Connect with us

NOM’s ‘Dirty Money’ And Dirty Tactics Revealed In Shocking New Exposé

Published

on

NOM, the National Organization For Marriage, is accused of skirting campaign finance laws, money-laundering, and being funded by literally a handful of major donors, according to a new, extensive, and shocking exposé by E.J. Graff at The Advocate. In “Dirty Money,” Graff points to NOM’s increasingly harsher rhetoric, greater willingness to attack homosexuality and LGBT people, totuting its ability to protect donors’ identities, and state-by-state lawsuits attempting to overturn financial disclosure laws.

“In internal documents (which came to light because of a lawsuit that NOM brought against campaign finance disclosure, NOM v. McKee), NOM wrote, ‘One key advantage we now have is the capacity to protect the identity of our donors,’” Graff reports.

“NOM puts its hundreds of thousands of dollars into state campaigns in ways that protect its donors from being identified,” Graff writes:

Its campaign finance philosophy is that the best defense is a good offense: With the help of James Bopp, the lawyer who brought the notorious Citizens United lawsuit to the Supreme Court, NOM has repeatedly launched lawsuits arguing that states’ campaign reporting laws are unconstitutional efforts to chill free speech, even though it has just as repeatedly lost.

Watching NOM closely is Fred Karger, a gay California Republican who believes that NOM is a secret cabal actively conspiring to undermine campaign finance laws. Karger writes to state election commissions to convince them of the same. At Karger’s prompting, California, Maine, and Minnesota are investigating NOM’s campaign finance tactics.

Each year, according to NOM’s tax filings, two or three donors give NOM between $1 million and $3.5 million apiece; another two or three give between $100,000 and $750,000; and 10 or so others give between $5,000 and $95,000. In 2009 the top five donors made up three fourths of NOM’s budget; in 2010 the top two donors gave two thirds of the year’s total donations; and in 2011 the top two donors gave three fourths of NOM’s total income. But those funders’ identities are a mystery. Their names are redacted on NOM’s federal tax returns. Under federal campaign laws, none of those names have to be disclosed.

But if, as Karger alleges, those donors are actually using NOM as a way to contribute to state issue campaigns, that would be illegal. The states in which NOM runs campaigns (via locally registered groups) require donors to publicly disclose their names and addresses and sometimes their employers. The allegation is that NOM establishes state campaign organizations against marriage equality as pass-through groups, with local partners that do little. NOM solicits major donations from its large contributors for these campaigns and donates to the local fights so that NOM, not the individual, will be listed as the donor. If true, that’s fraud and “financial structuring,” the technical term for money laundering. (Calls to the four state organizations asking for comment were not returned.)

And then there’s the matter of just how unhinged and on-edge NOM president Brian Brown appears:

When asked why so many more people were willing to be listed as donors to the marriage equality campaigns than to the other side, Brown was impatient and exploded with anger at how LGBT extremists — condoned, in his view, by the marriage equality movement at large — attacked his side with “a campaign of intimidation, hatred, and attacking donors.” Gay extremists, he said, are attempting to “punish people…for exercising their First Amendment rights to speak up and stand for what they believe in, to donate to what they believe in…. They want to hurt people. They want to hurt people! Put that in the article! They want to hurt people!”

When questioned on this, Brown became ever more emphatic. “I don’t think you understand the reality that donors on our side get death threats, I don’t think you understand the reality that it’s not a joke when a guy [Floyd Lee Corkins] comes into the Family Research Council with a gun, I don’t think you understand that creating an environment in which it’s OK to demean human beings because of their views is wrong. I can respect people and I support their constitutional right to give and to support their position to advance gay marriage. What we are asking for is the same respect. And at this point we are not getting it.”

And then comes the truth that NOM is really not willing to publicly promote, but that sits at the heart of the anti-gay organization:

The head of NOM’s nonprofit educational arm, the Ruth Institute, Jennifer Roback Morse, promotes her stance with a prominent article headlined “Why Opposing the Gay Lobby Is Not Antigay.”

However, since Maggie Gallagher ceased being NOM’s board chair, the Ruth Institute has skated over the edge of being actively antigay. Last year Carlos Maza of Equality Matters attended the Ruth Institute’s annual training program for “emerging leaders” in how to talk about marriage and LGBT issues. He writes, “What I saw at the conference — selling a book that labels gay people as pedophiles worthy of death, distributing Bible quotes to college students similarly calling for gays to be killed, hosting entire speeches devoted to condemning gays and lesbians as deviant sinners — represented a brand of antigay extremism that I assumed even NOM would have shied away from.” He listened to a lecture from antigay author Robert A.J. Gagnon announcing that homosexuality was “self-degrading,” inflicts “measurable harm,” is unhealthy, emotionally dangerous, unacceptable to God, and leads to depression, substance abuse, and disease. The weekend, Maza writes, taught “that gays and lesbians — including me — are unstable, dangerous, and unworthy of raising their own families.” The reading list included materials saying that lesbians and gay men are in a “rebellion against God,” that our relationships are inherently “unstable, unhealthy, and promiscuous,” and relying on such discredited authors as George Gilder and Paul Cameron.

Graff notes an important point, one with which we agree: since Gallagher’s supposed resignation, NOM has become increasingly hate-filled and “religious” — and it seems clear Brian Brown is, if not the cause, at the very least the messenger.

Graff’s article in The Advocate is important and one that many need to read. For all those who think this is a simple case of differences of opinion in the culture wars, Graff proves it’s anything but.

 

Image of dollar bills by Revisorweb via Wikimedia

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Red State Democrats Sound 2026 Warning Over ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’

Published

on

Democratic candidates running in red states and hoping to flip districts are warning against “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” the president’s and his supporters’ name for reflexive anti-Trump sentiment.

“Arguing about Donald Trump, somebody people voted for probably three times, isn’t going to be very conducive to getting things accomplished or reaching some common ground,” Kansas farmer and veterinarian Don Coover, challenging an incumbent GOP congressman in a deep-red district, told Bloomberg Government. Coover “said his party has to dial back the national rhetoric if it wants to compete in Trump-friendly places.”

Andrew Sneed, who is challenging a GOP incumbent congressman in a deep red Alabama district, told Bloomberg, “If we make this election about President Trump in my district and in districts like this around the country, we’re going to lose.”

Democrats hope to retake the House majority, and have targeted 25 GOP-held seats.

U.S. Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) urged Democrats to focus on the issues, such as affordability, and not on Donald Trump.

“It’s less about him than the fact that he’s not paying attention to the issue of affordability,” Suozzi told Bloomberg. “It’s not about Trump. It’s not about Trump derangement syndrome, and it’s not about his sometimes interesting behavior. It’s about policies that affect peoples’ lives.”

U.S. Rep. Laura Gillen, a vulnerable New York Democrat who is being targeted by the House GOP’s campaign arm, “said she is focused on touting her bipartisan work across the aisle, keeping Trump’s name at bay.”

“My messaging has been focused on what I am doing to try and make life more affordable,” Gillen told Bloomberg. “I ran for Congress and said I’d work with anyone from any party to get things done.”

Some warn that campaigning against Trump directly could backfire, especially should the president’s low approval numbers rebound.

Bloomberg notes that Republicans are targeting 29 Democrats, including 23 incumbents who represent voters in districts Trump won.

Democratic incumbents and candidates have stated their messaging plainly. The Republican National Committee is  accusing them of “TDS.”

“Voters want secure borders, lower prices, safer communities, and a strong economy, not Trump Derangement Syndrome,” RNC spokesperson Kiersten Pels said in a statement. “Americans are seeing through the Democrats’ tired strategy of attacking and vilifying President Trump and his supporters.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

Can America Stage a ‘Remarkable Comeback’ After Trump’s ‘Bread and Circuses’: Kristol

Published

on

Do Trump’s “humiliating loss to Iran” and his White House cage fight signal a nation in free fall? Or the moment America wakes up and fights back? Those are the questions The Bulwark’s Bill Kristol is asking.

“The coincidence yesterday of the announcement of an agreement on a deal and the cage match at the White House has led to much discussion of imperial decadence, and of our entering an age of bread and circuses,” writes Kristol in “Bread and Capitulation.” He says that the Roman Empire lasted 80 years after the advent of “bread and circuses,” but warns that “things seem to move faster these days. Our decline shows every likelihood of being far quicker and more thorough than Rome’s.”

Kristol points to The Atlantic‘s Tom Nichols, who analyzed the deal that is expected to end the Iran war.

“The United States has little to celebrate: Trump and his team, in record time, just lost a war to a militarily mediocre—but nonetheless extremely dangerous—adversary,” Nichols wrote. “It is clear that Trump has failed to achieve every one of the goals he put forward for this war of choice, and now he is determined to sign, seal, and deliver America’s capitulation as quickly as possible.”

Iran, says Kristol, “comes out a winner.” But that is less important than the “defeat” of America. He says that “Trump’s failure in Iran has confirmed and accelerated the broader retreat during his second term from our standing as the linchpin and guardian of an American-friendly international order.”

America was “the greatest world power” from 1941 to 2025. But now the nation is just one power “among many, even one bully among many, perhaps the preeminent one, but one without much credibility among either allies or enemies.”

Trump’s failed war, says Kristol, leaves the nation and the world “less feared and less respected,” and the world more dangerous.

But he asks, could “the humiliating loss to Iran—along with the embarrassment of our 250th anniversary celebration—be a kind of blessing?”

Could it provide the catalyst to stop and “reverse our decline in national power and also our slide into imperial decadence?”

He notes that the American people largely opposed Trump’s UFC cage fight at the White House. “Perhaps here, unlike in imperial Rome, it may not be too late to revive the spirit of republican virtue?”

Pointing to the Knicks’ “remarkable comeback,” Kristol asks: Who’s to say America can’t have one too?

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

GOP Lawmakers Turn on Trump: ‘Trying to Undermine Our Institutions’

Published

on

Republican lawmakers and staffers on Capitol Hill are expressing frustration and anger over President Donald Trump’s timing of announcements that go on to undermine their legislative agenda. Some expressed that the president doesn’t consider Congress when he acts, while others suggested that his announcements were intentionally disruptive, MS NOW reports.

From his announcement of the highly controversial naming of Bill Pulte as Acting Director of National Intelligence, to what critics called his proposed $1.8 billion “slush fund” for January 6 rioters, to his 11th-hour endorsement of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for the seat held by U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), Trump’s announcements have had a strong impact on Republicans’ efforts to pass legislation.

“The most common thought of most Republicans I’ve talked to is he doesn’t give a s—— about the legislative branch and he pays no attention to anything going on that we’re doing because all of the actions he has taken has done nothing but been unhelpful to us putting stuff on his desk or keeping a lot of our government agencies open,” one House Republican told MS NOW. “Everything is timed so perfectly that it’s like they sit around in the White House and think to themselves when is the worst possible time to do this — and then they do it.”

“I don’t think he’s dumb,” another GOP lawmaker told MS NOW. “I think he does a lot of this stuff on purpose, and I think he’s trying to undermine our institutions, and it’s setting some really bad precedents.”

“We all know the president talks to one group of people, and it’s his base,” the lawmaker also said. “He doesn’t care about anyone else. And when he talks to them, I think a lot of the actions he’s taken is to try to undermine both the legislative branch and the judicial branch and strengthen his position of executive branch and the importance of him sticking around.”

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) suggested that there was little thought behind Trump’s announcements and their effect on Congress.

“I don’t think he thinks about the impact on us, and the timing,” Murkowski told MS NOW. “I just don’t think he thinks about it.”

She also said she does not think the president is “connecting” what lawmakers do daily with his actions.

U.S. Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) told MS NOW that “the president’s the president.”

“He can announce his initiatives whenever he wants,” he added, while acknowledging that the “terrible timing” of Trump’s announcements “obviously complicates” Republicans’ efforts.

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.