Mormon church reports spending $180,000 on Proposition 8

[scytherius]

Source: LA Times

Top officials with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints filed reports Friday indicating that they donated more than $180,000 in in-kind contributions to Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-mormons-prop831-2009jan31,0,4854351.story

---

Wonder how they would fancy we Californians spending money in Utah on, say, atheist billboards.

[Taverner]

1. WTF??? Why do these insane fucks still have tax-exempt status???

[davidinalameda]

9. it's legal

non-profits are allowed to donate and advocate on ballot measures here in California

would you be so upset if the Unitarian Church or another progressive church did the same thing?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

11. I would be upset

if a church based in Florida spent a lot of money to pass laws in my own home state. Especially if that church was only a tiny percentage of the population in my state.

The mormon church needs to learn to keep its fucking nose out of business that it doesn't belong in.

[Taverner]

16. The mormon church needs to learn to keep its fucking nose out of business that it doesn't belong in

EXACTLY!!!

:applause:

[Night_Nurse]

31. word. nt

[knixphan]

32. WORD!

[Taverner]

15. Yes, yes I would

I honestly think no church should ever have a tax break, just for being a church

[davidinalameda]

21. do you think other non-profits should get tax breaks

or do you have something against churches in particular?

[Le Taz Hot]

25. When they get their goddmaned noses

out of my reproductive system and out of people's bedrooms in general and quit deciding they have some fucking divine right to determine who or who cannot get married, then we'll talk tax exempt status. Until then they can pay taxes just like any other organization.

[davidinalameda]

27. so you only have a problem with churches then?

if I'm reading your post correctly

[Taverner]

28. I do yes - they are businesses that sell an invisible product

Now if they feed the poor, help the homeless, etc - they should get tax breaks on that

But sending bibles to El Salvador is no different than a junk mail campaign and they should be taxed as such

[davidinalameda]

33. they've always fed the poor

and helped others

churches were providers of welfare services long before the government became involved

they also operated schools and colleges

you just seem like you're anti-religion

shame to let bigotry blind you to the works that churches and other faith-based organizations do

[Taverner]

34. Not all churches do

And even the churches that do - that's not where the majority of their money goes.

Give them tax breaks on the good deeds, but why on Earth we give

I was a Christian for years - and come from a big family of preachers. I know how churches work.

Believe me, outreach always trumps good deeds

And yes, I am anti-religion. Think about it - they base their entire existence on the hope that (1) someone actually talked to an invisible guy many years ago, (2) he wasn't crazy or on drugs, (3) the record that was written so many years ago was accurate and (4) that no one will find out if these were not the case.

Our cultural relationship with religion in this country is not a healthy one. We need to grow up and stop acting like children, and that goes for Christians, Jews, Muslims, and anyone else who thinks their Bronze Age "reality" is more "real" than the one we can quantify and measure.

[davidinalameda]

35. they don't and that's the only thing you're right about

you're right on that

but churches do provide more than that

my minister said last week that in the past year, she's met with more people one on one than every before

with the economy as it is and all the problems facing this country, people turn to those who they can trust

and speaking to one's minister is a lot cheaper than getting a therapist

churches provide support services for their members and others

I know that my local government can't provide all the services that my church provides to me and to others

my minister knows me and she knows my issues

our cultural relationship with religion needs to be strengthened, not weakened

Churches and synagogues and mosques and whatever other religious bodies out there provide the services that the government can't or won't provide

most church related private schools are head and shoulders above any public schools because they can give the students more attention

most church run food banks and other social services help more people because they don't have to deal with all the red tape

[Taverner]

36. For all of that good work those institutions should get tax breaks

But really - Pat Robertson's ministries who is doing nothing but sending bibles all over the world

I lived in Thailand. I saw who the "missionaries" were. Fucking psychos, pardon my speech.

What if religion just got out of the God business, and concentrated on what really matters - suffering?

Like the Unemployment Councils of the 1930's.

[davidinalameda]

37. you obviously have some issue with religion

I don't

your hatred blinds you

I pray for people like you

I also pray for the Falwells

[Taverner]

38. I do have an issue with religion

I have a problem with any group determining morality, rather than letting our culture pursue ethics.

For me there is a big difference.

Religion is Morality. You don't kill because its immoral.

With Humanism, you don't kill becasue it is unethical.

The difference is, although you may want to kill person x, you don't because you would not want that done to you. Pure ethics (Golden Rule is a perfect example of ethics in reliigon - I never said it was devoid)

But Religion, other than the golden rule, is all about morality. You don't have sex with person y, because it would be immoral.

Ethical? Well, that depends on whether you're wearing protection, and wheter she or he wants it.

[liberalmuse]

2. You can bet they spent more than that.

When I was growing up as a Mormon, I remember being told by the 'prophet' and the other old dudes how being gay was a 'sickness'. There is a large gay population in Salt Lake. And many of the people I knew were scarred because of the way their families disowned them or how the church treated them. The Mormon church should be ashamed of themselves. And yes, they should damned well pay taxes. Most churches need to have their tax exempt status revoked for all the political shit they pull in the pulpit. I've experienced it firsthand.

[diamidue]

3. $20 million by LDS members

in addition to the $180,000 by the Church itself.

However, they are evidently NOT at risk for losing their tax exempt status:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/11/mormons_facing_1.html

"....They almost certainly have not violated their tax exemption,' said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the leading advocacy organization on the issue. '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.' Generally speaking, churches, schools, and nonprofits that are 501c(3) organizations are prohibited from spending more than 20 percent of their budgets on political activities, Lynn said, noting that his organization is held to the same standard. 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."

[byeya]

5. tax exemption

Do the churches open their books to independent auditors so we, the public, know if they are telling the extent of their political activities and what their net worth is to see if they are within the letter of the law?

[Zenlitened]

10. We tried that once in Massachusetts. Shoulda heard the churchies howl.

O'Malley resists bill on financial disclosure;
Encourages Catholics to lobby against measure

By Scott Helman and Frank Phillips, Boston Globe Staff
January 21, 2006

On the eve of a key vote, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley has accused sponsors of a bill requiring religious organizations to disclose their finances of attempting to use the political process to assert control of the financial affairs and decisions of the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.

O'Malley's remarks, contained in a letter sent to every parish asking Catholics to lobby against the bill, immediately set off an angry response from the bill's lead sponsor, Senator Marian Walsh, Democrat of West Roxbury. Walsh said O'Malley was distorting the bill's impact and demanded in a letter to him yesterday that he stop his attempts to ''place fears in the hearts of the public."

''What are they afraid of?" Walsh asked, alluding to archdiocesan officials.

The exchange of barbs between church officials and bill supporters and the increasingly aggressive lobbying of lawmakers in recent days underscore the high stakes as the bill arrives on the House floor next week. Lawmakers who support the measure say greater public scrutiny of religious institutions is needed, in part because of concerns raised during the clergy sexual abuse crisis and parish closings by the Boston Archdiocese.

In his letter, O'Malley accused the sponsors of seeking to ''violate religious freedom," arguing that the legislation would give the state the power to overrule financial decisions by the Catholic Church. He said lawmakers who back it are doing so because they disagree with recent archdiocesan decisions regarding church closing and financial affairs.

''They want to use legislation as a means of exercising control over the affairs of the archdiocese and its parishes," O'Malley wrote in his first detailed statement against the bill. ''This is not the role of government."

Walsh said the church is deliberately distorting the intent of the bill and its sponsors. The only motive, she said, is to make sure that the public can see where religious groups, which are legally considered public charities, are spending their money, and how they manage financial resources.

''This bill does not affect what any particular church believes or how they govern themselves," Walsh said. ''That would clearly be a violation of the First Amendment."

Secretary of State William Galvin, who with Walsh has led the effort to get the bill passed, yesterday called O'Malley's letter ''extraordinary," in that the church is asking parishioners to take political action to protect the church's administrators from financial disclosure.

''This is not about control of the church's finances or over its parishes," Galvin said. ''The archbishop needs to answer where all the money is going."

The measure would require all religious entities in the state to file an annual form with the attorney general's office listing basic financial and organizational information. They would also have to list all real estate holdings.

In an attempt to defuse opposition on Beacon Hill and in the community, Walsh and other backers have drafted an amendment seeking to limit the proposed requirements to the largest religious entities in the state.

Under the amendment, only religious organizations with $500,000 or more in annual revenue would have to file a review of their finances by a certified public accountant every year. The original bill called for all those religious groups with revenue of $100,000 to file such a review. The amendment also raises to $1 million from $500,000 in annual revenue the threshold for filing a detailed, outside financial audit.

The amendment is designed to assuage concerns raised by smaller churches and religious groups around the state that a requirement for detailed financial information every year would force them to redirect money from food banks and other charitable initiatives to pay for accountants' fees.

''That would be a big chunk of money from what they would use to do the good things that they do in their parishes and in their community," said state Representative Kathleen M. Teahan, a Whitman Democrat.

But even if the amendment appeases smaller religious organizations, it does not lessen the opposition from the biggest players, including the Boston Archdiocese, the Synagogue Council of Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts Council of Churches. All have mounted aggressively lobbying campaigns in an attempt to kill the measure, believing it blurs the Constitutional line between church and state.

In fact, the Boston Archdiocese sees Teahan's amendment as further proof that the real intent is to give the government authority to scrutinize the Catholic Church.

The bill sends this message that ''we don't care about the small ones; we just want the big guys," said Edward F. Saunders Jr., executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the lobbying arm of the state's four Roman Catholic dioceses.

''It just strengthens the argument that the reason this bill was filed was to punish the Archdiocese of Boston," said Saunders, who was busy lobbying lawmakers in the State House Thursday.

A similar bill has already passed the Senate, but as part of a different bill, so if the House passes its version next week, it would also have to win Senate approval to get to Governor Mitt Romney's desk. Romney signaled support for such a bill last year, though he stopped short of endorsing it. Other denominations reiterated their opposition to the bill yesterday.

Alan Teperow, executive director of the Synagogue Council of Massachusetts, said his organization sent out announcements to congregations around the state urging people to contact their legislators.

The Massachusetts Council of Churches, which represents 17 Protestant and Orthodox denominations with a total of 1,700 congregations, continues to argue that the sponsors' intentions are misplaced. ''The state is being enlisted into an internal debate in the Roman Catholic Church," said Laura Everett, associate director of the council.

In November, Protestant leaders, led by the Massachusetts Council of Churches, were able to hold off a House vote on the measure after meeting with House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/01/21/omalley_resists_bill_on_financial_disclosure/

[Kolesar]

19. The bush federal government reviewed the NAACP's finances

to see if the nonprofit was actually doing political work.

welcome to our forum :hi:

[TheEuclideanOne]

20. Seems irrelevant to me

If they have a 20% spending threshold, then that is essentially high enough so that no matter how much they put into supporting political issues. You can review their books, but it won't matter since they will not be able to go over 20% for any specific issue. The better question is how it is allowed to be 20% before considered to be a violation of church and state. 20% is a pretty high amount when you think about it. Geez, they can essentially spent 100% of their revenue for 20% of the year and not violate it.

[jeff30997]

4. I was going to post something clever...

but then I said to myself "why bother?".So all I'll be saying is this:

Fuck you damned bigots ! That is all.

[Piewhacket]

6. IRS, INSPECT THE BOOKS! Revoke tax exemption!

[Bluenorthwest]

7. They only fessed up

because they are in trouble for not reporting the donations as required by law, then lying about it when asked. They lie to the public about breaking the law, during a campaign based on their high morals. The hubris is as stunning as the hate and the hypocrisy.

[MineralMan]

8. Gosh dang it...Everybubba knows that it's OK to lie,

as long as you do it in Jesus's name. That's fundamental.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

12. Ah, more Christian love from the church

that believes that homosexuality is as bad as murder.

Hey mormon church - go fuck yourself!

[madrchsod]

13. they spent more than that

well their flock spent more than the "official" sum....

[Ian David]

14. I really doubt that they ONLY spent $180,000. n/t

[neuvocat]

18. I think the bulk of that

came in from individual donors in order to stay off the radar.

[liberalhistorian]

22. Then strip them of their fucking

tax-exempt status. As in now, today, NOW!!!! No ifs, ands or buts. Churches and non-profits with tax-exempt status CANNOT NOT NOT NOT directly spend funds to directly influence political matters. Period. I don't care even if it's a liberal church and a liberal issues.

And does anyone else see the irony in the Mormons, of all churches, getting so angry and involved in denying marriage rights to people when their history is rich with fights against persecution for their own doctrine of marriage?

[lynne]

24. That's NOT what the law says -

- churches cannot promote any individual politician or political party. They cannot contribute to an individual politician's campaign or to a political party. They cannot tell you WHO to vote for. BUT, they can certainly preach on and contribute financially to organizations other than a politician's campaign or a specific party to promote their doctrine with regard to social issues, including abortion and gay marriage.

[JFKfanforever]

26. Really? If true, that is a travesty!

The LDS forces every member to tithe 10%. Time to make sure
all those funds are not used to support political hot button
issues.
I wonder what other less-than-worthy causes they have been
funding?  Time to review the tax status eligibility question
for this and indeed for all churches, I would say.

[anonymous171]

30. Holy shit that needs to be changed.

I'm all for Churches expressing their opinions, and even telling their followers how to think (even though it's stupid.) However, the Church itself should not be able to donate to any type of political campaign.

[GinaMaria]

23. or funding a ballot proposition that outlawed Mormon

marriage? Mormonism is a choice you know. ;-) Bet I would hear the outrage all the way from Utah to Chicago.

[Starry Messenger]

29. As a Californian, I would love to find out if there are any big Mormon moneymakers

out here in our state, and pass laws limiting them. Anybody have any leads?