This press release from Maine Freedom To Marry just hit the inbox today, emphasis mine:
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: Aug 6 2009
Contact: Mark Sullivan, Communications Director, (207)899-1330NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality Signs Code of Fair Campaign Practices, Calls on Opposition to Endorse Standard of Ethics
"We invite our opponents to join us and deliver the kind of campaign that Maine voters want and deserve"
Portland, Maine (Thursday, August 6, 2009)---Today, the NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign signed a code of campaign ethics and practices based on the 2008 Maine Code of Fair Campaign Practices (21-A M.R.S.A. ? 1101(2)) and asked opponents to sign pledge and join NO on 1 in conducting a civil campaign Maine voters have come to expect.
The pledge (see attached) was adapted to suit ballot initiatives and was FAXed to Frank Schubert of the California-based Shubert Flint Public Affairs who opponents have identified as managing their campaign to strip away marriage equality. The 2008 Maine Code of Campaign Practices is routinely signed by candidates running for public office in the state. The letter and pledge was also sent to Marc Mutty, the public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine.
"Maine has a longstanding tradition of campaigns that do not engage in mudslinging, lies, distortions and the politics of division," said Jesse Connolly, Campaign Manager for NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality. "Maine voters expect us to take the high road, avoid poisonous attacks, and make our case based on fact and principle. Today, NO on 1 pledged to abide by that high standard, and we invite our opponents to join us and deliver the kind of campaign that Maine voters want and deserve."In a June 18th article in the Portland Press Herald, Mr. Mutty, of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine, stated that marriage equality opponents have hired Schubert Flint "to run the campaign." Schubert Flint is the same firm that ran the $39 million Prop 8 campaign which overturned marriage equality in California in November 2008.
Connolly's letter to Schubert reads:
"As we embark on the campaign to preserve marriage equality in Maine, it seems both ethical and important that we agree on the terms and tenor of this engagement. I am not sure whre whether or not there is a similar procedure in your home state of California. But in Maine, our campaigns, while not lacking in rigor or enthusiasm, operate in an atmosphere of mutual respect and in a distortion-free zone. I look forward to seeing you soon on the campaign trail here in Maine.""I hope that our opponents will join us and sign the pledge," Connolly said. "By agreeing to abide by these standards, we will ensure a campaign in which we can all take pride. Marriage equality in Maine is about our commitment to fairness and justice. And in the end, it's what voters both expect and deserve."
The ball is now in the opposition's court. Let's see what they decide to do with it.
* Baucus, MT - (202) 224-2651Uh, what was that from Senator Hagan during the campaign that she doesn't believe in discrimination? Chris@LawDork tells it like it is.
* Bayh, IN - (202) 224-5623
* Begich, AK - (202) 224-3004
* Bennet, CO - (202) 224-5852
* Byrd, WV - (202) 224-3954
* Carper, DE - (202) 224-2441
* Conrad, ND - (202) 224-2043
* Dorgan, ND - (202) 224-2551
* Hagan, NC - (202) 224-6432
* Johnson, T., SD - (202) 224-5842
* Kaufman, DE - (202) 224-5042
* Kohl, WI - (202) 224-5653
* Landrieu, LA - (202) 224-5824
* Lincoln, AR - (202) 224-4843
* McCaskill, MO - (202) 224-6154
* Nelson, Bill, FL - (202) 224-5274
* Nelson, Ben, NE - (202) 224-6551
&nbs p; * Pryor, AR - (202) 224-2353
* Reid, NV - (202) 224-3542
* Rockefeller, WV - (202) 224-6472
* Stabenow, MI - (202) 224-4822
* Tester, MT - (202) 224-2644
* Warner, M., VA - (202) 224-2023
* Webb, VA - (202) 224-4024
Well, make your calls, folks. It's no good having 60 votes if we only get a few more than half of the caucus on a matter of basic fairness like employment non-discrimination.And, for all the "why isn't Obama doing more" folks, this is why. &hy. If this is what we get on ENDA, imagine the response to a Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal bill or - goodness gracious - a Defense of Marriage Act repeal bill in the Senate. Crickets.
We've got some work to do in the Senate. Sixty isn't sixty even on health care - it sure as hell isn't sixty on LGBT equality measures.
Gary Randall posted a fundraising plea August 5th on his redundant Referendum 71 vanity blog. In it he claims I have included the latest communication from the Secretary [of State]'s office.Except that wasn't the latest communication. It was the Sec'y of State's blog post from August 3rd, which is the last time that the Referendum 71 validation rate looked marginally decent. If Gary really had posted the latest communication from the Sec'y of State's office, he would have had to reprint this embarrassing comment from the Sec'y of State's August 4th blog post:
Election officials have processed another 5,815 Referendum 71 signatures, rejecting 14.4 percent...The error rate was the highest of any seen during the first three days of scrutiny.Since 12.43% is the invalidation rate above which the referendum will fail to qualify, I guess he hoped to hoodwink a few donors into giving a few last dollars before word got out of the ever-increasing uncertainty over the referendum's fate.
Oh, and regarding that redundant vanity blog - Gary is continuing his habit of 'paying himself' with Faith & Freedom PAC money for running it. According to the Public Disclosure Commission, on July 29th he faithfully made the third payment of $1,179 from the PAC to the organization that he pays himself a salary from. So far he's transferred $3,477 this way, representing 40% of all PAC expenditures so far ($3,477/$8,648). As his would-be donors watch the signature invalidation rate increase towards possible referendum failure, I wonder if they'll think Gary utilized their donations wisely. $3,477 would have bought a lot of signatures from a petition mercenary.
Referendum 71 voters will be asked to approve or reject the domestic partnership law.
REFERENDUM 71
Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.
Should this bill be:
Approved ___
Rejected ___Ballot Measure Summary
Same-sex couples, or any couple that includes one person age sixty-two or older, may register as a domestic partnership with the state. Registered domestic partnerships are not marriages, and marriage is prohibited except between one man and one woman. This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of registered domestic partners and their families to include all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples and their families.
PRINT AND DISTRIBUTE HANDOUTS AND PLACARDS !
www.GayTalkRadio.org
No comments:
Post a Comment