The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) saw a steep decline in the amount of money it raised in 2011 – dropping to $6.2 million from the $9.1 million it raised the previous year. Just two donors were responsible for funding 75 percent of the anti-gay group – the organization reported two donations of approximately $2.4 million each. The information is available in NOM’s 2011 990, which NOM made available this evening after the Human Rights Campaign requested the documents.
“The National Organization for Marriage continues to push the notion that there is some sort of grassroots support for their discriminatory anti-gay agenda,” said HRC Vice President of Communications Fred Sainz. “Last week, that notion was soundly rejected by voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington State. Now, NOM’s own financial records are serving as the latest proof that support for LGBT equality is common-sense and mainstream. NOM is nothing more than a conduit channeling the anti-gay agenda of a few secretive, wealthy donors.”
The sharp drop in funding is notable also because NOM experienced significant financial growth each year since its founding in 2007, when it was formed to demonize LGBT people in California as part of efforts to pass Proposition 8. 2011 marks the first year in which the anti-gay group’s funding declined.
In addition to illustrating that more than $4.7 million of NOM’s total $6.2 million reported came from just two mysterious mega-donors, the documents also reveal some interesting information about NOM’s closest affiliates. For example, NOM paid $870,000 to CC Advertising – a group HRC recently filed an FCC complaint against for spamming unsuspecting cell phone users with anti-gay, anti-Obama text messages. The organization also paid nearly $375,000 to Frank Schubert, their ad guru who makes his living largely off of promoting anti-LGBT propaganda.
NOM spent upwards of $5.7 million on attempts to prevent marriage equality in Maine, Maryland, and Washington; write discrimination in Minnesota’s constitution; and politicize Iowa’s judicial system. Voters in all five states soundly rejected NOM’s discriminatory messaging. The anti-gay organization remains embroiled in several legal battles over revealing the identities of the few mega-donors who fund their work.
More background on NOM, including information on the organization’s leadership and details on its close financial ties to religious institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Knights of Columbus and the Church of Latter Day Saints, is available via HRC’s NOM Exposed project.
The author is solely responsible for the content.