NOM Campaigns Against Special Interest Money By... Raising Special Interest Money
February 02, 2012 3:32 pm ET by Carlos Maza
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) has a new talking point for its fundraising campaign in Iowa. According to a January 31 “ACTION ALERT” sent by NOM president Brian Brown, “same-sex marriage special interests” are spending millions of dollars in an effort to “control Iowa politics” and prevent a public vote on the issue of same-sex marriage:
When a panel of 7 judges imposed same-sex marriage on the Hawkeye state on April 3, 2009, same-sex marriage activists immediately focused on your state, pouring millions of dollars into the state to protect gay marriage in Iowa. And their most devastating weapon? Convincing ordinary people like your neighbors and coworkers that the fight is over and there's no going back. [...]
Will you make one urgent gift to NOM right now to ensure we have the funds necessary to restore marriage in Iowa and to protect it across the country? [emphasis original]
As Good As You’s Jeremy Hooper noted, NOM’s opposition to out-of-state special interest money “gives new meaning to the word hypocrisy.” In 2010, NOM launched an unprecedented campaign to oust three Iowa Supreme Court Justices who voted in favor of granting marriage equality to same-sex couples. The group spent over $700,000 turning Iowa’s typically low-key judicial retention elections into a state-wide referendum on same-sex marriage. According to NOM president Brian Brown, ousting the justices would “send a clear signal” to other judges across the country about the political risk of supporting same-sex marriage.
NOM’s involvement in Iowa politics didn’t end in 2010, either. Last November, the group spent tens of thousands of dollars attempting – and ultimately failing – to elect Republican candidate Cindy Golding in a special election for state Senate.
In fact, NOM has a long history of pouring millions of “special interest” dollars into state fights to legalize same-sex marriage. In Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, and, of course, California, NOM has never had a problem using its out-of-state influence and money to “control” the outcomes of local political battles.