DISQUS

LATTER-DAY CHINO: National Organization for Marriage (NOM) 2008 Tax Return (Form 990)

  • Donna · 2 months ago
    What I found interesting was the repetition of "bands" of contribution amounts that were made:
    Amount # Donors
    5,000 6
    9,000 1
    9,100 9
    9,500 3
    10,000 9
    15,000 2
    20,000 4
    25,000 5
    29,100 1
    35,000 2
    50,000 2
    100,000 2
    125,000 1
    150,000 2
    172,500 1
    250,000 1
    450,000 1

    And total contributions came from only 52 individual donors who collectively contributed $2,171,000. These will most likely turn out to be clumps of donors under some contributor name.

    All nicely rounded numbers.
  • Chino_Blanco · 2 months ago
    Donna, yeah, there's something about these numbers that doesn't pass the smell test. In any case, NOM is allowed to redact donor names in the Schedule B portion of their return, so even if the reported numbers were real, there's no requirement that NOM make the contributor names known on this form. That said, NOM should be required to disclose donor info for the roughly $250K they've spent in Maine so far. Now that the Maine election authorities have agreed to open an investigation of NOM, that information might eventually become available. At this point, in my view, knowing the donor names is peripheral to the larger issue, which is whether or not NOM will ever be required to comply with the same rules that the rest of us are already following.
  • Donna · 2 months ago
    And while we're on the topic of NOM I'd like to turn you on to some information uncovered about Maggie Gallagher. It's in a piece I wrote over at Bilerico-Indiana. Here's the link:
    http://indiana.bilerico.com/2009/09/maggie_gall...
  • Chino_Blanco · 2 months ago
    Wow. I'd always wondered what was up with that. I guess my best hope would be that these assorted bigotries might one day cancel each other out as their carriers come into closer and closer contact inside a tent that the bigots themselves are going all out to shrink into raucous oblivion.
  • Chino_Blanco · 2 months ago
    Is there any reason not to begin consistently using Margaret Srivastav when discussing her in our posts?
  • John · 2 months ago
    There appears to be a discrepancy of one-half million dollars in what is reported as Total Expenses on this Form 990 and in what NOM reported to the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/pdf/main...

    NOM reports total expenses as $2.97 million on Line 18 of their Form 990. In a letter submitted by their attorneys to the ME commission, the report their 2008 expenses as $3.5 million. That is a discrepancy of over $500,000 or, to express it another way, nearly 17% of the amount reported as expenses to the IRS. Also, the $3.5 million figure reported to the ME commission, if accurate, would exceed their total 2008 revenue and leave them with negative net assets, not the assets reported on Line 22.
  • Chino_Blanco · 2 months ago
    John, whoever submitted that letter to the ME commission probably mistakenly reported the aggregate expenses for 2007 and 2008 (which is roughly $3.5 million).