Human Rights Campaign Quietly Removes Illegally Obtained Tax Information from Website


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

"We demand that federal authorities immediately launch an investigation into this crime...This is reminiscent of Watergate."—Brian Brown, NOM president—

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C. — Following the release yesterday of proof by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is the source of leaked confidential donor information, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) removed from its website all reference to NOM's un-redacted 2008 1099 tax form, which it had previously posted. The action by the Human Rights Campaign comes within a day of NOM's attorneys contacting them and demanding they remove the material is a clear indication of the seriousness of the criminal activity that has occurred.

"They now realize that they have done something tremendously wrong here or they would not have removed the references," NOM President Brian Brown said today. "A felony has been committed and the Treasury Department must investigate who within the IRS has committed it, and whether people with the Obama Administration or the HRC are co-conspirators in the criminal release of our confidential tax return. We demand that federal authorities immediately launch an investigation into this crime. This is not a routine leak of some obscure document. We're talking about someone in the Obama Administration's IRS releasing to a group headed by President Obama's national co-chair the private tax return containing confidential donor information of their main opponent. This is reminiscent of Watergate, and the American people are entitled to know the truth of what has occurred."

On March 30 The Huffington Post ran NOM's 2008 1099 tax form without redacting confidential donor information. The outlet said it obtained the scanning of the document from the Human Rights Campaign. The president of that organization, Joe Solmonese, is a national co-chair of President Obama's reelection campaign. At press time, The Huffington Post had not removed its scanning of the 1099.

"As we stated in our letter to The Huffington Post, we demand they immediately take down all references to our illegally released tax documents," Brown said.

To view NOM's demand letters to the IRS, HRC and The Huffington Post click here.


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. RichardCortijo
    Posted April 13, 2012 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    Not to worry, we all have copies.

  2. Randy E King
    Posted April 13, 2012 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

    The HRC (Human Rights Campaign) is already an accessory after the fact; guilty of aiding and abetting a federal felon - crossing state lines won't get you out of this one with the FBI on yout tail.

    "A person charged with aiding and abetting or accessory is usually not present when the crime itself is committed, but he or she has knowledge of the crime before or after the fact, and may assist in its commission through advice, actions, or financial support. Depending on the degree of involvement, the offender's participation in the crime may rise to the level of conspiracy. "

    This could even been considered a hate crime if you were to apply the same standards marriage corruption supporters use when addressing those who refuse to accept their falsehoods as gospel.

  3. leo
    Posted April 14, 2012 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    NOM should subpoena you as part evidence of NOM's damages due to the tax crime, and the aid and abet by HRC for personal or political gain.

    You should contact NOM's head quarters and further establish that you made a copy for personal gain. What you actually do with the info that is protected by the Fed, may be considered aiding and abetting also.

    RC, all joke aside, it's a serious matter...

  4. Randy E King
    Posted April 14, 2012 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    "DNC pays off sexual harassment allegations in North Carolina"

    As the story goes:

    The Executive Director -a male- of the North Carolina DNC was accused of sexually harrasing a male staffer; prompting an all cash settlement in exchange for the signing of a non-dislosure agreement - a settlement that was not reported in its financial disclosure report as mandated by law.

    The DNC Director in question has not been removed from office and the DNC is refusing to answer any questions. You would think that after the DNC had taken such a public position expressing its outrage over the Catholic Church's protection of sexual predetors in its ranks they would have at least attempted to pretend they were not cut from the same cloth.

  5. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted April 14, 2012 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    Big mistake for anyone involved in this crime, as well as for anyone in possession of this stolen property. They are all accessories. How dumb and/or arrogant must a person be to display the proof of their crime all over the internet?

  6. DaJuan Hayes
    Posted April 14, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    Gay Americans come out of the closet, and those who want to deny us marriage equality go INTO the closet.

  7. Son of Adam
    Posted April 14, 2012 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    "Gay Americans come out of the closet, and those who want to deny us marriage equality go INTO the closet."

    Yet more evidence of how the marriage corruption movement is striving to suppress dissent.

  8. Mr. Incredible
    Posted April 14, 2012 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

    Make no mistake -- they ain't gonna stifle MY dissent.

  9. Graham
    Posted April 16, 2012 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    They are accessories after the fact.

  10. Posted April 16, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    "Gay Americans come out of the closet, and those who want to deny us marriage equality go INTO the closet."

    Since there isn't anyone who wants to deny anyone marriage equality (which all citizens already enjoy, regardless of their sexual orientation), no one's really being closeted. :)

  11. Mary
    Posted April 16, 2012 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Daughter of Eve: your "everyone can already get married" is disingenuous and cruel. Always has been, always will be.

  12. Randy E King
    Posted April 16, 2012 at 1:49 pm | Permalink


    Your feigned moral superiority is disingenuous and cruel in light of the factual data you mock. Like-gendered sex enthusiasts are not a species unto themselves; no amount of peer pressure will ever make it so.

  13. ResistSSA
    Posted April 16, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    Mary -

    What's disingenuous and cruel? No one is stopping you from forming relationships with people of the same sex. What you find cruel is the government's and society's recognition that same-sex couples are not the same as male-female couples. Sometimes facts can seem cruel. My grandfather had his driver's license taken away when his vision got bad; he thought that was cruel.

  14. Mr. Incredible
    Posted April 16, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    Who is stopping anybody frm marrying in the same way everybody else marries?

    The law that defines "marriage" as the union of a man and a woman doesn't say that the man, nor the woman, has to be heterosexual. Both may claim to be homo, for all the law cares.

  15. Chairm
    Posted April 16, 2012 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    When the facts stand against their pro-SSM viewpoint, some SSMers say that stating the facts is disingenuous and cruel.

    Facts are stubborn things.

    There is no gay criterion for ineligilbity to marry. And no straight criterin for eligibility.

    SSMers need for the facts to be different. They need to have something to complain about and so they would rather make up their own facts. Arguing on that false basis is disingenuous.

    Likewise, SSMers depend on marriage being considered as a sexual type of relationship under the law.

    Well, sure, but the sexual basis is two-sexed, not one-sexed nor sex-neutral. This fact only prompts the SSMer to make-up more stuff.

    The law is neutral on sexual orientation. Fact. The law is neutral on gay identiy. Fact. No individual is ineligible on the basis of either homosexuality or gay identity.

    Another fact: the law is not neutral on something they demand the law become neutral on: the two-sexed sexual basis of marriage. And that is because the marriage law is for marriage, not non-marriage.

    SSMers begin with marriage as a sexual type of relationship under the law, but when pressed they end-up arguing that SSM would not be a sexual type of relationship under the law -- and they stretch that to insist that marriage is not a sexual type of relationship under the law.

    It is that absurd. That is the fact of SSM argumentation.

    Ask the SSMer what was mean by the complaint that stating the facts is cruel. The complaint is meant to invoke a moral claim.

    SSMers depend on a moral assumption that the coital relations of husband and wife is the moral equivalent of whatever sexual behavior might be favored in the all-male or the all-female scenarios that they have in mind when relying on homosexuality and gay identity as their touchstones.

    But they fail to back-up the assertion of that moral equivalence; they do not provide sound moral arguments in favor of their assumption. So they abandon morality as an illegitimate basis for lawmaking.

    They switch from the basis for lawmaking to a supposed moral neutrality on implementing the law. But consider the facts that are supposedly cruel to state. Those facts are morally neutral on the very touchstones that the SSMers depend upon. The law has no homosexuality criterion and no gay identity criterion for ineligibility to marry. The law, as implemented, is neutral.

    So SSM is presented as a gaycentric type of relationship but as a not as a sexual type of relationship under the law; revising the law to be pro-SSM is presented as morally neutral even though it depends on a moral assumption that the SSMers abandon when arguing for the revsion.

    The SSM campaign's rhetoric and argumentation is disingenuous.

    If stating the facts is cruel, then, why do SSMers invite the stating of these facts when they push such poor arguments and make such unsound moral assumptions?

    They want the subject to be gay this and that; they need it to be about sexual orientation; they cannot abide the societal significance of the core meaning of marriage -- except to abuse it.

    That calls for a moral claim that the SSM campaign is not just disingenuous but also cruel on a societal scale.

  16. leehawks
    Posted April 17, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Permalink


    Very Well done!

  17. Chairm
    Posted April 18, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, leehawks, and apologies for the typos.

  18. Jane
    Posted April 19, 2012 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

    I love what you wrote Chairm. I agree with every word. As for Mr. Solomese, he will reap what he has sown. NOM must fight fire with fire and back these fearful perverted losers into a very tight corner. Now they will see that we are not to be trifled with.