Portland Press Herald

Talk about wishful thinking.

The National Organization for Marriage had just lost Round 1 of its federal court battle against the people of Maine this week when Attorney General Janet Mills called on the primary bankroller of Question 1 to tell us – before we go to the polls on Tuesday – exactly where it got $1.6 million to fight Maine's same-sex marriage law.

"Why not?" Mills asked. "What is there to hide?"

Plenty – starting with how much of that money came from Maine and, more significantly, how much didn't.

First, a recap.

Four weeks ago, the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices voted 3-2 to investigate whether the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage should be registered with the state as a "ballot question committee" – a group or individual who spends more than $5,000 to influence the outcome of a ballot question.

In addition to registering with the ethics commission, such committees must regularly identify any donors who contribute $100 or more to support their cause.

The National Organization for Marriage, after much huffing about the long arm of Maine state government, countered with a lawsuit last week in U.S. District Court.

The group claimed that Maine's requirements are unconstitutional and asked Judge D. Brock Hornby for a temporary restraining order so it could continue raising money and funneling it to Stand for Marriage Maine without having to identify the donors.

The Maine reporting law, the National Organization for Marriage argued, is too vague, too burdensome and doesn't take into account that the group is a coast-to-coast operation with battles raging all over the country, not some ad hoc outfit focused exclusively on a little state like Maine.

(This despite a slew of fund-raising appeals, all entered into the court record, that urge donors nationwide to "defend marriage in Maine" and prevent the same-sex marriage law from taking effect "before the people of Maine have had their say.")

Hornby, bless him, bought none of it.

In his denial of the temporary restraining order, based in no small part on his assessment that the National Organization for Marriage will likely lose if and when this thing goes to trial, Hornby noted that Maine's reporting requirements are "bureaucratic perhaps, but burdensome not."

What's more, the judge wrote, "Maine has a strong and even compelling interest in helping the electorate assess the particular issue on its merits by providing voters with information about where money supporting a measure has come from and therefore whose interests it serves."

Good call. But will Maine voters actually get that information, as AG Mills hopes, between now and Tuesday?

Don't hold your breath.

Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the ethics commission, said Thursday that the commission, of course, "would expect (National Organization for Marriage) to comply with the law, which is in effect."

But from a practical standpoint, Wayne said, the commission isn't even scheduled to revisit its fledgling investigation until Nov. 19. And assuming it ultimately finds that the National Organization for Marriage is a ballot question committee, any penalties (as much as $10,000 for each report missed) and full disclosure of donors could be weeks if not months away.

All of which leaves us voters to wonder where all that cash – a whopping 63 percent of all the donations Stand for Marriage Maine had taken in as of Oct. 20 – came from.

The National Organization for Marriage, for now, is no help. Telephone messages left with its headquarters in New Jersey routinely have gone unanswered.

And while the group's Web site (www.nationformarriage.org) promises "openness and accountability to our supporters and to the public in regular reports," the only actual reports you'll find are those required by the Internal Revenue Service. Not a word about Maine.

Still, it's not hard to draw a conclusion or two about what's going on behind that not-so-transparent curtain.

In 2008, as it fought to pass the anti-same-sex-marriage Proposition 8 in California, the National Organization for Marriage raised and spent $1.8 million.

We know that because the group willingly filed a campaign finance report with the California secretary of state's office – complete with page after page of donors, most with in-state addresses.

In other words, the National Organization for Marriage had nothing to hide in the Golden State. They wanted voters to see how much of their California fight was being bankrolled by Californians.

Now consider Maine, into which the National Organization for Marriage has funneled $1.6 million – the lion's share in the last 30 days.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, California's population is 27 times the size of Maine's.

And according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, California's gross domestic product is 37 times as big as Maine's.

Yet the National Organization for Marriage raised and spent virtually the same amount on each state.

Which brings us back to Mills' question: "What is there to hide?"

Simple.

With Election Day all but upon us, it's not the handful of donors from Maine that the National Organization for Marriage wants to keep out of public sight and (it hopes) out of voters minds.

It's the multitudes from away.

Columnist Bill Nemitz can be contacted at 791-6323 or at:

bnemitz@pressherald.com

Copyright © 2009 MaineToday Media, Inc.