NEW YORK: Anti-Gay Sen. Carl Kruger To Surrender On Corruption Charges

Tomorrow morning anti-gay New York state Sen. Carl Kruger will surrender to federal authorities on charges that he accepted campaign donations in return for favors doled out to powerful businessmen. Kruger was one of the eight traitorous Senate Democrats who voted against same-sex marriage in 2009.

Mr. Kruger headed the powerful Senate Finance Committee until Democrats lost control of the chamber last year, a position from which he amassed the Senate’s largest campaign war chest. One of Mr. Kruger’s campaign donors, Michael Levitis, who is suspected of serving as an intermediary between the senator and those seeking favors, pleaded guilty this month of lying to federal investigators in the Brooklyn case. Mr. Kruger is set to join an ever-lengthening parade of New York State lawmakers from both parties who have been indicted, convicted, or pleaded guilty to criminal offenses in the last decade, many of them relating to illegally soliciting or receiving money from individuals seeking help with state business.

In 2008 Kruger was part of the infamous "Gang Of Three" Democrats that engineered a coup in the state Senate, installing Sen. Pedro Espada as Majority Leader. Espada lost his seat in the 2010 primary and is himself under investigation by federal and state authorities for ripping off over $14M from the public health clinic he founded. The last of the Gang Of Three, former Sen. Hiram "Slasher" Monserrate, was indicted last October on federal charges of mail fraud and corruption. Monserrate was expelled from the Senate in early 2010 over a scandal in which he slashed the face of his girlfriend with a broken glass. He subsequently lost a bid for the state Assembly.

Let's hope ALL of the Gang Of Three end up in prison.

RELATED: In December 2009 gay activists picketed Kruger's Brooklyn home, declaring that he was a known self-loathing closet case who only voted against same-sex marriage to shield his own homosexuality.

NOM Appeals Maine Disclosure Ruling

As we expected, NOM is refusing to comply with last week's ruling by a federal judge that it must disclose the names of the people who funded its successful campaign to repeal same-sex marriage in Maine. Today they kicked their appeal upstairs to the First Circuit Court, their last stop before SCOTUS.

Lawyers for the National Organization for Marriage filed their notice of appeal with the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, which already is considering another constitutional challenge of Maine's campaign finance law by the Virginia-based organization. The National Organization for Marriage, or NOM, sued after the state ethics commission found that it could be required to disclose the identities of its donors. Last month, U.S. District Judge D. Brock Hornby granted a summary judgment upholding Maine's campaign disclosure laws as they pertain to ballot committees. Maine law says groups that raise or spend more than $5,000 to influence elections must register with the state and disclose their donors. NOM donated $1.9 million to Stand for Marriage Maine, a political action committee that helped repeal Maine's same sex marriage law.

NOM Continues To Defy Maine's Request For Campaign Donor Information

Maine is back in court again in their now years-long battle to get NOM to comply with state campaign finance law and release the names of their donors.

The National Organization for Marriage says that identifying donors would violate their First Amendment rights and deter future donors. Lawyers for each side presented arguments Wednesday in Kennebec County Superior Court to a judge who said she will provide a ruling in writing. Assistant Attorney General Phyllis Gardiner told the judge that the ethics commission wants to question donors. "What did they understand they were asked to contribute money for?" Gardiner said. The answers would help the commission determine whether the National Organization for Marriage should have registered with the state as a ballot question committee. State law says groups that raise or spend more than $5,000 to attempt to influence the outcome of any Maine election must register and disclose their donors.

NOM has offered the provide the amounts, but not the names of the donors. Why isn't Brian Brown in jail for contempt of court?

Explaining Citizens United

(Tipped by JMG reader Miranda)

SENTENCED: Former GOP Majority Leader Tom DeLay Gets Three Years In Prison

Former GOP House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been sentenced to three years in prison for funneling corporate money to Republican candidates.

The sentence comes after a jury in November convicted DeLay on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. DeLay was once one of the most powerful men in U.S. politics, ascending to the No. 2 job in the House of Representatives. Senior Judge Pat Priest sentenced him to the three-year term on the conspiracy charge. He also sentenced him to five years in prison on the money laundering charge but allowed DeLay to accept 10 years of probation instead of more prison time.

DeLay is appealing the conviction.

Everybody's Out To Get The Witch!

Feds Open Criminal Campaign Finance Investigation Into Christine O'Donnell

Former NY State Sen. Hiram "Slasher" Monserrate Indicted For Corruption

Former New York state Sen. Hiram Monserrate, who was expelled from the Senate after being convicted of slashing his girlfriend's face with a broken glass, has been indicted on felony charges of campaign finance fraud.

Monserrate, 43, was charged with funneling taxpayer money to a non-profit group, Latino Initiative for Better Resources and Empowerment, or LIBRE, that provided support services for his unsuccessful campaign for the state Senate in 2006 and his re-election campaign to the New York City Council. He pleaded not guilty to his arraignment for mail fraud and conspiracy and was released on $500,000 bond. The Democrat was a member of the city council from 2002 through 2008. Prosecutors say he requested $300,000 in discretionary funds allocated by the council annually to non-profits for LIBRE, and then directed the group to use a third of it for his efforts to gain his party's nomination for the state Senate.

Monserrate was one of the notorious "Democratic Eight" who voted against marriage equality. Days after the vote, Monserrate objected without irony to the order of protection that kept him away from his slashed girlfriend, saying, "The state should not keep apart two people who want to be together."

RHODE ISLAND: NOM Sues To Evade Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws

NOM has filed a lawsuit against Rhode Island's Board of Elections, saying it should not have to disclose who is backing their ads in the state's 2010 election.

The suit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in Providence, does not specify the races the organization wants to be involved in, but sample ads that are included as exhibits to the complaint show support for Republican ideals — including lower taxes and fiscal conservatism. In one ad, a girl named Emily explains that she learned in school that day "about a prince who married a prince. And I can marry a princess!" The narrator then instructs viewers or listeners to contact Democratic gubernatorial candidate Frank Caprio or his independent opponent, Lincoln Chafee. Both candidates say they support same-sex marriage. Another sample ad, presumably prepared before the Sept. 14 primary, encourages voters to support the Republican nominee for governor — John Robitaille won the GOP primary — by calling him to say, "Thank you for standing up for marriage." The group also wants to run ads for General Assembly races.

NOM has filed similar suits in numerous other states. Last month they lost their attempt in Maine, but have so far refused to comply with the judge's disclosure order.

NEW YORK: NOM Files Suit In Attempt To Evade State Campaign Finance Laws

As they have done in other states, the National Organization for Marriage has filed a lawsuit against the New York Elections Board, saying they shouldn't have to comply with state campaign finance disclosure laws. Julie Bolcer reports at the Advocate:

The complaint against the state board of elections was filed on September 16, two days after the primary election, in the U.S. district court for the western district of New York, according to a copy provided by the pro-equality PAC Fight Back New York. It reflects a similar effort from the group last year in Maine, where a marriage equality law was repealed. In the complaint signed by NOM executive director Brian Brown, the group says that it intends to engage in speech including “radio ads, television ads, direct mail and publicly accessible Internet postings of its radio ads and direct mail” in the western district of New York, which includes Buffalo, in September and October 2010. “NOM does not wish to reveal the legislators’ names in this complaint, because it does not wish to divulge its strategy at this early date,” says the complaint.

NOM has yet to comply with the August court ruling that they must disclose the names of their donors in Maine, saying they plan to appeal.

NOM Loses Again In Maine

NOM has lost yet another court battle to cloak the names of their donors in Maine.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said Thursday his group is disappointed in the ruling, but feels its arguments will hold sway with an appeals court. NOM will pursue an expedited appeal to the U.S. First Circuit Court in Boston, he said, because of the short time before the upcoming election season. Though Thursday's decision will delay NOM's plans for political activity in Maine, Brown said, the group is reviewing the decision to gauge a potential timeline for action. NOM plans activity in Maine both on behalf of candidates that support "redefining marriage," said Brown, and on candidates that support traditional marriage.

He declined to say whether NOM would be active in the state's governor's race, as well as the legislative races. Brown also expressed frustration at the legal hurdles spurred by what he called "frivolous" lawsuits filed by their political opponents, one of which, Californians Against Hate, asked the Maine ethics commission to investigate NOM. That group, one of the primary advocates for preserving California's gay marriage law that was repealed by voters there in 2009, questioned whether NOM raised more than $5,000 to directly repeal Maine's same-sex marriage law.

It's not a complete win for the good guys, however, as the judge also ruled some parts of Maine's campaign finance disclosure laws to be "unconstitutionally vague" and struck down the requirement that donations over $250 be reported within 24 hours.

The REAL Reason For NOM's Hate Tour?

According to the Human Rights Campaign's VP Fred Sainz, the real reason for NOM's national Hate Tour is to draw out harassing counter-protesters so that those incidents can be using in court to thwart donor disclosure laws. Because SEE, we really DO get attacked by violent homofascists! Via press release from the HRC:

"The bus tour is a total sham, plain and simple," said Fred Sainz, HRC's vice president of communications. "NOM's highly-touted bus tour is less about so-called 'traditional marriage' and more about creating an elaborate and cynical stunt. NOM rolled out a summer of nationwide events in order to draw lawful protesters, all so that NOM and its allies can pepper ongoing lawsuits challenging public disclosure laws with made-up stories of harassment. This unprecedented victimization crusade is the lowest denominator of political activism, and it won't fly."

In events in seven states, NOM has routinely played to crowds reportedly as small as two dozen people including NOM staff members. The organization's public statements on the bus tour have barely mentioned the content of the programs or the substance of its anti-LGBT message, instead focusing attention on much larger counter-protests that NOM has attacked as intimidation and harassment. NOM issued a press release last Friday saying that LGBT supporters have "approached and threatened children," engaged in "bullying tactics" and committed acts of harassment. However, NOM's uncorroborated claims belie legitimate local media reports demonstrating that pro-equality supporters, which have vastly outnumbered NOM's faithful, have been civil. NOM has yet to document any illegal activity or actual harassment, despite the presence of law enforcement at all the events.

NOM's efforts to trump up false claims of harassment are part of a radical nationwide plan to evade long-established public disclosure laws and to hide their political activities from legitimate scrutiny and accountability. In doing so, NOM has falsely alleged that their donors have been harassed and intimidated across the country to justify why it shouldn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else. These tactics have prompted a state ethics investigation in Maine and recent court defeats across the country.

I think Fred Sainz has nailed it.

NOM Loses Again In Maine

Today Maine's campaign finance ethics commission rejected NOM's request to suspend an investigation into their activities.

The group, which was the biggest contributor to the successful Yes on 1 campaign to repeal the state's same-sex marriage law, argued in a letter to the commission that it did not have the legal power to conduct an investigation. But on a 4-0 vote this morning, the commission rejected that argument. "It seems to me if this was such a compelling issue for them they would have brought it earlier," said Commission Chairman Walter McKee. "I have no doubt this will be appealed to Superior Court."

Sad trombone for Slaggie!

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Names On Referendum 71 Must Be Made Public

The U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled that anti-gay activists in Washington state MUST make public the names on Referendum 71. Protect Marriage wanted to keep the names secret, claiming they feared retribution from "violent homofascists." The ruling (PDF) was 8-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.

Justices ruled in a case called Doe V. Reed. They heard oral arguments in Washington, D.C., April 28. The conservative group that tried to block release of the signatures wanted the nation's high court to uphold a lower court ruling that said signing petitions and referendum is constitutionally protected political speech - which by law is OK to engage in anonymously. The group, Protect Marriage Washington, asked justices to shield the names of the 138,000 people who signed Referendum 71 petitions in hopes of overturning the "everything but marriage" same-sex domestic partner law. In November Washington voters upheld the new statute. Gay rights groups have said they'll post the petition signers' names online, and some fear harassment or threats if their names are revealed.

The Court's decision, of course, has far-reaching implications for the transparency of the referendum process and campaign finance laws nationwide. SO SUCK IT, NOM! This is a GREAT day for LGBT Americans and the democratic process.

NOM Loses Federal Appeal, Ordered To Turn Finances Over To Maine

A federal appeals court in Boston has denied NOM's latest attempt to continue shielding their list of donors from Maine as is required by state election finance law. But it's not over yet.

The group, known by its initials "NOM" contributed nearly $2 million to last year's successful campaign to overturn Maine's gay marriage law. Opponents say NOM has failed to comply with the state's financial disclosure law, a claim that is nowunder investigation by the state Ethics Commission. NOM, meanwhile, has filed its own constitutional challenge of the state law, and Kate Simmons of the Maine Attorney Generals' office says Monday's ruling will help the state defend itself. "NOM must reveal to the state how they raised the money, for what purpose and who it came from," she says. "They were the largest single contributor to Stand for Marriage Maine, and as a part of Maine's campaign finance laws, the state is working to find out how they raised that money and for what purpose." The court has ordered that any information handed over by NOM would have to remain confidential.

Yesterday NOM president Brian Brown vowed to take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court. Why does NOM hate America and democracy?

Federal Appeals Court Grants NOM Stay Of Financial Disclosure Demand

A federal appeals court has granted NOM a stay of last week's ruling by a Maine judge that they must abide by state financial disclosure laws. In their stay request, NOM again cited fears that violent homofascists will rain down retribution upon their donors. Via NOM's blog:

The Maine Ethics Commission had asked for the disclosure of donors to NOM for all of 2009, operating under the false theory that NOM has acted as a ballot initiative committee formed for the purpose of working exclusively in Maine. "Americans who want to organize, to vote, and to donate to protect marriage are being singled out for harassment. No other 501(c)4 is obligated to disclose the names of donors and the demand by government officials in Maine that we expose our donors was an outrageous violation of all Americans constitutional rights," said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. "We are grateful to the First Circuit for issuing this stay which recognizes that serious issues are at stake. We are confident that as these cases proceed to the federal courts we will ultimately vindicate Americans' core civil rights."

NOM has filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the First Amendment allows them to shield the identities of their donors.

MAINE: Judge Orders NOM To Comply With Financial Disclosure Laws

It's too late to matter, but a judge in Maine has at last ruled that NOM must reveal where they got the money to fund their successful campaign to overturn same-sex marriage.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John Rich III said in a document dated Sunday that the National Organization for Marriage, which contributed $1.9 million to the campaign to repeal Maine's gay marriage law, should turn over fundraising documents dating back to Jan. 1, 2009, to the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. The ethics commission voted last October to examine the group's contributions after it was accused of not reporting the names of many donors.

NOM has consistently flouted campaign finance disclosure laws. There's no reason to assume that they'll comply with this latest order.

(Via - Good As You)