Today, the Proposition 8 trial in San Francisco Federal Court will hear its long-awaited closing arguments – as gay marriage advocates prepare to return to the ballot.  And a new study conducted by the Haas Jr. Foundation looks at pre-election polling data from 33 states that passed anti-gay marriage initiatives.  It concludes (a) we always do worse than what polls say, and (b) voters don’t change their minds about this issue during campaigns.  The lesson, of course, is that we must work harder to move hearts and minds – and that work can’t be done in a short election season.  Sadly, the implications of this study will strike many as discouraging – was all the money, time and energy we spent in California and Maine somehow a waste?  It’s true gay marriage is a sensitive topic that voters develop hard feelings about that can’t be changed overnight.  But the study did not focus on the small sliver of “persuadable” voters in each election who decide the outcome.

The Haas Jr. Foundation hired NYU political scientist Patrick J. Egan to study 167 polls in the 33 states that had a gay marriage ban from 1998-2009 – and compared it with the results on Election Day.  And as we already knew – having painfully experienced this in state after state – the results after votes are counted are worse than what polls had said.  Moreover, as Dr. Egan reported, poll results throughout the campaign were mostly static.

Did people lie?  Yes and no.  Egan’s analysis showed that polls accurately predicted the pro-equality vote – i.e., people who voted “no” on Prop 8 – but that they undercounted people who voted to ban gay marriage.  So if a pre-election poll would show us winning a plurality of 48-45 (which campaigns find encouraging), it would mean that we lost 52-48.  

Respondents didn’t tell pollsters they were going to vote “no” and voted “yes” – the so-called Bradley effect where voters want to give the “politically correct” answer.  What instead happened is that embarrassed voters said they were undecided.  Which is why, said Geoff Kors of Equality California, we should only go to the ballot after polls show a majority who plan to go our way.  “Once people are for equality, we don’t see slippage.”

Voters are also not confused about which position – “yes” or “no” – is pro-gay marriage in ballot campaigns.  In California, the “No on 8” side wasted enormous efforts trying to make sure that San Franciscans knew the right way to vote.  In Maine, the “No on 1” campaign also spent a lot of time educating the base – but my anecdotal experience was that we saw more confusion there.

Egan’s analysis debunks the “confusion” theory because (a) we would have found it less of a factor in more educated and politically motivated states; and (b) if it was a problem at the start of a campaign, polls closer to the election would have gotten more accurate.

So why the discrepancy?  Egan speculated that pollsters screened out “yes” voters more than “no” voters – leading to skewed samples.  I believe that’s valid, because those who oppose gay marriage are less comfortable talking about the issue in general to people.

A second theory, which Egan said was “unlikely,” is that there was a substantial shift in opinion during the final days.  Again, this goes back to the general theme of the study that political campaigns don’t change voters’ opinions on this issue.  But having gone to Maine twice in October 2009, I believe there was a major change during the final week.  We lost the election by six points, but my understanding is we won the early absentees.

At yesterday’s press conference, Egan was asked about Figure 1 from his study – featured here – that showed a visible bump in the final week before an election.  “It’s very small and statistically insignificant,” he said – saying it only accounted for about 1%.

But what the data doesn’t show is who that one-percent shift was.  Without question, same-sex marriage is an issue where the vast majority of voters on each side already made up their minds – and no amount of campaigning would change their opinions.  Elections come down to just the sliver of undecided voters – maybe five percent – who don’t know or think much about the issue.  A 1% shift could be 20% of those people.

After Maine passed Question 1, the Washington DC think tank Third Way did a post-election poll that zeroed in on “movable middle” voters.  They produced a great study that argued we lost because of voters who support civil unions, but had not made the connection on marriage.  Their report offers an excellent guide to “reframing” the issue for this targeted group.

Frank Schubert famously told a gathering they were going to lose Prop 8 – until he and Jeff Flynt decided to bank the whole campaign on fears that your children would have to learn about gay marriage in public schools.  In the final week, “Yes on 1” in Maine shot an ad that endorsed civil unions.  Their right-wing base was nonplussed, but it may have swung the election.

Could a campaign in Maine or California have won marriage equality – if we had done a better job persuading swing voters in the short span of an election season?  The best part of yesterday’s press conference was when Geoff Kors of Equality California explained what happened when gay marriage activists had more time to change hearts and minds.  

For the first several months of 2008 – long before the Prop 8 campaign began in earnest –

EQCA ran a project in Santa Barbara County called Let California Ring.  The goal was to start conversations about marriage outside the pressure of an election – via house parties, canvassing and a TV ad campaign that tapped into peoples’ emotions.  The project did not achieve all of its goals due to inconsistent fundraising, but it laid the groundwork for “No on 8” locally.

Santa Barbara became the only county in Southern California to reject Prop 8.  While the state moved nine points towards equality between Prop 22 in 2000 and Prop 8 in 2008, Santa Barbara County shifted a whopping 24 points.  There is no question Let California Ring played a role, and the work that groups like EQCA and the Courage Campaign (with its regular Camp Courage) is doing now will eventually repeal Prop 8.

I’m just not willing to give up the idea that electoral campaigns matter …

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.  He was a summer intern at Equality California in 2005 when the California legislature passed its first marriage equality bill, and was heavily involved in Maine’s “No on 1” campaign to help make travel arrangements for out-of-state volunteers.

We lost Prop 8.  No matter how you want to slice and dice it now, who you blame, or what organizations were at fault, we lost Prop 8.  The fight to repeal Prop 8 will be long and arduous, whether that is next year or in 2012.

But the fight to repeal Prop 8 is always continuing.  Two ballot measures from opposite sides of the country deserve our attention at this very moment. It cannot wait.

Paul Hogarth has done a great job bringing the Maine story back to California (and Calitics) by going there to do canvassing and other campaign work. In Maine, the legislature passed a marriage equality bill, and it was signed into law by the Democratic Governor there, John Baldacci. Unfortunately, the opponents of marriage equality were able to gather enough signatures to put the law up for a vote as “Question 1.”  You might recall many of these same organizations from the Prop 8 fight.  The biggest donor to the anti-equality Yes on 1 Campaign is the “National Organization for Marriage.” NOM, as it is known, was very active in Prop 8 helping to raise money and spread lies and distortion about what exactly marriage equality was all about. And the Yes on 1 Campaign is even using the same consultant as the Prop 8 campaign, Frank Schubert. And yes, even the same ads, just replace the Pepperdine professor with a professor from Boston College.

But the No on 1 Campaign is fighting back.  They’ve launched several ads (also available over the flip) that directly respond to the lies and distortions.   However, while they’ve booked the TV time, they can still use resources to get the message out. Please consider giving to the No on 1 Campaign on our  ActBlue Page:

And in Washington state, some right-wingers are trying to repeal domestic partnership rights.  If Referendum 71 fails, we will be back at square one in our West Coast neighbor. It is imperative that this measure succeed in protecting rights for same-sex couples. Here on Calitics, Laurel has been giving us updates from Washington.

You can give to both campaigns on the Calitics ActBlue page. Alternatively, you can fly up to Seattle for $40 from SFO or $60 from LAX on Virgin America. I imagine it’s similar on other carriers. Seems like a small cost to help protect human rights from the right-wing attacks.

Check the Maine ads over the flip.

I’m back home in San Francisco, after spending 10 days on the ground in Maine with the “No on 1” campaign.  After my time there, I truly believe that – with our help – Maine will become the first state in the nation to successfully defend marriage equality at the ballot box, providing a roadmap for California to repeal Proposition 8.  Maine activists have been working hard for five years to pass gay marriage, but events in the last few days now point to what should be an historic victory on November 3rd.  With only 19 days left, what I’m seeing from the “Yes on 1” campaign reminds me of where “No on 8” was at this point last year – outgunned by the opposition, unable to control the message and at a loss about what to do.  If Question 1 passes, it will be our fault for not having done more.  But if Question 1 fails, those of us who get involved will have made history – which is why I hope to go back for the last four days.  Here are the reasons for my optimism …

An Early Fundraising Advantage

One reason why I got involved in this effort was that “No on 1” said they only needed $3 million dollars for the entire campaign – a pittance compared with California efforts.  “We’re a cheap date,” said campaign manager Jesse Connolly at this year’s Netroots Nation Convention.  New fundraising totals that came out this week show that “No on 1” has already raised $2.7 million (with most of the money coming from Maine residents) – and bloggers are planning a big fundraising push for today that should keep them on track with their goal.

The bigger news, however, is that “Yes on 1” reported only raising $1.1 million – with a campaign debt of $400,000 (our side has no debt.)  This provoked their spokesman Marc Mutty (who is on loan from the Portland Archdiocese) to send out an urgent message on October 13th that their cause was under “financial assault.”  In the mass e-mail, which can be reviewed in full here, Mutty says they had known from the opposition’s superior ground game that our side had been raising more money.  But they had “never dreamed the situation was as dire as it is,” and are now urging their supporters to make a “sacrificial contribution” to pass Question 1.

To me, the most revealing part of the e-mail is when Mutty mentioned their Sacramento consultant, Frank Schubert: “Our campaign strategists, who helped pass Proposition 8 in California and who have won dozens of initiative campaigns around the country, tell us that we cannot win if we continue to be outspent as we have to this point.  It is amazing that we are still in a dead heat.  We’ve had to cut our voter contact program dramatically.  Every week, we’ve cut our advertising budget.  We’ve eliminated a statewide bus tour that we had planned for next week.  We’ve had to cut back on staffing.  And collateral materials.  And direct mail.  Our grassroots organizing has suffered.”

Reading this e-mail brought me back memories about the “No on 8” campaign.  At around this time last year, marriage equality advocates in California sent out a red alert to their supporters – when it became clear that a lot more Mormon money was coming into the state than anticipated.  Gays and lesbians were asked to shell out more than they could afford, but we still lost.  I always say that the worst hangover of my life was two weeks after the election, when I opened my credit card bill to get hit with $200 to “No on 8.”

Will Mutty’s plea fuel a huge influx of cash to the “Yes on 1” campaign in Maine?  Of course, but they will only have 19 days to spend it.  Recall that by the time the election was over last year, “No on 8” ended up out-raising the opposition ($43 million to $40 million) – in large part because the October “red alert” galvanized the LGBT community.  But money that comes in during the last month is less effective, and campaigns that are unprepared for a much bigger budget may not know what to do with the money.  “Yes on 1” will use the cash to run even nastier ads, but I don’t see it salvaging their bad situation.

Religion Issue Has Been Deflected

I have been impressed with the “No on 1” campaign’s outreach to communities of faith – which has helped counteract the Portland Catholic Diocese’s aggressive involvement in passing Question 1.  A group called Catholics for Marriage Equality has staged walk-outs on Sunday services when the Church took up second collection plates on behalf of the “Yes on 1” campaign, and “No on 1” has organized several press conferences with religious leaders.  As a result, media coverage in Maine newspapers has talked about how communities of faith are on “both sides” of the issue.

Now, the question has taken center stage.  The “No on 1” campaign’s latest ad features Yolande Dumont, a French Catholic grandmother from Lewiston – a conservative city in Maine – who speaks about her gay son, his partner and their child.  Yolande mentions that she’s a devout Catholic, her faith is important to her, and that she supports marriage equality.  In an election where “No on 1” has had to respond to many of the opposition’s attacks, it is a positive TV ad with a general “feel-good” message about the value of strong families.

But it clearly struck a nerve with opponents of marriage equality.  Catholic Vote Action (a conservative political group) sent out a press release on Tuesday, demanding that the ad be pulled: “For decades gay and lesbian groups have attacked the Catholic Church for refusing to accept their skewed views on human sexuality and marriage …  Everybody knows the Catholic Church is opposed to counterfeit marriages … For homosexual groups to suggest that the Catholic Church believes otherwise is disingenuous, dishonest, and an insult to the intelligence of Catholic voters in Maine.”

Such a response will backfire, because it fails to acknowledge a distinction between rank-and-file Catholic voters (many who, like Dumont, support marriage equality) and the Church hierarchy.  Maine is a very Catholic state, but it also has one of the lowest levels in church attendance – which suggests that many Catholics are already a bit disillusioned with their Church leadership.  The reason they cite for pulling the ad will only infuriate Maine Catholics, because it says they cannot have a different opinion from the hierarchy.

In fact, it reminds me of a famous political gaffe in 1990 that happened in Minnesota.  The late Paul Wellstone was running for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Rudy Boschwitz.  Both men were Jewish, and in the final days of the campaign Boschwitz sent a fundraising letter to conservative Jewish donors, asking for support because he had been a “better Jew.”  Wellstone, he explained, had married a non-Jew – and had not raised his children in the Jewish faith.  The letter infuriated Jews, not to mention the 97% of Minnesotans who are Lutheran.  I’m not suggesting the Catholic attack on the “No on 1” will have the same potency, but it’s never good politics to start questioning a religious person’s convictions.

Taking Ownership of “Protecting the Children”

In every state where marriage equality has been on the ballot, opponents have used “the children” as a means of scaring swing voters – preying on their worst fears about what gays and lesbians will do to kids in the classroom.  From the start, “No on 1” has pre-empted this attack by bringing up the fact that many gay couples raise children.  When opponents brought up the tired line that gay marriage will be “taught” in public schools, our side has countered that what schools teach is that no child should feel ashamed of what kind of family they may come from.

On my last morning in Maine, the Portland Press Herald had a front-page “human interest” profile of two couples on each side of Question 1.  The ones supporting it were a Christian couple concerned about the “sanctity” of marriage.  The opponents were a lesbian couple who are raising two daughters.  For them, said the Press Herald, it was “all about the kids” – i.e., they want a safe and secure future for their children that comes from being raised by a legally married couple.  When I saw the article, I knew that our side’s ownership of “protecting children” has affected mainstream media coverage.

Mobilizing Students Will Be Key

The reason I plan to come back for the final four days of the Election is that Question 1 will be decided by turnout.  With college students strongly supporting marriage equality, having them show up could be the margin of victory.  Maine has same-day voter registration, so having young activists on campuses for the tail end of the campaign will be absolutely critical.  As someone who ran voter registration drives in my college days at UC Berkeley, I’m excited about working in a state with same-day voter registration.

In fact, it’s clear to me that the “Yes on 1” campaign’s strategy for college campuses is to ignore students, and hope they don’t even realize that there’s an Election coming up.  At the University of Maine at Orono last week, the campus was preparing for a Question 1 debate – with representatives from each side.  The event was cancelled, however, when “Yes on 1” pulled out.  As one of their spokespersons later told the school newspaper: “statistically, going in front of college students doesn’t make the most sense.”  In other words, they were afraid that having an open debate would only draw more attention.

Race is Up to Us to Win

But while I remain optimistic about Maine, the “No on 1” campaign will need volunteers for the last 19 days in order to score a victory.  That’s why getting involved for the final push will be so critical.  If we lose, it will be because not enough of us got involved.

Out-of-state volunteers can make phone-calls from home, while there are organized phone-banks going on across the country.  East Coast volunteers can take a day (or weekend trip) to Maine and find a carpool through an online feature that pairs up people in your area.  And you can donate money or airline miles to send volunteers for a week at Travel for Change.  Or you can give to the California Young Democrats, who will be helping the last-minute college campus push by getting plane tickets for volunteers who will be on the ground during the last four days.

With only 19 days to go, it’s all hands on deck to win in Maine.  If we win, it won’t just be good for Maine couples.  It will set a new milestone in the fight for marriage equality.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

BANGOR – “Welcome to the real Maine,” said Regional Field Organizer Gabi Bérubé as I arrived yesterday at the “No on 1” office in Brewer, just across the Penobscot River from Bangor.  That’s what Mainers up here call their part of the state, and it’s where I am spending the rest of my time on the campaign.  I asked to go to Bangor because I wanted to help our field effort in more challenging places, after “No on 8” spent too much time last year preaching to the choir.  The Bangor office covers everything north and east of here – in other words, two-thirds of the state’s land mass.  Replicating Howard Dean’s 50 State Strategy, “No on 1” believes we have gay marriage supporters everywhere – and it’s our challenge to organize them.  But we’re also targeting the University of Maine in Orono, whose 11,000 students make it the largest college in the state.  Mobilizing young people on campus – and turning out identified supporters in rural areas – will prevent us from getting creamed in northern Maine, which will help us win statewide.

Last year, “No on 8” had an office in the Castro – which made sense, because they could get a lot of walk-in volunteers.  But the campaign never had them engage voters outside of San Francisco, instead stupidly having them wave signs at street corners.  Meanwhile, LGBT activists in the Central Valley were ignored and under-utilized – prompting a mass rally in Fresno on May 31st to kick off the movement to repeal Prop 8.  If our side simply writes off those who live in conservative areas, how can we deserve to get a single vote there?

I’m not asking to be sent to the outer reaches of Arostook County – but Bangor appealed to me as a marginal area with enough voters to decide this election.  With a population of 30,000, it is the second largest city in Maine (third if you count Lewiston-Auburn as one city.)  It has a “small town” vibe, where many residents don’t lock their doors.  Bangor has a vocal LGBT community, but it currently has no gay bars – and the 1984 murder of Charlie Howard in the Kenduskeag Stream still haunts that community’s consciousness.

I came up from Portland yesterday morning, on a two-hour drive that took me through the most gorgeous fall colors I have ever seen.  I would have taken more time, but Gabi had asked me to arrive in Bangor around 12:00 noon.  She had to leave at 1:00 p.m. sharp for Washington County (also called “Sunrise County,” because it’s the easternmost part of Maine) to run a phone-bank in Machias – and wouldn’t be back until very late that night.  When I heard she was driving 83 miles on a two-lane road to go supervise ten volunteers, I was floored.  But that’s what it takes to do campaign organizing in the “real Maine.”

Just like Howard Dean’s 50 State Strategy showed Democrats they can start winning if they competed everywhere, “No on 1” has identified marriage equality supporters in the most conservative pockets.  Even if we still lose those areas badly, mining enough votes by encouraging supporters to “vote early” can pay dividends on Election Day.  As I wrote yesterday, Maine’s gay community had a 20-year losing streak of statewide ballot measures until 2005.  One of the strategies we changed that year was to start engaging conservative regions.

But working from the Bangor office won’t always be about driving for hours to meet ten volunteers.  The University of Maine is in Orono (about 15 minutes away), and same-day voter registration means we can generate a huge turnout for marriage equality on campus.  I met up with the four campus organizers yesterday afternoon, who had spent the whole morning doing volunteer recruitment.  Before they had to stop because of the rain, they had signed up 84 students to a shift.  They are organizing phone-banks on campus, and we discussed more outreach strategies.  I’ll be spending some of my time there.

It’s important, however, to realize the challenge “No on 1” organizers are facing in this area.  On Sunday night, I was at a phone-bank in Portland – with over 50 volunteers that required an overflow room.  Even if you take out the twenty volunteers who had come “from away”, we had 30 Portland residents making calls.  Last night, I was at a volunteer recruitment phone-bank on the outskirts of Bangor and only four people showed up.  The good news, however, is that pretty much everyone we called and spoke to committed to a volunteer shift later in the week – as we conveyed the urgency of mobilizing early voting.

This is actually the second time I’ve been to Maine.  The first time was in the summer of 2000, when I did a 28-state road trip after college.  I set out to do the entirety of Route 1 on the East Coast – which goes all the way to Key West, Florida.  That meant I would go to Maine, and drive up to Fort Kent in Arostook County – at the very northern tip of the state.  Before going, a lot of Mainers told me I was crazy – telling me that all I would find up there is “moose and woods and French people.”  I doubt that I’ll be going back to Fort Kent this time – but it’s exciting to be working out of the “No on 1” office for this region.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.  He is helping to run Travel for Change, which helps bring out-of-state volunteers to Maine with money and donated airline miles for the “No on 1” campaign.  Hopefully later today, the site will launch “Drive for Equality” to organize carpools in East Coast states for day and weekend trips to Maine. Stay tuned …

Tonight, I’m taking a red-eye flight to Maine – arriving in Portland tomorrow.   I’ll be there for 10 days, volunteering for the “No on 1” campaign to protect marriage equality.  And I’m taking my laptop with me – so readers will get my daily dispatches.  As a Californian, the fight against Question 1 is personal.  Gays and lesbians last year had their rights snatched away, and it can never happen again.  Proposition 8 was eminently beatable, but our side ran a bad campaign – and I’m determined to take my work and experience to assist the effort in Maine.  The right has long argued that every time “the people” get to vote on same-sex marriage, it loses.  It is time to deliver them – and their consultant, Frank Schubert (who ran “Yes on 8” and is now running “Yes on 1”) a humiliating defeat, one with national implications.  But one person can only walk so many precincts.  That’s why we’ll be working to help send volunteers from across the country over the next 32 days, because everyone needs to chip in for this fight.

Why Does Maine Matter?

Ever since the Republican Party pegged gay marriage as a “wedge issue” in the 1990’s, we have seen it on the ballot in virtually ever state that has an initiative process.  And while public opinion is gradually shifting in favor of marriage equality, no state has affirmed it at the polls.  Arizona defeated an anti-gay marriage amendment in 2006, but the proposed measure also repealed domestic partnerships – which was decisive in the outcome.  Two years later, Arizona passed an amendment that only banned same-sex marriage.

But none of these defeats were more devastating than California – because gay couples never had the right to marry in other states that passed amendments.  Prop 8 was the only time this fundamental right was taken away from us (after having first been recognized.)  Now that Maine has granted marriage equality through its Governor and state legislature, we run the risk of a Prop 8 redux.  In the past year, same-sex couples have won the right in four more states – Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine – and now the right is hell-bent on stalling our momentum on the anniversary of Prop 8.

Frank Schubert, a California consultant who ran the “Yes on 8” campaign, has been hired to run the Maine campaign to repeal gay marriage.  Earlier this year, Schubert won an award by the American Association of Political Consultants for running what was (regardless of your political views) a brilliant campaign.  It appears he is cultivating a national reputation in conservative circles as the man to hire to stop marriage equality.  Anyone offended at what happened last year should be determined to make him fail.

What are the Odds of Winning in Maine?

On the surface, outsiders may assume that Maine is “pro-gay” – given the trend of New England states approving marriage equality (only Rhode Island has yet to do so.)  But Maine is more rural and working-class than its neighbors, and northern Maine is often called the “Deep South of the Northeast.”  The state is not liberal or conservative, but relishes its independent “maverick” streak – which makes its politics unpredictable.

Yesterday, Nate Silver (who I trust more than anyone else when it comes to polling data) predicted Question 1 should lose by five points.  He based this on general demographic trends in Maine, national opinion trends on gay marriage – and calculated that in “off-year” elections, young voters are more likely to stay home.  His analysis is good, but he didn’t consider what else is on the ballot to drive turnout.  Besides Question 1, there will be a slew of right-wing tax measures (bad) and medical marijuana (good.)

Polls on Question 1 have been all over the map.  A Daily Kos poll last week had the forces of bigotry winning by two points, but a Democracy Corps poll this week had us ahead by nine points.  The Daily Kos poll queried “likely voters” – whereas Democracy Corps asked registered voters.  In other words, we’re only going to win by nine points if every Mainer votes – an unlikely prospect given that it’s an off-year.  We cannot be complacent (Prop 8 at one point was 17 points down), and the result will hinge on the ground game.

Volunteer Vacation Plans Going Well

The “No on 1” campaign has been pushing supporters – whether they live in Maine, or out-of-state – to take an October “vacation” to help the field team.  A lot of Californians still upset at Prop 8 would gladly go to Maine for at least a week – if only they knew about it, and had the means (or assistance) to go.  By working with experienced pros from the Obama campaign, we have launched “Travel for Change Maine” for this effort.  On our website, you can (a) donate airline miles to get someone a plane ticket, (b) donate money for other expenses or (c) sign up to go.

I’m now convinced that recessions are the best time to get good campaign volunteers.  A lot of our skilled and enthusiastic people coming are unemployed, so have time – but not money.  Donated airline miles have been a great way to get them to Maine.  We’ve also helped volunteers set up their personal online fundraising page – asking their friends and family to pitch in.  One volunteer planned to go to Maine for a week, but raised so much that they’re now coming for two weeks.  You can see the results here, and donate to a volunteer who has yet to meet their goal.

Pretty soon, we will also be setting up a “Drive for Equality” program on our website – where East Coast volunteers taking weekend trips to Maine for the campaign can carpool with other supporters.  Obama campaigners from California used the same software last year to send people to Nevada, and with enough exposure can have a viral effect.  Rather than keep organizers busy arranging hundreds of carpools, volunteers can find themselves on the page – and “pair up” with another person going to Maine that same weekend.

Next week is the first week of “Volunteer Vacation,” and I’m excited to report that two dozen people are coming to Maine from across the country – all who committed to work full-time for at least a week.  These volunteers will be crucial, because Maine has a very liberal “early absentee” voting law.  Early voting has in fact already started – and these volunteers will help the campaign bank as many “No on 1” votes early, making it easier to focus later in the month on those who haven’t voted yet.

Can’t go to Maine?  Help out a satellite phone-bank in your area.  Last year, the Obama campaign made more volunteer phone calls from California to the swing states than any other part of the country.  We hope to help replicate that effort this year, with volunteers ready to get involved.  In San Francisco, the Courage Campaign, Equality California and the local Democratic Party are organizing phone-banks to defeat Question 1.  Join one this weekend.

How are Maine Voters Going to React?

I’ve been asked if bringing out-of-staters to Maine will be counter-productive.  Not if last year’s experience with Obama volunteers is any indication.  The campaign sent over 7,000 Northern Californians to the “swing states” – and only three of them reported any backlash they received from locals.  If anything, said Jay Jonah Cash – who led the effort last year and now directs Travel for Change Maine – voters “really respected others who took time off to fly across the continent because they believe in something.”

One Texas volunteer who’s already out knocking on doors in Bangor has reported a friendly reception from Maine residents – despite having an obvious Southern accent.  “Mainers are what all Americans should be,” she wrote.  As Californians, I believe we can bring an important perspective to Maine voters – because we saw the same scare tactics that are now being used.  We are ashamed of Prop 8, and don’t want Mainers to fall for it too.

And if the opposition wants to call us “outsiders,” they’re opening a can of worms.  Their campaign manager, Frank Schubert, is a Californian who ran the Prop 8 campaign – and their ads are filmed in San Francisco.  More than half ($160,000) of their initial filing reports came from one source – the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a New Jersey-based group.

Who is NOM?  I had the pleasure of debating their Executive Director on CNN once – which was fun.  But the problem is no one knows who they are, because they are not registered as a PAC with the Maine Ethics Commission – where we could see who their donors are.  Yesterday, the Commission voted to investigate NOM to see if they violated any of Maine’s campaign finance laws.

Some speculate that NOM is a front for the Mormon Church – who donated $20 million last year to the Prop 8 campaign.  In Maine, the Catholic Church is – despite its share of problems – heavily involved in the “Yes on 1” campaign.  But the Mormons have generally stayed out this time, at least not publicly.  After taking a lot of heat for their heavy-handed role in California last year, are the Mormons hiding behind this new group to influence Maine?

While NOM is under investigation, Travel for Change, is a registered PAC with the Maine Ethics Commission.  All of our finances are public record, and will be reported.  We may be helping out-of-state volunteers get to Maine to assist the campaign, but no one can accuse us of trying to hide anything.

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.