NOM: grassroots or astroturf?

[hootinholler]

On their face I've always suspected many right wing organizations are astroturf because if they had done the work to raise funds it is something they would be proud of.

The Human Rights Campaign posted a review of recent IRS filings made by NOM and it looks like there are several large benefactors providing the vast majority of their funding.

We haven’t had a chance yet to cull through it with a fine-tooth comb but here’s an observation regarding the group’s donors. Most of the $7.1 million in revenue in ’09 came from a few very large donors. These donors could be individuals or corporations. Here is how NOM’s top donations break down.

1. $2,475,000

2. $1,230,000

3. $1,100,000

4. $400,000

5. $150,000

Running the numbers, this means that 3 wealthy donors contributed 68% of their total donations; 4 donors gave 73% and 5 donors gave 75%.

These figures reinforce what we and others (Fred Karger) have been saying: the National Organization for Marriage does not represent some sizeable (or even small) grassroots constituency. The only “constituency” they represent is that of a few anti-gay folks who have a lot of money. NOM’s reluctance to make their tax returns available publicly is par for the course in their pattern of secrecy and shadowy dealings.

On Monday, January 3, HRC went to the Washington, D.C. NOM office and asked for a copy of its 2009 990 for both its (c) 3 and (c) 4 organizations. Video of the exchange is here. On Tuesday, January 4, HRC went back to the office and obtained a hard-copy of the (c) 4 990. It appears NOM did not provide us with a complete return.

-Hoot

[DainBramaged]

1. Nom:

[corkhead]

2. Koch suckers?