I'm not “promoting my blog” here, except in a very indirect way.  That link is highly relevant to your story here.  Is it against MM policy to post relevant links in comments?

PS – I did file a campaign complaint on a separate PAC issue I reported the same day dealing with Jon Stryker.  Separate issue though. 

I've reported it on it here, almost three weeks ago:

http://www.outsidela…

In that campaign finance expose, I note how Marcia Baum accepted $10K in cash for consulting from the similarly named 2006 ballot question committee (which has reformed for 2008 with the same Dykema Gossett Treasurer), and the non-profit itself was gifted the remaining $7500.  Granting ballot question money to a charity is legal – granting it in cash for “consulting” to the head the same charity for an amount almost half of the total the committee raised raises a ton of questions both about the depth of the relationship and what work was actually performed given the committee's short existence in 2004.

So, yes, it is a “non-profit” because anyone can go get IRS c3 status.  It may not be “partisan” because most issue committees have cross-partisan interest – and I have considerable sympathy towards the stem-cell cause (but not necessarily means, particularly given the promise of more ethical adult stem-cell research) myself having had relatives pass from Alzheimer's.

But to suggest that it doesn't endorse, propose or oppose legislation – given the intermingling of its leaders and money with the ballot question is questionable.  I grant that you may not have been aware of these issues, which is why I note it here.  The preponderance of evidence is that this non-profit's “educational” mission is tenuous at best – it exists to influence the political debate (otherwise, I'd expect the group to bring in speakers from both sides of the issue, etc.). There's nothing wrong with that – let's just admit it.

I’ve reported it on it here, almost three weeks ago:
http://www.outsidela…

In that campaign finance expose, I note how Marcia Baum accepted $10K in cash for consulting from the similarly named 2006 ballot question committee (which has reformed for 2008 with the same Dykema Gossett Treasurer), and the non-profit itself was gifted the remaining $7500.  Granting ballot question money to a charity is legal – granting it in cash for “consulting” to the head the same charity for an amount almost half of the total the committee raised raises a ton of questions both about the depth of the relationship and what work was actually performed given the committee’s short existence in 2004.

So, yes, it is a “non-profit” because anyone can go get IRS c3 status.  It may not be “partisan” because most issue committees have cross-partisan interest – and I have considerable sympathy towards the stem-cell cause (but not necessarily means, particularly given the promise of more ethical adult stem-cell research) myself having had relatives pass from Alzheimer’s.

But to suggest that it doesn’t endorse, propose or oppose legislation – given the intermingling of its leaders and money with the ballot question is questionable.  I grant that you may not have been aware of these issues, which is why I note it here.  The preponderance of evidence is that this non-profit’s “educational” mission is tenuous at best – it exists to influence the political debate (otherwise, I’d expect the group to bring in speakers from both sides of the issue, etc.). There’s nothing wrong with that – let’s just admit it.

I’m not “promoting my blog” here, except in a very indirect way.  That link is highly relevant to your story here.  Is it against MM policy to post relevant links in comments?

PS – I did file a campaign complaint on a separate PAC issue I reported the same day dealing with Jon Stryker.  Separate issue though.