Maine is now the latest state to consider following in Florida’s footsteps by requiring welfare recipients to take a drug test before receiving benefits.

 The Bangor Daily News reports that “Gov. Paul LePage wants welfare recipients to submit to random drug testing before they receive benefits, and he plans to submit legislation in January calling for that requirement.”

He made the announcement at a Chamber breakfast on Friday. Maine legislators failed to pass similar legislation last year, but LePage wants legislators to try once more. This would make Maine the next state among dozens considering laws that would require drug testing for government benefit recipients.

A group in Florida that has been touting the supposed success of Florida’s law has a history with Maine’s past welfare reform plans.

The Daily News reports:

Tarren Bragdon, former CEO of the conservative Maine Heritage Policy Center and one of Gov. LePage’s transition team co-chairmen, left Maine several months ago to launch the Foundation for Government Accountability in Naples, Fla.

When Bragdon was head of the Maine Heritage Policy Center, welfare reform was one of his biggest priorities, although some accused the organization of using anecdotes and twisting statistics to support the need for reform.

In the recent Florida ruling, a judge accused Bragdon of similar practices when his group distributed a pamphlet that analyzed the impact of the Florida law require drug testing.

Last month, a Florida district court judge suspended the new law and, in its written decision, dismissed a report by the Foundation for Government Accountability that had been cited by supporters of the law.

“Even a cursory review of certain assumptions in the pamphlet undermines its conclusions,” the judge wrote. “Just by way of example, the pamphlet suggests that the state will save millions in the first year; but it arrives at this number by extrapolating from the 9.6 percent of [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] applications that are denied for ‘drug-related’ reasons, including those who tested positive and those who declined to be tested. It extends these hypothetical savings for the full year that a TANF applicant who tested positive for drugs would be subject to losing benefits.”

Bragdon’s new “free market” think tank has already set its sights on Florida’s upcoming legislative session.

Florida’s law was recently blocked by a court in Orlando. However, the state has already filed an appeal to that decision.

According to court documents, the state (defendant David Wilkins, the Secretary of the Florida Department of Children & Families) submitted a report created by a “free market” public policy think tank in Naples called the Foundation for Government Accountability as part of its defense.

However, the court threw out the group’s report yesterday, claiming it was “not competent expert opinion.”

The News Service of Florida reports that Tarren Bragdon, the CEO of the Foundation for Government Accountability, was disappointed with the decision:

“Judge Scriven’s ruling against Florida’s drug-testing requirement for taxpayer-funded welfare cash is disappointing, and removes needed accountability from our welfare system,” Bragdon said. “Our analysis of the law shows that the requirement is saving the state millions in welfare benefits, and helps ensure taxpayer dollars are reserved only for the truly needy.”

The court’s motion reads:

Though the State offers, as evidence of the cost savings, a pamphlet from the Foundation for Government Accountability entitled, The Impact of Florida’s New Drug Test Requirement for Welfare Cash Assistance, the data contained in the pamphlet is not competent expert opinion, nor is it offered as such, nor could it be reasonably construed as such. Tarren Bragdon, The Impact of Florida’s New Drug Test Requirement for Welfare Cash Assistance, FOUNDATION FOR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY, September 2011 at 1 (Dkt. 19-8 at 1.) Even a cursory review of certain assumptions in the pamphlet undermines its conclusions. Just by way of example, the pamphlet suggests that the State will save millions in the first year; but it arrives at this number by extrapolating from the 9.6 percent of TANF applications that are denied for “drug-related” reasons, including those who tested positive and those who declined to be tested. Id. at 1. It extends these hypothetical savings for the full year that a TANF applicant who tested positive for drugs would be subject to losing benefits.

Within the footnotes, the Foundation for Government Accountability is described as “a non-profit organization that ‘believes personal liberty and private enterprise are key to Florida’s economic future,’ ‘develops and promotes free market public policies that achieve limited, constitutional government and a robust economy that will be an engine for job creation across the state.’”

The group in question is not even a year old. The formation of the foundation, a “new free market think tank in Naples, Florida,” was announced in April of this year.

Sunshine State News reported in its announcement of the group:

“Individual freedom and private enterprise are the keys to Florida’s economic future,” said Tarren Bragdon, the president and CEO of the new group, on Thursday. “The Foundation for Government Accountability will be a resource for taxpayers and policymakers who seek a Florida booming with new entrepreneurs, well-educated children, a top-rate health care system, and an affordable, open government that protects freedom.”

The FGA will be tackling health care and government transparency, as well as economic and job growth.

“As government grows in size and complexity, and as people lose faith in their elected officials, it’s important that organizations exist to influence government on behalf of the taxpayers, and move the state toward common-sense reforms and a growing economy,” said Bragdon. “The Foundation for Government Accountability will give the public peace of mind that their financial security and personal freedom will be at the forefront of all policy debates.”

Bragdon certainly has the background to launch a think tank at the state level. His impressive background includes a long tenure with the Maine Heritage Policy Center as director of health reform initiatives and, eventually, CEO. From 1996 until 2000, he served in the Maine House of Representatives. Bragdon was 21 — by less than two weeks — when he was first elected, making him the youngest legislator in the state’s history (take that James G. Blaine, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and Hannibal Hamlin — yes, all the politicians I know from Maine are from the 19th century). Bragdon also was a special assistant to Maine Senate President Richard Bennett after his stint in the House and oversaw Gov. Paul LePage’s budget workgroup after the 2010 elections.

Maine Heritage Policy Center, Bragdon’s former employer, describes its mission as formulating and promoting “conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise; limited, constitutional government; individual freedom; and traditional American values–all for the purpose of providing public policy solutions that benefit the people of Maine.”

According to SourceWatch, the group has received big donations from conservative groups in the past. For example, “in its 2006 annual report the Cato Institute states that it made a grant of $50,000 to the Maine Heritage Policy Center,” SourceWatch reports. The Cato Institute was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane and Charles Koch. Koch is one of the conservative and influential billionaire Koch brothers.

Bragdon has an interesting history in Maine. At the age 21, Bragdon become the state’s youngest state representative ever elected. According to the Portland Press Herald, after years in the legislature, Bragdon “worked for five years as the Maine Heritage Policy Center’s part-time director of health reform initiatives, before taking over as CEO in January of 2008.”

The Portland Press Herald reported that ”according to the organization’s tax filings, Bragdon earned $136,208 in salary and other compensation in 2009.”

The Press Herald also reported that Bragdon was later the “co-chair of Gov. Paul LePage’s transition team … [and] played a major role in writing LePage’s proposed budget for the next two years.”

Besides contributing research for Florida’s defense of its drug testing law, Bragdon has also written in support of the state turning down millions of dollars from the health care reform law during his short time here.

The invitation differs little from those that have gone out previously to Iowa pastors and church leaders. It reads:

Iowa Renewal Project cordially invites you to participate in its Pastors’ Policy Briefing, “Rediscovering God in America,” with special guests historian David Barton, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the honorable Bob McEwen and Governor Rick Perry, who will be accompanied by Pastor Ken Graves, Pastor Jason Taylor, attorney Kelly Shackelford, Dr. Don Wildmon and other guest speakers.

Gingrich was also a participant of a Pastors’ Policy Briefing held in Des Moines this past March. Others who appeared at that time — U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour — do not appear to be scheduled for a repeat performance at the upcoming two-day conference at the downtown Marriott. To his credit, this is hardly the first time that Gingrich has appeared at such an event in Iowa or elsewhere. Long before he began his quest for the White House, Gingrich was speaking at Pastors’ Policy Briefings and appeared beside Huckabee at one in Des Moines in 2007.

Although Perry has previously attended such meetings in his home state of Texas, this seems to the first time he will address members of the Iowa clergy. According to our sister site, The Texas Independent, Perry was scheduled to join Focus on the Family’s James Dobson and others during a Florida Pastors’ Policy Briefing. David Lane, a California-based activist who organized that event as well as Perry’s controversial religious conservative event “The Response” earlier this year, said other 2012 candidates had also been invited to speak in Florida.

“Meals and lodging are complimentary,” states the invitation, “and will be provided by the Iowa Renewal Project.”

It isn’t the first time that Iowa pastors have been invited to the state capital for a “Rediscovering God in America” policy briefing, and it also isn’t the first time that Iowa clergy have received marching orders from the Iowa Renewal Project.

According to invitation documents uncovered previously by The Iowa Independent, at least 14 states have had “renewal project” events. An invitation to a 2007 New Hampshire Renewal Project indicates the event in that state was “its first ever” and featured social conservatives Tim and Beverly LaHaye and evangelical historian Barton. The New Hampshire event was held just weeks before the Granite State held its first-in-the-nation primary.

Shortly after the New Hampshire affair, then Louisiana Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal held a “Pastors’ Inaugural Prayer Breakfast” that was hosted by the Louisiana Renewal Project. In addition to Jindal and social conservatives featured in the upcoming Iowa program, Perry was also listed as an attendee.

At least 13 states have played host to “renewal project” gatherings: California (twice, one being specific to San Diego), Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, Texas, Louisiana and South Carolina. Although many speakers remain the same from state to state, special guests have include Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, Lt. Col. Oliver North, Jerry Falwell and U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint.

What goes on behind the closed doors of the conferences isn’t well known. At the beginning of a 2007 conference in Des Moines, a speaker began the program by announcing the meeting was private and intended only for the members of clergy and church leaders present. In no uncertain terms, members of the media were told to leave. It was at that same conference, through the ballroom doors, that another speaker could be heard telling those in attendance to “set your pulpits on fire” and place the fear of God into congregants in relation to the upcoming 2008 election as well as government policy discussions on education and a wide variety of issues traditionally championed by the religious right such as marriage and abortion.

An insert that arrived with an invitation to Iowa pastors and church leaders to participate in a November 2011 Pastors’ Policy Briefing in Des Moines. Click to enlarge.

An insert included with the latest invitation appears to be little more than a copy-paste production of that attributed to Huckabee that was distributed earlier this year, which was nearly identical to wording by Perry that was included in an invitation to a Texas Restoration Project event years earlier. For this conference, however, the dialogue (shown in the accompanying graphic) is supposedly coming “from the desk of David Barton.”

Others named on the Iowa invitation are:

Ken Graves — founder and pastor of Calvary Chapel near Bangor, Maine. During the lead-up to a 2009 ballot question on same-sex marriage, Graves produced and distributed a 30-second ad that urged residents to overthrow a law passed by Maine lawmakers and signed by its governor that allowed same-sex marriage.

“You see these commercial of two happy moms, or two happy dads and happy siblings — when in fact they are not happy families. They are depressed,” Graves told reporter Joe Garofoli before admitting that he didn’t actually know any gay couples. Graves said he relies on the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family for his information about homosexuality.

Ultimately, 53 percent of Maine voters chose to overturn the law.

Don Wildmon — is the founder and serves as chairman emeritus of the Mississippi-based American Family Association, which bankrolled Bob Vander Plaats’ opposition of the Iowa Supreme Court. Wildmon was ordained as a United Methodist Church minister in 1964, but left the calling roughly a decade later to campaign against immorality by founding the National Federation for Decency in 1977. The organization was renamed the American Family Association in 1988. Following a lengthy hospital stay in 2009 and surgery for eye cancer, Wildmon stepped down as leader of the AFA, basically turning over the organization to his son, Tim Wildmon.

Kelly Shackelford — has been, since 1997, the president and chief executive of Plano, Texas-based Liberty Institute, a merger of the Free Market Foundation and the Liberty Legal Institute. Earlier this summer, Shackelford offered his signature to an open letter to “Conservative, Catholic and Evagelical Leaders” organized by right-wing activist and former California lawmaker Steve Baldwin. The letter asked the church leaders to refuse to support former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s campaign for president, stating “a Romney candidacy would be disastrous for the conservative movement and for the country” and noting that Romney “continues to support many aspects of the homosexual agenda even today.” Shackelford was also a speaker at a similar 2008 Texas event that also featured Perry.

In a move similar to what they did in 2008, Colorado Republicans voted Saturday to move their caucus from March 6 to Feb. 7, with hopes of providing their party members more access to the 2012 presidential candidates and a better chance of influencing the national discussion.

It remains unclear if the move, however, will result in calendar chaos because the Colorado contest is non-binding, meaning that the party does not choose candidate delegates at that time. Delegate selection takes place during a later process that is currently scheduled for April 2012. As such, the Colorado GOP, which is charged like all other states to submit its caucus plan to the Republican National Committee by Oct. 1, can move its contest without fear of official penalty from the party.

Because Colorado rules require voters to be registered with a party two months prior to the precinct caucuses in order to participate, the move could force the candidate campaigns, already stretched thin by the four early states and others threatening to jump ahead, to perform at least rudimentary grassroots activity in the state. Such a situation would especially spell trouble for candidates who are not as well financed and can’t afford to compete in the numerous states now vying for a moment in the national spotlight.

Iowa and New Hampshire remain the two early “big dogs” in the nomination process even with the Colorado move, but the way the states interpret the small phrase “similar contests” will be put to the test. Also, the decision by the Colorado GOP could be copied by other states — Louisiana, Minnesota and Maine — that also hold non-binding initial contests.

Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn told The Des Moines Register that he remains “cautiously optimistic” that Iowans will be able to avoid caucusing beside holiday presents. The four early states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — have pledged to move forward as a block if other states infringe on their status as defined by both Republican and Democratic calendars.

“Question One,” a Fly on the Wall production directed and produced by veteran journalists Joe Fox and James Nubile, covers the period beginning after the Maine Legislature legalized same-sex marriage in May 2009 and ending just after Maine voters overturned the law in November 2009. Where “Question One” differs from “8: The Mormon Propo$ition,” the documentary about a similar campaign to defeat same-sex marriage in California in 2008, is its attempt at neutrality. Fox and Nubile embedded themselves in both the “Yes on 1” (for the proposition to stop gay marriage) and “No on 1” campaigns, getting the respective sides of the stories.

“I still can’t get over that [we were] given access to do this thing,” Fox recently told The American Independent over the phone from the Fly on the Wall headquarters in New York City.

In September 2009, Fox and Nubile rented a house in Maine, and by the end of the referendum campaign had more than 250 hours’ worth of footage, Fox said, along with a story told cinema verité-style about how same-sex marriage was won, fought and lost in Maine -– complete with developed characters and plot twists.

One of the characters at the center of those twists is Marc Mutty, director of public affairs for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland and the former chair of Stand for Marriage Maine Political Action Committee (SMM). The film begins with Mutty describing his role in the campaign as that of the “chief cook and bottle washer,” but in the campaign’s final weeks, it’s Frank Schubert, president of California-based Schubert Flint Public Affairs -– the same publicity firm used to defeat same-sex marriage in California in 2008 –- who is calling all the shots, telling reporters he’s the chairman of SMM, making himself marketable for a future anti-same-sex marriage campaign.

At one point in the film, Mutty admits to being upset over two ads pushed by Schubert Flint, which Mutty admits “when I saw it, I cringed,” because of their insistence that same-sex marriage in Maine will lead to teachers instructing first-graders about gay sex. The longer version of the ad, which Mutty opted not to use, discussed sex toys. In the car, a visibly frustrated Mutty tells Schubert in clipped tones that his staff signed off on the ad. He then slams his cell phone shut and mutters, “So Frank wins the day again.”

In another scene, Mutty admits he didn’t have a better campaign strategy than the one devised by Schubert Flint.

“In order for me to resist, I had to have a different plan, which I didn’t,” Mutty tells the camera. “I certainly could have devised a whole way of approaching this that was very different. But do I believe it would have won for us? No.”

“The least likely character is someone like a Marc Mutty,” Fox told TAI. “He was sort of like a gift from the gods, in every way. … I always thought he felt like he had made a pact with the devil but he would come out okay. I think he underestimated the intensity of this issue, and I think he underestimated the force he was dealing with the Schubert Flint. It was clear he was outmatched.”

On screen, Mutty says he never wanted to run the “Yes on 1″ campaign, but that his boss, Bishop Richard Malone, wanted the diocese to handle it, and Mutty felt as though he had no choice. In the early days of the campaign, he jokes around with his small staff in their Yarmouth, Maine, headquarters and appears to take his position — one he describes as being “impossible” — in stride. But by the campaign’s end, Mutty often appears agitated, saying things like: “This has been a mother-f***ing son of a b*tch.”

In April, Fox and Nubile released the trailer of their completed “Question One,” including a clip of Mutty telling his staff: “We use a lot of hyperbole, and I think that’s always dangerous. We say things like, ‘Teachers will be forced to–’ Well, that’s not a completely accurate statement, and we all know it isn’t.” Off camera someone from his staff says, “No, we don’t say that,” to which Mutty responds, “Let’s look back at our ads and see what we say, and I think we use hyperbole to a point where it’s like, ‘Jeez.’”

Following Portland Press Herald columnist Bill Nemitz’s April 17, 2011, column about Mutty’s comments in the documentary — “Documentary clips show sad face of Yes on 1“ – the paper published a guest editorial attributed to Mutty on April 24, 2011, titled “Yes on 1 campaign worthwhile.”

In the editorial, Mutty declares his full support for “the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.” He goes on to characterize himself as a longtime civil rights defender, writing, “I have always been a strong and tireless advocate for the civil rights of all, and have fought unjust discrimination in all its forms. Fairness in housing, fair employment practices and the right to vote are all civil rights. Redefining marriage is not.”

In a recent telephone interview, Mutty told TAI that he was “very upset” by Nemitz’s column and that the clip that served as the centerpiece of the article was “misleading” and taken out of context. Mutty’s story is that the clip was part of a 20-minute strategy session during which he was playing devil’s advocate in order to force his staff to defend their advertising.

“Oh, puh-leeze,” Fox told TAI, in response to Mutty’s claim that his “hyperbole” comment was taken out of context. “To that I say, come see the context, which I’m pretty sure you [Mutty] don’t want to see because it would make things worse. … There was a constant self-doubt about [the tactics of his campaign]. It was not a standalone comment. I think a reasonable assumption is that he had to defend himself [to the diocese].”

But it wasn’t just the “Yes on 1″ campaign’s “hyperbolic” tactics that appear to visibly stress out Mutty in the documentary; it also it appears as though Mutty’s team is often losing. Their polling and fundraising are always below what the “No on 1″ side is reporting. Fox told TAI that Mutty often appeared worried because promised bundles of “Mormon money” never materialized; however, that footage did not make it into the final cut. Additionally, the amount of bustle and enthusiasm coming out of the “No” side — headquartered in Portland, Maine, and run by EqualityMaine chair Jesse Connolly, Executive Director Betsy Smith and field director Darlene Huntress — seems to be at a much higher level than that coming from the “Yes” team, which is often portrayed as being disorganized and nervous.

Throughout the course of the film, it appears that the race is going to be neck and neck. The actual result — 53 to 47 percent — is not so close and seems to shock everyone but Schubert, who declares victory in the late hours of Nov. 3, 2009 — without consulting Mutty — even before all the precincts have been counted.

“They needed a figurehead,” Fox says of Mutty. “It was quite clear that there wasn’t much happening on the local front. No decisions were being made from the [Yes on 1] headquarters in Maine.”

“In a way that’s sort of very telling,” he continued. “The appearance that was created and stage-managed was that this was a locally run effort. In point of fact, it was Schubert Flint in California in conjunction with NOM [the National Organization for Marriage] that were basically running the campaign.”

Mutty told TAI he was anxious to see the film and said he had found the ‘Yes on 1′ campaign frustrating, but not for the reasons that the film suggests.

“Campaigns such as this referendum are, by far, not the best way to have public discourse over sensitive issues,” Mutty said. “It’s frustrating to do in-depth discussing geared to sound bites.” When asked what a better format for this type of social discourse would be, Mutty said “any way but this one.”

Fox said he hopes Mutty will be satisfied with how he is portrayed on screen.

“The way he was portrayed publicly wasn’t fair to him,” Fox said, referring to how some people called Mutty a bigot for heading this campaign. “I think he agreed in part to [participate in this documentary] because he wanted, in his own way, to get his side of the story out. And I think he comes across as being very sympathetic. You kind of could understand the situation he was in.”

“Question One,” is due to be theatrically released in September, first in select theaters in Maine.

Watch the trailer:

Stand for Marriage Maine PAC led the successful campaign to repeal gay marriage legalization in Maine in 2009 by popular vote in a People’s Veto.

Both sides of the Maine marriage campaign are beginning to prepare for a potential referendum in 2012; yet questions linger surrounding donor identities in the 2009 campaign, particularly for the side that supported “Question 1,” which repealed same-sex marriage.

Question 1 opponents, led by EqualityMaine, raised approximately $5.7 million from more than 10,000 donors, 12 times more individual donors than the winning side, which raised approximately $3.4 million from a handful of churches and conservative Christian organizations, according to a November 2009 report (PDF) released by the National Institute on Money in State Politics. The largest chunks of donations that went to the repeal effort came from NOM ($1.9 million), the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland ($500,000) and Focus on the Family Maine Marriage Committee ($114,000).

The American Independent recently reported that NOM is currently embroiled in a legal battle with the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices over whether or not NOM should have registered with the state and formed a ballot question committee — which means disclosing expenditures and contributions. That case is pending in the First Circuit Court. And last week, the United States Court of Appeals First Circuit ruled against NOM in an appeal that Maine’s election laws were unconstitutional. Thus, the investigation into NOM’s fundraising is presently stalled, and many of the names and organizations of those who donated money to defeating marriage equality in Maine are still unknown.

Openly gay political consultant and GOP presidential contender Fred Karger sparked the NOM investigation, having made it his ongoing project to follow NOM’s campaign money since the organization’s anti-same-sex-marriage campaign efforts in California in 2008. But it is straight, married activist Paul Kendrick who made it his mission to follow the actions of the Portland diocese. What immediately sparked his interest into the “Yes on 1″ campaign of 2009 was the fact that money was coming out of the Roman Catholic Portland Diocese, but there were very few individual contributions from church leaders.

“There are about 700 priests, nuns and deacons in the diocese, yet only four names appear on the reporting,” Kendrick recently told TAI from his home in Freeport, Maine. “What can we surmise? Can we surmise that what Bishop [Richard Joseph] Malone did, priests and deacons don’t support this? Did they all donate $49 dollars? … [Catholic leaders] were advertising themselves as followers of God but didn’t have the guts to stand publicly for their convictions,” Kendrick said.

The Stand for Marriage Maine PAC was run by Portland diocese public affairs director Marc Mutty, who took a leave of absence from the diocese to run the campaign. Mutty told TAI that, to his knowledge, the church followed all campaign-finance rules with regard to its contributions to the SMM PAC. He said that any contributions made without a name attached to them came from plate collections. Fallout criticisms about how and how much the diocese donated were based on general disapproval that the diocese participated in the political campaign, Mutty said.

“We don’t operate based on public opinion,” he said. “We operate based on what is the right thing to do. Public sentiment is not so much an issue.”

Quarterly campaign-finance disclosure reports from 2009 available on the Maine ethics commission’s website reveal several names of religious figures from across the country who donated more than $50 (the donating amount at which point an individual’s name must be disclosed, according to Maine’s election laws) to the SMM PAC; however, individual names from the Portland diocese are scarce. For the reporting period between July 6 and Sept. 30, 2009, only Father Paul Marquis of the Portland diocese is listed as having contributed $100. During that reporting period, the Portland diocese reportedly contributed about $345,000 to Stand for Marriage Maine in 16 payments, ranging from $200 to $149,300.

Aside from monetary and staff contributions, the Portland diocese has been painted as having had significant influence on the results of the 2009 campaign.

In a National Catholic Register article titled “Marriage Victory in Maine,” from November 2009, Joan Frawley Desmond laid out how the church wielded its influence.

The defeat of same-sex “marriage” at the polls in Maine Nov. 3 suggests that Portland Bishop Richard Malone’s “commonsense” message resonated with the state’s relatively secular voters.

[…]

Testifying before the state’s legislature in August, Bishop Malone described same-sex “marriage” as “a dangerous sociological experiment that I believe will have negative consequences for society as a whole. … Children will be taught in schools that same-sex ‘marriage’ and traditional marriage are simply different expressions of the same thing, and that the logical and consistent understanding that marriage and reproduction are intrinsically linked is no longer valid”

Mutty said he’s not sure what type of role the diocese will play in a future marriage equality campaign, if marriage equality advocates are able to collect the required 80,000 signatures to put the question on the ballot in 2012. Mutty’s currently drafting recommendations to the bishop as to how much money the diocese could potentially donate and if staff members should participate.

“This is a very difficult time financially for most people,” he said. “The diocese is certainly experiencing difficulties in this economy.”

Regardless of how the church might be involved next year, Mutty told TAI he will not be running the campaign as he did in 2009, saying the campaign was “extremely taxing on my health, psyche and family.”

Future fight over marriage in Maine

In August 2009, when Karger initially asked the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices to investigate the campaign-fundraising activities of the organizations that helped end same-sex marriage in Maine, he accused Stand for Marriage Maine of being a “front” for NOM, an accusation that was rejected by both organizations at the time.

Presently, however, it appears that NOM is maintaining control over the SMM PAC.

Asked who will be chairing Stand for Marriage Maine in a potential referendum campaign next year, former SMM PAC treasurer Joseph A. Keaney told TAI to ask Brian Brown, NOM’s president and SMM board member.

“[NOM] contributed the most to Stand for Marriage Maine, by far –- almost $2 million,” Keaney said.

Keaney has been listed as SMM’s treasurer on every campaign disclosure report filed between Sept. 2009, when Stand for Marriage Maine initially registered as a PAC, and the most recent report, filed July 2011. Yet the Portland, Maine-based certified public accountant said he is not sure he will continue as the PAC treasurer if a referendum moves forward. First off, he said he has not been asked yet. If he is asked to participate in the campaign, he said, it will depend on what arrangements are made, noting that he was paid for his work on the first campaign.

Brown did not immediately return TAI’s request for comment.

The EqualityMaine PAC is representing the preliminary efforts of a potential campaign to restore marriage equality in Maine next year by putting a voter referendum on the ballot. Thus far, EqualityMaine has only filed $25 in campaign contributions for 2011. Stand for Marriage Maine on the other hand has filed a $32,411 contribution from NOM and a $25 contribution from an unknown source so far this year.

EqualityMaine spokesperson Timothy Rose remains confident that his organization will be able to gather the requisite 80,000 signatures to put the question –- currently phrased as, “Do you support marriage licenses for same sex couples while protecting religious freedom?” — on the ballot. Currently, the question language is in for review with the secretary of state, but Rose said the group hopes to begin the process of collecting signatures this week.

Rose said that what marriage equality advocates in Maine learned from their failure in 2009 was that it is impossible to change hearts and minds during a campaign. Instead, EqualityMaine has been working to change hearts and minds before a potential 2012 campaign, by talking one-and-one to voters. Rose said that two independent polls conducted in 2009 and 2011 show that Maine citizens support legalized marriage for gay and lesbian couples by 53 percent.

“[We] made a commitment to the LGBT community that we wouldn’t bring the question up again until we were statistically certain [it can pass],” Rose said.

What’s critical, he said, is to make sure identified marriage equality supporters make it to the ballot box. Having the referendum during an election year will help in that effort, he said.

NOM filed the injunction in Rhode Island in October 2010, and a district judge rejected it. NOM then appealed to the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. Judges Juan R. Torruella, Michael Bounding and Kermit V. Lipez dismissed their appeal on Thursday.

“Because NOM’s vagueness arguments are without merit, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying preliminary relief without explicitly reaching the question of vagueness,” the court wrote. “For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the district court’s order denying NOM’s motion for a preliminary injunction.”

The court rejected a similar case in Maine brought by NOM.

The court said Maine’s laws “neither erect a barrier to political speech nor limit its quantity. Rather, they promote the dissemination of information about those who deliver and finance political speech, thereby encouraging efficient operation of the marketplace of ideas.”

NOM has challenged campaign finance laws in several states and has promised its donors secrecy.

Fast-forward to today, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is still involved in an ongoing-but-stalled investigation and lawsuit with the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices over whether or not the group broke state law when it contributed money to the 2009 “Yes on 1” campaign run largely by the Stand for Marriage Maine Political Action Committee (SMM).

With a new campaign for a possible 2012 referendum on the ban emerging –- coupled with a soon-to-be released behind-the-scenes documentary about the 2009 campaign –- The American Independent takes a look at the case’s two-year course and what the investigation has revealed about the leading organization against legalizing marriage for gay and lesbian couples since 2008.

The investigation

Despite claiming Maine’s marriage-equality reversal as a victory, for the past two years, NOM has fought the state’s attempt to investigate its fundraising records, claiming it did not directly fundraise for the Maine campaign. Attempts made by Maine’s ethics commission to test the veracity of NOM’s claims have been halted by litigation.

On Aug. 13, 2009, political consultant, activist and little-known 2012 GOP presidential contender Fred Karger sent a memo to Jonathan Wayne, executive director of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics, requesting an investigation into NOM and the Stand for Marriage Maine PAC. In the original request for investigation, filed on behalf of his organization Californians Against Hate, Karger accused NOM and SMM of “money laundering,” claiming the organizations –- along with other big campaign donors such as the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland and Focus on the Family — had acted as “fronts” for other individual donors who did not want their identities to be revealed in campaign-finance disclosure reports. Californians Against Hate formed in July 2008 to draw attention to the “mega-donors” in California’s Proposition 8 campaign.

From a memo Karger sent to Wayne, dated Aug. 13, 2009, speaking about Stand for Marriage PAC’s first campaign finance report:

Stand for Marriage PAC reported raising $343,689.50 during the period April 1 to July 5, 2009. We found it very suspicious that of that total, only $400 was given by individuals. The balance of $343,289.50 was contributed by various religious organizations and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. That means that individual contributions to repeal gay marriage in Maine are only .001% of the total raised. Are the proponents trying to hide the identities of those contributing to their campaign? Are they directing all contributions to existing organizations, who then gave the money to Stand for Marriage PAC? This appears to be the case. If this is true, would it not be considered money laundering?

Maine campaign finance law specifies that all political action committees are required to report the names and addresses of contributors who have given more than $50 to the PAC. The law also specifies that it is illegal for a PAC to “knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.”

In the end, the ethics commission chose not to investigate Stand for Marriage Maine. But where the commission saw potential illegal activity, based on the evidence Karger provided (in the form of fundraising emails and direct mailers sent to supporters throughout the Maine marriage campaign), was with the National Organization for Marriage.

On Oct. 1, 2009, the Maine ethics commission authorized its staff to conduct an investigation regarding whether NOM violated a campaign-finance law provision which states that organizations raising or spending more than $5,000 “for the purpose of initiating or promoting a ballot question” are required to register and to file campaign finance reports as a ballot question committee.

For the ethics commission, the concern was not so much on how much money NOM gave to Stand for Marriage PAC for the Yes on 1 campaign, which totaled approximately $1.9 million (though the commission did not know the full amount before the investigation began); the issue was on how much NOM spent on fundraising efforts specifically targeting Maine. NOM’s argument was that it raised money without specifying where the money was going.

The fundraising emails and direct mailers Karger provided the commission showed where NOM mentioned Maine (along with other states) when asking for donations. Karger also pointed out that NOM repeatedly promised donors anonymity in exchange for “generous donations,” with promises such as, “[U]nlike in California, every dollar you give to NOM’s Northeast Action Plan today is private, with no risk of harassment from gay marriage protesters.”

Additionally, NOM President Brian Brown sat on Stand for Marriage Maine’s five-member executive committee.

Both Stand for Marriage Maine PAC and NOM disputed Karger’s accusations through their shared lawyer Barry A. Bostrom of Terre Haute, Ind.-based litigation firm Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom.

In defense of NOM, Bostrom wrote:

NOM is a national organization that is active in several states across the country. It makes large contributions from its general treasury in several states. By “general treasury” we mean funds not solicited or designated for any specific state or ballot measure. … If the Commission were to launch a pre-election investigation, Karger will likely run ads and issue press releases trumpeting the “news” that the “Yes on Question 1″ campaign is under official investigation for ‘illegal’ activities. …  The Commission should not permit itself to be used in this matter, which could potentially impact the outcome of a free and fair election that is of crucial important to the people of Maine.

The day the ethics commission voted (3 to 2) to launch the investigation, NOM President Brian Brown told reporters:

“We look forward to the investigation because we’re gonna be able to prove that we’ve done nothing wrong. We’ve complied with all campaign finance law, and this is nothing more than an attempt to harass people who want to stand up for traditional marriage.”

Watch a WMTW.com video clip on the ruling:

The lawsuits

Brown claimed he “looked forward to the investigation,” but on Oct. 21, before the investigation could even begin, NOM sued the state, claiming the provision of the law it was accused of violating was unconstitutional. The plaintiffs were denied a request for a restraining order to prevent the commission from pursuing its investigation while the state tested the constitutionality of Maine’s campaign-finance law. The investigation went forward, and the commission subpoenaed NOM for documents and information.

Rather than submitting the requested information, NOM filed petitions to “vacate or modify” the subpoenas, objecting to them as “overbroad, irrelevant, and immaterial.”

The commission denied NOM’s request. In a memo, dated Feb. 19, 2010, Wayne wrote to his staff:

NOM contributed $1.93 million to SMM, which ran a successful political campaign expressly advocating in favor of the same-sex marriage people’s veto referendum. NOM provided roughly 62.6% of SMM’s funding.

In a memo dated March 16, 2010, Wayne wrote to his staff:

Mr. Brown also asserts that if he has to answer questions by the Commission staff or counsel regarding communications with SMM, that will “substantially alter how [he] would choose to communicate in the future.” This is plainly not enough to constitute irreparable harm. If it were, then every investigation that involves asking people questions about activities that may trigger certain regulatory obligations would constitute irreparable harm – a notion unsupported by the case law we have reviewed.

Wayne, who has been the executive director of the Maine ethics commission for the past eight years, recently told TAI that he could not remember another entity suing the state to prevent an investigation.

“Most of the time, if there’s a question on whether a political party or political interest group has complied [with the law], most respondents are cooperative and provide information to the state to determine whether there were violations or not,” Wayne said.

He called NOM’s actions “unusual.”

“I think anyone who really wants to understand why NOM is doing this,” Wayne said, “they believe [seeking the identities of their donors] interferes with the political process. That’s motivating the legislation.”

On March 3, 2010, NOM’s team filed another suit in state Superior Court challenging the commission’s Feb. 25, 2010, decision to deny their requests to vacate the subpoenas. This effectively halted the investigation.

What is NOM afraid of revealing?

In August 2010, the U.S. District Court upheld the constitutionality of Maine’s campaign finance law, but NOM refused to concede defeat and appealed the court’s decision. The federal case moves forward next month, when the U.S. District Court will be hearing oral arguments for NOM’s appeal case. The next court date is scheduled for Sept. 14 in Boston, Wayne said.

Last month, Karger wrote a post in the blog Liberaland, suggesting Brown and Gallagher could face prison time depending on the commission’s ruling.

“Some people will absolutely say anything to try to get publicity for themselves,” NOM”s counsel Jim Bopp, Jr., told TAI in an email, in response to Karger’s implication that NOM’s leaders could face jail time. “I guess it worked.”

He did not comment further on the matter.

In response to questions as to why NOM has been fighting this investigation for so long, NOM board chair Maggie Gallagher said she was not familiar enough with the investigation or lawsuit to comment, and President Brian Brown chose not to respond.

Among the materials requested by the Maine ethics commission in last year’s subpoena include: all revenue NOM received in 2009 and where that revenue came from; the identity of any donors to NOM who contributed $5,000 or more in 2009; and all communications between NOM and these donors. The commission also requested all information regarding expenditures made by NOM or by Stand for Marriage Maine PAC related to the people’s veto referendum on same-sex marriage; all communication between NOM and SMM; and minutes from SMM and NOM board meetings throughout 2009.

Most of the above-mentioned information would not be disclosed to the public, Wayne has stated during commission meetings, but NOM has demonstrated it does not even want to disclose documentation to a state agency whose job is to ensure ethics in elections and campaigns.

If Maine’s ethics commission — if it is ever able to continue its investigation — finds that NOM violated the law, at that point, the organization might have to disclose where it got its money to help Maine revoke marriage privileges from same-sex couples.

“The 2009 people’s veto referendum was a high-profile election that affected the civic rights of Maine citizens,” Wayne told TAI. “It’s important in general for Maine voters to know who is influencing elections, where the financing for campaigns is coming from [so that voters] can evaluate the messages in campaigns [that appear] in voters’ mailboxes and on their TV screens.”

In part, the goal of the investigation is to make NOM’s actions in Maine more transparent. Regardless of whether that’s happened, the Maine investigation has challenged NOM’s persistent donation-solicitation promise that contributors’ names will never be revealed.

NOM’s fundraising communications now come with a disclaimer. A recent email, dated Aug. 4, 2011:

Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization with QNC status, are not tax-deductible. The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors; however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.

Meanwhile, the future of legal marriage for gay and lesbian couples in Maine is uncertain.

NOM leaders have stated confidence they will be able to prevent a repeal of the repeal. Gallagher recently told the Associated Press: “We’d be optimistic about winning again if they want to put Maine through another campaign.” And as The American Independent recently reported, NOM is trying to raise between $15 million and $20 million by the end of fiscal year 2011, for all of its anti-marriage-equality efforts across the country.

A copy of the bill can be found here. The Sun Journal reports:

Proponents say charter schools bring flexibility and innovation to Maine education, offering students and parents the choice of a private school-like education without having to pay tuition. Sen. Garrett Mason, R-Lisbon Falls, the bill’s lead sponsor, said charters can tailor their curriculum to create specialized schools, such as an arts-based elementary school or a one that focuses on agriculture. Mason described Maine’s current public education system as “one size fits all” that doesn’t work for every student.”Sometimes we have square pegs that don’t fit in the round holes,” he said.

Opponents have countered that charters aren’t the panacea to education problems. They said charters, which are publicly funded, take students and resources from traditional public schools that are already underfunded. If successful, critics say, charters can destroy the public schools in their communities. Sen. Margaret Craven, D-Lewiston, said charters in other states like Massachusetts were “hoovering up” high-performing students from public schools, leaving them with fewer students but the same costs to keep the facilities running.

If Maine passes its charter school legislation it would become the 41^st state to do so,according to USCharterSchools.org. Vermont, Alabama, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Washington,  Kentucky, and West Virginia are the other states without charter school legislation. The site also explains charter schools offer similar results to traditional public schools but involve less public funds, with average per-pupil fundingdisparity of $1,800.

The jury is still out on the effectiveness of charter schools. In 2010, the University of Minnesota Law School’s Institute on Race and Poverty completed a study examining the charter school effect on post-Katrina New Orleans, finding the biggest school re-organization effort in the country has led to “‘a separate but unequal tiered system of schools’ that sorts white students and a relatively small share of students of color into selective, high-performing schools, while steering the majority of low-income students of color to high-poverty, low-performing schools.”

In another study from 2010, a team at the University of Colorado in Boulder followed the graduation rates of displaced students who were relocated to new schools after administrators closed down ones in which they were enrolled. The dropout rates among these students doubled, and their likelihood of graduating fell from 71 to 49 percent.

US News and World Report published its list of the top 100 public high schools in the U.S. which included 15 charter schools last year, a high representation given the majority of K-12 programs are not chartered. The article explains most charter programs admit students based on a selection process. With few exceptions, traditional public schools do not maintain an application system.

The latest story coming from the state is that newly elected Republican Governor Paul LePage has ordered the removal of a mural in the state Department of Labor building that portrays the history of the labor movement in Maine. The mural, by local artist Judy Taylor (the complete image of which can be found below), begins with a cobbler training an apprentice, then depicts growing child labor and deplorable conditions for women working in factories, before depicting votes, strikes and demonstrations that earned rights for Maine laborers. It ends with a panel of an old-fashioned worker handing a hammer to the next generation — ostensibly inoffensive stuff, advocating workers’ rights and celebrating skilled labor.

Not so, according to Gov. LePage. LePage spokesman Dan Demeritt told local paper the Lewiston Sun Journal that the mural was a piece of “one-sided décor” that “some business owners” had complained about.

“The message from state agencies needs to be balanced,” said Demeritt.

LePage also intends to rename conference rooms at the Department of Labor, which are currently named after labor figures like New Deal labor secretary Frances Perkins and protest leader César Chávez. The state will hold a contest to rename the rooms; Demeritt suggests naming them “after mountains, counties or something.”

The news comes on the heels of several new Maine bills seeking to do away with labor protections in the state. A bill that has the support of Maine restaurant and hotel owners would raise limits on working hours during the Maine school year for 16- and 17-year-olds. It would increase the weekly work hour limit for minors from 20 to 32 hours; the daily limit from 4 to 6 hours; and the time at which minors’ workday must end from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. Business owners say that Maine is unfairly restrictive when it comes to working minors, but educators and Maine Democrats have said that such a policy could help big business at the expense of education. The bill is due for a discussion on the floor of the House of Representatives on Friday.

Meanwhile, two bills aimed at weakening unions are currently in the House Committee on Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development. One would make membership in public unions voluntary but preserve the unions’ representation of public workers in a given industry. The other would block the enforcement of membership dues by all unions in the state. Both bills could cripple public and private unions in Maine by enabling non-members and non-paying members to use their services without contributing to them. There are no hearings scheduled imminently for the bills.

Below is the 11-panel mural by artist Judy Taylor that is responsible for the latest battle in the war against labor in Maine. Click to view full-size.

Image courtesy of Judy Taylor. Photo by Imbrogno Photography.