Attorneys for a national group that has funded more than half of the money raised so far to repeal Maine's same-sex marriage law were in federal court today in Portland, trying to get a temporary restraining order against the Maine Ethics Commission. The commission has launched an investigation into the financial sources of the National Organization for Marriage and a group called American Principles in Action. But the two groups argue that Maine's laws governing the reporting of fundraising activity are unconstitutional.

At issue for the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage are the Maine laws governing requirements for so-called Ballot Question Committees. The rules say anyone raising or spending more than $5,000 on a campaign issue has to register with the Maine Ethics Commission, appoint a treasurer and file periodic reports on every contribution and expenditure.

So far, NOM has contributed $1.6 million for Yes On One/Stand for Marriage Maine. That's more than 60 percent of the money given to the same-sex marriage repeal effort. But despite the group's fundraising success, Attorney Josiah Neeley says his clients believe Maine reporting laws are overly burdensome and violate their First Amendment rights.

"There's a long tradtion in this country of anonymous speech dating back to the Federalist Papers, which were anonymous, Neeley says. "And particularly in the Internet age there's an increasing risk of harassment and increasing privacy concerns that come from some of these disclosure provisions. And the First Amendment protects their ability to do that."

Neeley maintains that NOM raises and spends money for states across the country, and that contributors donate to the organization without specifying which state it should go to or how it should be used. But in direct appeals to prospective contributors in several states this summer, NOM specifically mentioned Maine's same-sex marraige referendum.

And Assistant Attorney General Phyllis Gardiner says, at the very least, NOM should be required to pro-rate the amount of money received from each state to help determine whether NOM has met Maine's threshold to report as a Ballot Question Committee.
"I think that certainly if a multi-state organization is engaged in solicitations for a variety of campaigns there's a rationale for pro-rating those contributions."

Gardiner says there's a compelling interest for the public to know who is spending a significant amount of money to influence the outcome of an election, whether it's an individual or an interest group, in-state or out-of-state. She says this is the first time that this particular election statute has been challenged.

She says plenty of other organizations are complying with the law. And she disputes the idea that limits are being put on NOM's, or the group American Principles in Action's, speech.

"The statute doesn't restrict in any way what they can raise or what they can spend. It doesn't restrict political speech in any way. It's simply about reporting after the fact how much you spent or raised for the purpose of influencing the vote in Maine," Gardiner says.

A decision on NOM's request for a temporary restraining order is expected from U.S. District Judge D. Brock Hornby on Wednesday.