Campaign-style ads that discuss the pros or cons of same-sex marriage but don't specifically mention a 2012 vote on a Minnesota constitutional amendment will require less disclosure about who's financing them, a state board determined Thursday.
... Under the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board's guidance, ads and other public communications that mention the pending 2012 vote will require routine accounting to regulators. But those that simply bring up the topic and remain silent on why won't be considered a ballot question expenditure.
The board has grappled since summer on how to shape enforcement guidelines around the contentious ballot campaign expected to spawn millions of dollars of activity on both sides.
... A spokesman for Minnesota for Marriage, which is pushing to adopt the constitutional amendment, had little to say about the board's decision. The group and its allies have flooded the campaign board with questions about various disclosure scenarios, which prompted some of Thursday's decisions.
"It's meaty," said Chuck Darrell, the Minnesota for Marriage spokesman. "We have to take some time to look at it."