Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Recent News
Home / Politics / Anti-gay marriage group balks at proposed disclosure guidelines
Not only calling the disclosure guideline unnecessary and unfair, the group's chairman also questioned whether it is a change the Campaign Finance Board has the authority to make.

Anti-gay marriage group balks at proposed disclosure guidelines

The main umbrella group backing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in Minnesota said Tuesday that it intends to comply only with current state fundraising disclosure laws, balking at more stringent requirements recently proposed by the Campaign Finance Board.

In a news release, the Minnesota for Marriage campaign fired back against new proposed guidelines for disclosure that would require the campaigns to release not only detailed income and expenditure reports, but also the identities of many donors who support nonprofits that eventually contribute to campaigns.

The disclosure guidelines themselves were sure to stir up a legal battle over campaign finance law in Minnesota, as Capitol Report explained last week, and Minnesota for Marriage’s newly announced opposition to the rules is sure to inflame that sentiment. Calling the disclosure guidelines unnecessary and unfair, the group’s chairman also questioned whether it is a change the Campaign Finance Board has the authority to make.

“Minnesota for Marriage will disclose all donations we receive, as well as all expenditures that we make, consistent with longstanding Minnesota law,” MFM’s chairman John Helmberger said in the news release. “However, what [Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board] bureaucrats are attempting to do goes well beyond what the law requires, substituting themselves for the Legislature in an illegal attempt to compel disclosure of information not required by law. We oppose such illegal regulations.”

In originally laying out the proposed guidelines, Gary Goldsmith, the CFPD’s executive director, called the decision the “conservative” approach, specifically when it comes to the legal definition of a contribution.

“This proposed narrow definition favors free speech at the expense of not obtaining the maximum possible disclosure that might be constitutionally permitted,” Goldsmith wrote.

The proposed guidelines are awaiting final action from the board, and could change further in the process.


  1. Just go away marriage cops….
    Cheers, Joe Mustich, CT USA,
    Justice of the Peace,
    Minister, ULC

  2. I love the title. Not at all biased against the pro-traditional movement at all…you think?? This is NOT anti anything. This is just codifying the current law. An amendment making an existing law permanent is not at all *anti* the opposing view. There is also a movement with regard to supporting multiple spouses in this country. Why isn’t this called the “Anti-Multiple Spouses Amendment” anywhere? People, start doing some thinking on your own and stop listening to biased sites like this one.

  3. What are they afraid of? Or is it because they don’t want people to know their entire campaign is being paid for by a handful of rich fundamentalist Christians (AKA the Koch brothers, the Amway people, etc.).

  4. MN Warrior, please take your scare tactics somewhere else. This isn’t a slippery slope. Even if homosexuality was a choice, religion is the biggest choice made and it has the most protections in the US. Why shouldn’t it be the same for everyone? My religion says same-sex marriage is okay, where is the protection for my beliefs?

  5. Sodomites have a history of personally harassing donors.

  6. So if your religion says yo can marry three human beings and two children then I guess it is OK. May the Lord have mercy on you and your church. The bible is specific on these issues. Please don’t hide behind your church if they say things are OK with them but not the bible. beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing. God bless.

Leave a Reply