Just how much money is NOM's chairman taking out of NOM in fees?

The Ever Creepy
John Eastman

John Eastman, chairman of National Organization for Marriage seems to be everywhere these days. Among other things he is representing NOM in their suit against the IRS. He personally deposed Fred Karger. He has been in Oregon fighting a futile effort to intervene in Oregon's marriage equality litigation. Eastman is battling in Maine as well; contesting a proposed fine in excess of $50,000 for violation of the state's campaign finance disclosure laws.

Just yesterday we learned that Eastman has filed a brief with the US Supreme Court to stay Oregon's marriage decision. Given that Justice Kennedy is responsible for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that is also likely to be a futile enterprise. Is his meter always running on behalf of NOM? One wonders what other legal endeavors Eastman has been involved in for his new best client? He hasn't demonstrated much success.

His activities do beg some questions:

1. Eastman is primarily known as an academic. Is he really NOM's best choice for counsel? Does he even have the staff to support all of this litigation?
2. Without a substantial law practice, is he litigating issues that should not be contested while clocking up legal fees?  In Brian Brown he has an untrained and inexperienced manager that he can exploit.
3. What protects NOM's donors from getting fleeced? After all, this is a clear conflict of interest. It's also a conflict that NOM has not publicly addressed.

It wouldn't be the first time that Eastman indulged in self-serving activity. In 2009, when he was the dean of Chapman University's law school, Eastman recruited his good buddy John Yoo as a visiting law professor. Yoo, is best known for drafting the so-called torture memos when he was an assistant AG in the Bush Office of Legal Counsel.

In 2010 Eastman ran a failed campaign for California attorney general. Eastman tried to dupe voters by being listed as “assistant attorney general” or “special assistant attorney general” in campaign materials and on the Republican primary ballot. Eastman has never been an assistant AG in California — or anywhere else for that matter. His excuse was that he was acting as outside counsel for South Dakota's Attorney General.


Why would anyone expect Eastman to act in the best interests of NOM's non-profit corporations? For Eastman conservatism seems to cease when other people's money is involved.

Related articles

• NOM's John Eastman lies - again
• NOM's latest "Poor Us" - NOM v US, IRS
• NOM vows to file appeal re denial of right to intervene in Oregon
• Having Lost Effectiveness NOM is Trying for Relevance
• NOM's Brown is aptly named
• Hasn't NOM wasted enough taxpayer money?