and $63 thousand respectively. The matter warrants further investigation.

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.