Legal Shennanigens Surround Anti-Gay Ballot Proposal

[Alyrium Denryle]

link

Legal Questions Remain over Contributions to Yes on 102 - By Mark R. Kerr
PHOENIX (Observer Update) - As the contributions flowed for yesformarriage.com, legal questions pile up for the proponents of Proposition 102, the proposed state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between “one man and one woman,” Arizona law and court precedent notwithstanding.

As reported in this publication (Issue 1261, September 17, 2008) questions arose over contributions reported by yesformarriage.com (Filed ID#200810206), the main proponents of Proposition 102.

Donations by corporations, non-profits and limited liability companies were reported on recent financial statements filed by yesformarriage.com with the Arizona Secretary of State’s office bringing other state financial laws into question.

Arizona law, A.R.S. 16-919, Section A, which reads: “It is unlawful for a corporation or a limited liability company to make any contribution of money or anything of value for the purpose of influencing an election, and it is unlawful for the designating individual who formed an exploratory committee, an exploratory committee, a candidate or a candidate's campaign committee to accept any contribution of money or anything of value from a corporation or a limited liability company for the purpose of influencing an election.” This is backed up further in 16-914.01: Reporting of contributions by committees acting on ballot measures; civil penalty; definition, which States in section E. “For the purposes of this section, "single source" includes principals of the same partnership, corporation, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership or association.”

Of the numerous donations to note on August 20, the Pete King Corporation (Arizona Corporation Commission File Number: -0068559-8), mailing address - P O Box 9158, Phoenix, AZ 85068, made a $100,000 contribution and on September 5, the Crisis Pregnancy Centers of Greater Phoenix (Arizona Corporation Commission File Number:-File Number: -0181891-5), mailing address - P.O. Box 60336, Phoenix, AZ 85082, made a $100,000 contribution as well to yesformarriage.com.

Neither the Pete King Corporation or the Crisis Pregnancy Centers have formed a political committee or are a “Super PAC” (Arizona Revised Statutes 16-902, 16-902-01 or 16-902-02), avenues corporations, non-profit, limited liability or otherwise can form and register, if they want to influence elections.

For the Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPC) of Greater Phoenix donation, there are even more legal questions since according to the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) website, they’re not in good standing since they have not filed an annual report for the past three years, as stated in A.R.S. 10-1621 - 10-1630, required by corporations, non-profit or otherwise to do so to be in good standing in Arizona. According to their website, cpcphoenix.org, the Crisis Pregnancy Centers of Phoenix are “a non-profit, life-affirming ministry whose mission is "saving lives and protecting futures." Our goal is to impact the community by offering programs and services that boldly speak the truth in love while offering choices, support, and hope.”

As of September 29, according to Patricia Ballinger, attorney for the Arizona Corporation Commission, the Crisis Pregnancy Centers of Greater Phoenix, Inc. is shown to be in good standing in the Arizona Corporation Commission records since it has filed all past-due annual reports but the question over the donation remained since if the CPC is a “non-profit organization,” classified as 501©3 under federal tax law, then that brings into question their status since federal tax laws state that such entities, “ ... with this classification are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office. Public charities (but not private foundations) are permitted to conduct a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation.”

None of that came into consideration, according to Joseph Kanefield, State Election Director for Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer, who stated in a letter dated October 8 that the “ ... status of each of these contributors with the Arizona Corporation Commission does not weigh into their analysis. Any person can give a contribution to a ballot measure in Arizona.”

Kanefield’s letter seems to follow earlier statements by his boss and proponent of Proposition 102, Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer, who commented during the legal tussle surrounding the ballot language that "mentioning existing Arizona law 'confuses people.' 'The bottom line is, we're dealing with the constitution, and they want to kind of muddy it up with the statutes,' she said. 'And I don't agree with that.’”

Complaints with the federal Internal Revenue Service, the Arizona Department of Revenue and the Arizona Attorney General’s office were filed simultaneously with the complaints to the Arizona Corporation Commission and the Arizona Secretary of State’s office.

Investigations with the Internal Revenue Service, the Arizona Department of Revenue and the Arizona Attorney General’s office are continuing as of press time.

Bear in mind that the ballot proposal itself is on the ballot illegally after an illegal motion in the state senate.

[Tsyroc]

Well, both of these seem like good news to me because if the stupid thing happens to pass there are already two easy legalities to shoot it down.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Good for the Arizona! If they do pass, they can just undo it because it was passed illegally.

[Mayabird]

Good for the Arizona! If they do pass, they can just undo it because it was passed illegally.

Let's all say it with me: "ACTIVIST JUDGES!" If the judges even bother doing it.

Well, the one silver lining here is that the anti-abortion fundamentalist "pregnancy clinic" will have $100k less to tell poor dumb teen girls that they're dirty sluts and will go to hell if they get an abortion. It'd probably pass even without their money.

I looked up that corporation. It's a construction company.