Remember the National Organization for Marriage, the anti-gay marriage group that brought us that hilarious "Gathering Storm" ad? Turns out, it's not nearly as "grassroots" as it purports to be. It's actually funded almost exclusively by two donors.

The American Independent found that NOM recently reported their highest earning year ever. While some might assume that their swelling budget is indicative of a rising anti-gay marriage tide among just plain ol' regular homophobic Amurricans who vote and pay taxes, what's actually happening is the opposite; fewer people are giving more money. I hope this means that the Concerned Parents in future NOM commercials will be played by famous Republicans and ringed by big budget special effects. Maybe they'll be able to afford a CGI Baby Jesus that will actually cry glistening little tears at the mention of same sex unions.

When NOM launched in 2009, about 78% of its total income came from people who donated more than $5,000. In 2010, large donors accounted for 92% of the group's earnings, and 2/3 of the group's entire earnings were attributable to two anonymous donors who gave $6 million to the group.

Who are these anonymous bigots? My money's on the Koch Brothers, if only because when you grow up with a last name like Koch, you were probably at the receiving end of some pretty blunt childhood cruelty.

The Independent uncovered some more fuzzy accounting at the NOM. They say they took in $9.6 million and spent $10.7 million. Of their budget, they spent $4.2 million on ad campaigns and paying their employees/taxes and $4 million on what they refer to as "other," which really could be anything. Sleepovers. Anti glitterbomb technology research. Paid personal appearances by Hillary Swank. Anything.

Further, the people in charge over at NOM are making a pretty good living for themselves; the group's president earned $212,000 last year defending marriage from homosexuals while two other employees earned six-figure incomes to support him in those efforts.

National Organization for Marriage's 2010 financial records raise questions [American Independent]