National Organization for Marriage Demands a Federal Investigation of the Human Rights Campaign and the Internal Revenue Service


Contact: Anath Hartmann or Elizabeth Ray (703-683-5004)

"Either the HRC got NOM's tax return from someone with the Internal Revenue Service, or they got it from a hacker who stole it. Either way, it appears that a federal crime may have been committed." —Brian Brown, NOM President—

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, DC — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), today demanded a federal investigation of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to determine who was responsible for releasing NOM's confidential federal tax return information to the Huffington Post. Last week the publication posted a copy of NOM's federal tax return for 2008 (Form 990—Schedule B) listing its major donors, which is a confidential document filed only with the IRS. The tax return listed the names and addresses of dozens of NOM's major donors in 2008. All of this information is submitted to the IRS on a confidential basis and is not available for lawful public disclosure.

"It appears that someone with either the IRS or the HRC may have committed a federal crime by illegally obtaining and then releasing a confidential tax return of the National Organization for Marriage," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "It's clear that the tax return was stolen, either from NOM or from the government. The Huffington Post article says that HRC claimed they received the document from a ‘whistleblower.' But the term ‘whistleblower' is completely inapt. We're talking about a criminal who has stolen confidential tax return information. We demand to know who this criminal is, whether they work for the HRC or the IRS, and how they obtained confidential tax information filed only with the US government."

It is illegal for a government official or employee to make use of or publicly release a taxpayer's tax return. The form 990 Schedule B is submitted by nonprofit groups to the IRS and includes information on donor identity, including name, address and contribution amount. While federal law requires that nonprofit groups make their form 990 filings available for public inspection, the law provides that Schedule B information—the name and address of the contributor—is redacted, leaving only the amount given and the date of the donation as publicly-available information. Here, the un-redacted Schedule B was somehow obtained by the HRC. That information could only have come from the IRS itself, or have been stolen from NOM.

"I would like to know what the HRC knew and when did they know it," Brown said. "It certainly appears that either the HRC was involved in illegally obtaining this tax return themselves, or they worked with a criminal who stole it from NOM or the IRS. Either way, it appears that a federal crime may have been committed."

Brown said he would present a written demand for an investigation to both the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, and to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.


To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Anath Hartmann, [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).


  1. Randy E King
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    If these allegations are true than the Huffington Post may have committed a felony by publishing this information as an accomplice after the fact - It will not matter if the Huffington Post assummed release of the documents in question were authorized.

  2. TC Matthews
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    What do they want with tax documents?

  3. Stefan
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Permalink


  4. Joseph
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Why does NOM need to hide its donors?

  5. Mark Mead-Brewer
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    What about all the illegal things NOM continuing to hide donor lists even after being instructed to do so by not one but THREE seperate courts in three seperate states.

  6. Matt
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    Seems to me that the only reason for HRC to release this information is intimidate and bully donors. Hopefully anyone who gave to NOM will realize this and stand firm against this kind of illegal behavior.

  7. Aunti Laura
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    Desperation is a dish best served cold with a beurre blanc communion wine sauce.

  8. AW
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

    And we should ask why the Huffington Post would need to publish the list of donors for a nonprofit group - was it a really slow news week...? Or is this
    another case of gay activists trying to punish donors who disagree with them, and using the media to do it?

  9. beetlebabee
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    Whether they agree with you or disagree with you, the HRC shouldn't be in the business of stealing.

  10. Louis E.
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    The game of slandering advocacy of standards of conduct as motivated by "hate" of would-be violators of those standards is so precious to the SSM lobby they will do anything to further it.

  11. Posted April 5, 2012 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    I distanced myself from the Human Rights Campaign anyway. :P

    --Victor Golf Charles

  12. beetlebabee
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    Good point AW.

  13. AW
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    If I'm not mistaken, the reason NOM has been trying to convince the courts to allow it to avoid releasing its list of donors, is because in the past gay activists have been relentless in trying to ruin anyone who donates to, or otherwise supports, traditional marriage organizations or related causes. Look at what happened when gay activists published the names of people who signed petitions in support of traditional marriage in Massachusetts. Some people were harassed, others lost their jobs, I believe some were subjected to death threats, etc. So long as gay activists use Mafia tactics like this, organizations like NOM have little choice but to try to shield their donors from harassment.

  14. Seth Thayer
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps someone on your own staff has awakened and decided that your tactics are no good.

  15. Daniel
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    They're not 'hiding' their donors, it's just that the ones who were identified in CA faced incredible discrimination and bigotry.

  16. Little man
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    "the un-redacted Schedule B was somehow obtained by the HRC"

    This is intended to say that an official document, not required by law to be made public, was made public (and a newspaper printed it anyway) through one of 3 possibilities: a) Hacked, if submitted to the IRS via Internet (not likely, or NOM is in a deeper problem) b) The IRS staff broke the law, and c) most likely, there is a 'mole' in NOM's staff (per the internal memo made public, recently). Wow, it's like a thriller detective story. Christians tend to think the opposition is also kind, and considerate. In contrast, they are opportunistic and go around the law. Sorry for the troubles NOM. You are attacked because you matter a lot.

  17. Little man
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    Joseph: 'Why does NOM need to hide its donors?' Did you just wake up? Keeping the donors private information secret is protected by law. The law provides for confidentiality, in the same way your email address is kept confidential in this column thread. Get it? In a culture war, why wouldn't you want your home address, full name kept confidential. What would you think of an organization that cannot safe-guard your personal information? NOM will track down how this happened, or at least not be so trusting of its own staff.

  18. Posted April 5, 2012 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

    We will have to wait and see if a crime has been committed either with intent or out of negligence on the part of the person(s) who took property that did not belong that that person(s).

    This is not whistleblowing. Not by a stretch.

    However, it is this sort of incident that illustrates a profound problem with the SSM campaign. It takes the immoral position that to do good it is okay to do wrong.

    The (contested) fact that imposition of SSM would be a wrong is beside the point, in this context, because what the campaign is actually about is the entrenchment of the supremacy of gay identity politics. SSM is merely a vehicle for driving roughshod across all kinds of justifiable boundaries.

    When wrong means are so readily resorted to (and excused) in the name of doing a supposed good, the true face of the gay identity group's leadership is revealed.

  19. Matt
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    Mark Mead-Brewer - Can you be specific? or are you just spouting off? Have some evidence to back up your claims that NOM is violating court orders please.

  20. sw
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    The pro SSM movement has a history of trying to scare the opponents by trying to get personal info and put that info out on Christians. IF there is wrongdoing it needs to be investigated right now!

  21. Good News
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    The gloves are off!
    And they have been off!
    And they will stay off - until one man is down!
    I'm in! How do I get my own name on your tax return sheet NOM?

    Counter attack. And hit hard. And get the sympathy card. That seems to be the joker with which one can buy off an entire brainless population these days.
    This fight will be fought in many ways. NOM's very civil and respectful way is one of them.

    And at the end of the bloody day, with whoever it is that is left standing; Truth will remain unshaken. A man and a woman united will still be different than a man and a man, or a woman and a woman united. And the extreme “inequality” of these two unions, will forever remain so! That's just the way it is. But you can hurt a lot of kids along the way, by teaching them otherwise, by teaching them – a lie.

  22. Greg
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Re #10: "It takes the immoral position that to do good it is okay to do wrong."

    I believe that was the basis for the NOM-supported "Manhattan Declaration" which pledges to break the law in service to what its proponents consider "good".

  23. Kevin Johnston
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    US Constitution, 14th Amendment:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Have any kind of religious marriage you want. But do not advocate legislative inequality. Whether it's Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve, if they've lived together for 20 years, they're entitled to the same rights, including tax realities and survivor benefits.

  24. AM
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    "Why does NOM need to hide its donors?"

    Why do you think it's important to know the personal information of people who are engaging in a legal activity? Perhaps these people wish to avoid harassment.

    I will ask you this question:
    Why are gay rights supporters up in arms over the posting of personal information of gay men engaged in an *illegal* activity?
    Perhaps they also see the possibility of harassment.

  25. AM
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    Non- violent civil resistance is not considered immoral or wrong and has a good pedigree in Western democracies.

  26. D
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    I hope justice is swift and complete and the person or persons responsible are prosecuted to the FULL extent of the law. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that something is going to happen to stall the legal procedure re: the re-examining of the law concerning orginizations like know re-defining this or that or something else to takes the attention from the comitted crime. then som SSMer will dig up some supposed dirt (a lie) about an NOM staffer or something. Just wait and see! I hope this makes it past the gestapo censors last post did,t make it.

  27. M. Jones
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

    I'm confident that extremists who are found guilty and convicted in a court of law, will be punished to the full extent the law.

  28. AM
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    Kevin Johnston
    Providing tax realities(?) and survivor benefits to ss couples does not require redefining marriage.

  29. Ben
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    What a pathetic attempt at distraction from the actual crime here: NOM's vile tactics. It is an empty threat from NOM. And why? Because NOM definitely do not want ANY legal scrutiny of their accounts...due to the alarming degree of illegal circumvention there.

    After all, although NOM doesn't mention it anywhere on their website - they are actually engaged in FIVE lawsuits with different states about disclosure laws, and how NOM is illegally breaking them.

    NOM is funded almost exclusively by two large groups, the Catholic and Mormn churches. It is a front. A front for Churches to enter politics, which itself is a breach of the conditions for tax exemption.

    I am looking forward to the day this despicable hate group falls. It is a lot closer than some people realise.

  30. AM
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

    What the heck are you ranting about?
    Churches can not support a particular political candidate per the IRS...Duh.
    That has *nothing* to do with churches or charities supporting other causes; such as pro-life or pro-marriage organizations.

  31. D
    Posted April 5, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

    Ben's comment gives you a preview of the sick and twisted mindset that is likely to be used......let the lies begin!

  32. Sheila
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 2:02 am | Permalink

    Why are NOM's supporters ashamed of the fact that they support NOM?

    Just asking...

  33. Greg
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    AM: Sadly the history of anti-LGBT discrimination, fueled by the very homophobia that NOM is fueled by, has been anything but non-violent.

  34. Ash
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Whenever SSMers ask why NOM needs to hide its donors, it begs the question of why SSMers are desperate to find out the names and addresses of NOM's donors.

  35. grandmaliberty
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 9:12 am | Permalink

    Is anyone else sick to death of the special treatment of the Lgt ??? They have caused untold harm with the devisive tactics they use to push their unwanted agenda on people who don't agree with their lifestyle... how about making critical remarks about christians a hate crime... don't like that??? didn't think you would... ( that's how I feel about the gay hate law)

  36. Myron T. Philpot
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    As a heterosexual male, I think Maggie Gallagher would make me think twice about getting married.

  37. Robert
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    Stay on track here, the same sex activists people always try to steer off track.
    The fact is a crime was commited and the reason is the same sex activists people are getting desperate.
    If this happen to the LGBT there would be a posse out.

  38. Ash
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    Robert, other marriage supporters have also noticed that tactic on this blog. When the subject of the thread is one they can't handle, SSMers try to change it and get everyone to focus on something they want to discuss. That's what one commenter tried to do on the Thomas Roberts' thread.

  39. Posted April 6, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    "if they've lived together for 20 years, they're entitled to the same rights, including tax realities and survivor benefits."

    How about being reciprocal beneficiaries? But calling 2 brothers or 2 sisters, or a parent living with a grown child for 20 years "married," doesn't mean the same thing as an otherwise unrelated man and woman who marry, thus creating a legal kinship, and possibly creating and raising children. Marriage is a unique relationship, based on the sexual integration of two opposite-sexed adult individuals (of any sexual orientation). Establishing tax benefits or survivorship benefits outside of marriage can happen without redefining marriage.

  40. Kevin
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    Harassment? If you voice your opinions in the public sphere -- either by signing a petition, giving to an advocacy organization, or standing on a soap box on a corner -- then others have the God-given right to confront you for what you say. Confrontation does not equal harassment.

  41. James
    Posted April 6, 2012 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    Obama and his freak parade ! Unbelievable idiots.If you do not agree with their freak parade ideology,then it is OK to trample on other people's Civil Rights,with impunity.Executive Order is the only way that the homo agenda will pass.The world has spoken ! Obama will be bitch slapped by the people the same as the Supreme Court bitch slapped him.The freak parade will be defeated.

  42. cell phone numbers go public
    Posted April 8, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for the auspicious writeup. It in
    fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to more
    added agreeable from you! By the way, how can we communicate?

  43. AW
    Posted April 8, 2012 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Greg: in what sense does the Manhattan Declaration encourage any form of lawbreaking?

  44. AW
    Posted April 8, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    Kevin: by harassment, we mean cases in which people have lost their jobs, faced intimidation or death threats for voicing opposition to sodomy. For example, when fourteen-year-old Sarah Crank testified against SSM at a legislative hearing, she was subjected to death threats. When Paul Blair testified at a city council meeting and argued against proposed GLBT regulations that would force businesses to allow men to use women's restrooms, gay activists threatened to bomb his church and home, murder him, and rape his wife. And likewise for countless other individuals. The HRC's attempt to expose NOM's donors is designed to have the same chilling effect as publishing the names of people who signed petitions against SSM in Massachusetts: it's designed to intimidate people into silence. This type of Mafia tactic has become standard for gay activists.

  45. Ash
    Posted April 9, 2012 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    Great post #40, AW.

One Trackback

  1. [...] Says NOM president Brian Brown: [...]