Gerrymandering is an old, subversive form of pre-election
cheating. Officials in a state may draw up the voting districts in such a way
as to help a certain candidate or party win a poll. The history of the practice includes figures such as founding father Patrick Henry and former
Senator Barack Obama, along with institutions like Congress and the Supreme
Court.
The current decade has seen a form of post-election
underhandedness. The most popular example is the Internal Revenue Service
scandals of the past year or two. IRS agents—if not the agency as a whole—allegedly conducted extra scrutiny from 2010-2012
on conservative non-profit groups.
The story broke in 2013, but is currently heating up again as many
of the organizations are suing the federal government and various officials.
Most Republicans and some Democrats resent such extra-legal targeting, and
President Obama called it “inexcusable.”
But this game involves more than just the IRS. Some states
want in on the action, too.
In 2009, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) tried to overturn Maine’s new same-sex
marriage law. NOM’s efforts succeeded, and the law never took effect.
Then the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices began
investigating NOM’s involvement. After some legal delays, the commission
finally released its findings in late May. It found that NOM had failed to
register its campaign or reveal its donors, contrary to state law.
Maine requires all donors—other than political action
committees—to register in the state if they raise or spend more than $5,000 on
a ballot issue. NOM contributed about $2 million. Therefore, the commission recommended
fining NOM $50,250—nearly twice the largest penalty it has ever imposed.
NOM says it will appeal the decision. It does not contest
the $2 million figure; rather, it says that most of the money it raised went
into its general fund, and that most of its expenditures came out of the same
fund. The dollars were not specifically earmarked for the Maine initiative.
Therefore, NOM maintains, it should not have to reveal its donors or pay the
fine.
Both sides have made strong emotional appeals—but weak legal
arguments—to the press. NOM contends that Maine’s ethics commission is singling
it out, and that its gay rights opponent in the 2009 political battle, the
Human Rights Campaign, operated in the same way. Whether this claim is right or
not, it hardly helps to prove their innocence.
On the other hand, the commission refuses to acknowledge
that NOM’s money could have come only from general donations and expenses.
Walter McKee, chairman of the commission, believes this assertion “strains the
credibility here.” Still, the commission has the burden of proof to show any
actual wrongdoing.
This issue has broader implications for donations and
elections. In late March, Brendan Eich was appointed CEO of Mozilla. The next day, blogs, social media, and news reports began to
oppose his new leadership role because six years earlier Eich had donated to
the pro-traditional marriage Proposition 8 campaign in California. The attacks
became so strong that Eich resigned one week later. Obviously, NOM fears that
sort of retribution against any of its donors.
Also, presidential elections are not far away. NOM and other
groups—conservative and liberal—might be forced to play more limited roles if
their donors fear future identification. Both the IRS and Maine ethics
commission have their place. But making one-sided, incompetent, or excessive inspections
goes beyond their mission.
Please pray for:
- Humility, integrity, and forethought on the part of officials and private citizens who seek to restrict or examine other groups or individuals
- Dialogue and justice to prevail over bias and unilateralism all across America
- Politically-minded organizations to abide by all laws pertaining to their activities
- Religious freedom and biblical truth to prevail in today’s culture wars
~~~~~~~~
(Originally published by The Presidential Prayer Team.)
No comments:
Post a Comment