Category: News Author : Duncan Riley Posted: January 14, 2009
Tags : proposition 8
Activists have claimed since the passing of Proposition 8, the California ballot that made gay marriage illegal in that State, that money from the Mormon Church was the deciding factor in the vote passing.
The church claims to have only spent a few thousand dollars on the campaign, but ANP (via Donklephant) has uncovered evidence that may expose a hole in that claim. The IRS forbids religious organizations from “substantially” lobbying for political legislation, however the IRS does not define what “substantial” means.
This video from ANP explains it.
Jan 14, 2009
Doesn't seem like much of a story here. The sides are pretty clear and distinct in this issue, I am not sure how much of a role campaigning plays anyways. The facts are, California has voted no on gay marriage twice now.
The Church is fighting a losing battle here, but they know that. Eventually, gay marriage will be legalized in California by a popular vote. But you can't fault the Church or it's members for taking a position and exercising their democratic right. I don't see the big deal with the money anyways. How much did companies like Apple and Google give to Yes on 8? And we all know Apple is a religion too
I would be interested to know if the ANP is making a distinction between the Church and it's members. While the Church may not have donated much money, it's members certainly could have made up the difference of the disputed amount.
Jan 15, 2009
This 'news' internet broadcast seems to have been a rather pricey thing to put together. I think we should petition for us to have the same transparency and limits imposed on this “grand” inquisitr site as they propose be levied against the LDS Church. And let's apply this video to count as being part of some campaign, because it's clearly propaganda for those who would have the LDS Church, and the religions of the US in general, be stripped of their constitutional guarantee of protection from the government forcing it's hand upon them.
It's an odd day indeed when the one type of institution singled out in the bill of rights for protection from Government meddling is under a full frontal assault and sought to be made equal to entities that were never mentioned in the constitution.
If we have our tax exempt status stripped then strip it from any other organization that can be shown to significantly foster any given ideological view that ever seeks to influence policy on any level.
Jan 15, 2009
No matter what this church contributed, it was the people of California that voted, it was a campaign, just like the Presidential campaign.
Jan 16, 2009
The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality:
The Apostle Paul taught:
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,* nor sodomites” ” 1 Corinthians 6:9
(New King James Bible).:
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,” 1 Corinthians 6:9
(King James Bible:)
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders” 1 Corinthians 6:9
(New International Version):
Jan 17, 2009
The ANP video is a classic example of yellow journalism. Instead of accurately informing it engages in an effort to distort, twist, and leave out relevant information to present a sensationalized story when there is none.
The “new evidence”, “a piece of evidence that may expose a gaping hole in the Mormon financial accounting” is nothing new. The video of the satellite broadcast has been on the LDS website since a few days after the broadcast.
Why did the commentary not state that per IRS regulation church communications to their members on issues like Prop 8 do not pose any violation of tax exempt status?
The ANP video states that the Mormon Church is presenting “two contradicting stories”. One that the church only contributed a little over $2,000 to the campaign and the other that the church did not contribute money to the campaign. The written data shown is correct but the voice over statement that these are contradicting stories is false. The pictures show a form where the church is filing a report that they contributed “IN- KIND” donation of $2,078.97. Please note that an IN-KIND donation is not a monetary donation. An excerpt from a church spokesman is then shown where it is stated that the church did not contribute MONEY to the campaign. There are no contradicting stories, only misleading attempts to make a contradiction where none exists.
The video states that the Church bankrolled 70% of Prop 8 funding which is known to be false because contributions were made by people directly to the Protect Marriage organization, not to the Mormon Church. There is no violation of tax exempt status for members of a church to contribute to a political cause. It is a constitutional right to do so. Why did the video not present that information?
Legal reporting of contributions (including in-kind) is not done at one time in one report. It is normal and required by law to make periodic filings and making amendments is all part of providing accurate information.
The video then goes on to combine activities that the church made to communicate with it's members about Prop 8 (no tax exempt status violation here) and activities of member working for the Protect Marriage as items that the Church is suppose to be reporting as contributions. Why did the video not accurately present that these are not reportable by the church?
The voice over states that IRS tax codes prohibit churches from participating in any political campaign. That is a false statement. Read the tax code text shown. Churches are prohibited from participating in any political campaign ON BEHALF OF ANY CANDIDATE. That is a key point which was changed in order to paint the Mormon Church as violating the law when it is not.
The video did point out that churches are prohibited from engaging in substantial lobbying activity. The tax code does allow tax exempt churches to take positions on public policy issues and to lobby for them as long as they do not reach the “substantial” threshold. The video then presented people who state that the IRS has not defined what amounts to “substantial”. However, there has been case law defining “substantial”. The video should have cited what Barry Lynn, executive director of “Americans United for the Separation of Church and State” and an opponent of Prop 8 had to say. “They almost certainly have not violated their tax exemption…While the tax code has a zero tolerance for endorsements of candidates, the tax code gives wide latitude for churches to engage in discussions of policy matters and moral questions, including when posed as initiatives. … The 20 percent threshold means that the Catholic or Mormon churches, whose organizations span the globe, would have had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars—if not billions—to violate their tax-exempt status.” (SFGate Nov 28, 2008).
Feb 6, 2009
If these numbers come out to the sum that we're all fearing (a bit fewer than $100,000), then this is a huge Constitutional issue. We cannot allow ANY religious faction to sway political propositions, especially one that takes away the rights of others.
.
-Jared J. H. Catapano (ology.com)