Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

ProgressOhio: Right-Wing Group Hid Campaign Cash

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Places » Ohio Donate to DU
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-28-07 01:27 PM
Original message
ProgressOhio: Right-Wing Group Hid Campaign Cash
(Just got this as an email.)

A group that in 2004 advocated for passage of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage appears to have intentionally concealed its campaign donors and expenses, according to a complaint filed earlier today with Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner.

Citizens for Community Values Action raised and spent more than $1.4 million to promote the amendment, known as Issue 1, but filed no campaign finance reports in 2004 or 2005.

CCVA’s only campaign finance report lists spending just $42,286.58, but those expenses are listed in 2006.

In forms filed with the IRS, however, CCVA it "advocated’" for Issue 1’s passage “through newsletters, newspaper ads, radio ads and televisions ads; succeeded in amending the Ohio state constitution."

In separate campaign reports required of corporations, CCVA said it gave more than $1.4 million to the pro-Issue 1 campaign, and that money was spent on television advertising, campaign mailings, polling and other campaign-related activities.

"The timing of the creation of CCVA, and the money it spent to promote Issue 1, suggest it was created to try and end-run campaign disclosure laws,’" said Brian Rothenberg, ProgressOhio’s executive director. Non-profits can give to ballot issues but they still have to follow Ohio’s election laws, he said, and those laws require PACs to detail the sources of their donations and expenditures.

"Transparency in elections is a value that must be enforced,’" Rothenberg said, "and whether this was an oversight or an effort to deceive is something the secretary of state will have to determine."
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
geiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-02-07 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's amusing to see Rothenberg even use the term possible oversight
He's our number one jumper-upper-downer! The notion that this could have ever been an "oversight" by any stretch of the imagination is nonsensical babble.

Passage of this amendment also greatly affects non-married domestic couples of opposite genders as well, something that is not pointed out enough. It prohibits any two people of the opposite sex that are living together from entering any type of contract with each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 22nd 2024, 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Ohio Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC