Shouldn’t the existence of this site be enough for the LDS church to have its tax exempt status rescinded? This pretty much guarantees that the church organization itself spent far more than the limit of $100 (or its equivalent in volunteer time) in support of a political initiative.
This is from the copyright footer:
An Official Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
© 2008 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.
Followed by an official logo.
Why can’t the IRS ever be this lazy when it comes to the personal income tax?
The site is hosted in the church’s IP space and WHOIS even lists the church’s holding company (Intellectual Reserve, Inc.) as the registrant, so why is the church safe? It’s not illegal. Churches are only barred from political action on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for elective public office. As long as they are not dumping money onto a specific candidate, it’s kosher as far as the IRS is concerned. For more on this, start here: http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html
Bingo, Nick.
Ah. I guess that’s quite an important distinction. I guess that means churches can donate all the money they want to parties in general (unless that could be interpreted as “supporting several candidates”), or ballot initiatives, or whatever. Well that clears that up.
Still doesn’t seem right though. I guess my real beef with all this is that a “true church” should really be ahead of the civil rights curve, not behind.
Why are people so eager to cleanse the public square of voices that dissent from their view that happen to come from religious people/organizations? I wonder how much moveon.org and other liberal fundraising entities spent on Prop 8. In both cases you have an institution organizing fundraising and advertising activities for the sake of promoting a particular point of view. Instead of trying to kick voices out of the public square, let’s invite them all in and let the ones who make the clearest and soundest case prevail (we live in a democracy, so we’ll have to trust voters to make that judgment). Win the argument, don’t seek victory by default.
The difference being, however, that groups like MoveOn.org do not enjoy tax-exempt status.
You can also hit http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/ for info on how to file a complaint with the IRS and sign their petition.
It’s a losing battle, Seth. Even if I cared to see the church lose it’s tax-exempt status, almost no court would rule in our favor. Moreover, a legal battle about the church would only serve to help it, as it plays into the Mormon persecution complex.
I am no expert on moveon.org, but it appears (from googling around) that at least one arm of moveon.org is tax-exempt (under Section 501c4 of the Internal Revenue Code). Part of moveon.org is organized, as far as I understand it, as a 527 (which is also tax-exempt). Even if this is not so, I am sure I could find some other liberal 527 that raised lots of money.
I should add that I have no problem with moveon.org’s (or any other 527) tax exempt status. People have the right to assemble (the right to gather with other individuals to collectively express and promote a point of view). It shouldn’t much matter if the assembly is religious or not, conservative or liberal, whatever. I favor an energetic debate with as little exclusion from the public square as possible.
Again, I wonder why people are so eager to kick religious people out of the public square. Make your argument, don’t seek to win by default. Seeking to kick people out of the public square is fundamentally anti-democratic.
Ahh, you’re right. I forgot that 527 groups are tax-exempt.
Kleiner, I don’t know who you’re referring to that wanted to kick anyone out of the public square. I made this post because of a misunderstanding about what kind of political behaviour constituted a violation of a religion’s tax-exempt status. I didn’t do my research, which I suppose at most makes me a bad blogger. But I didn’t claim to want to silence anyone. If that’s what you’re saying, you’re putting words in my mouth. In fact, I actually want the LDS and other churches to sing their bigoted ideas about homosexuality as far and wide as they can. For many people, they are digging their own grave on this issue.
I just presumed – mistakenly it seems – that your intent to remove their tax-exempt status was tied to a desire to make it more difficult for them (or at least more expensive for them) to put forth their view on social and political issues. If not that, what else is the point of harping on their tax status? Perhaps you just have a keen sense for justice in tax policy.
My whole point in making this post was that I had mistakenly thought that the church’s financial support of Proposition 8 was illegal, and the IRS was just looking the other way. Nick corrected me on the very first comment, so I suppose this entire thread is moot.
You talk about all sides of an issue making their argument and letting the people decide, but we both know it’s not that simple in practice. Advertising money plays a very large role in shaping public perception. My keen sense of tax justice comes from a desire to see that the public square is as even a playing field as possible, and that organizations with deep pockets are balanced fairly with those that aren’t as flush with cash.
I will also admit to having an internal conflict about this. Believe me, I’m a big supporter of public discourse and the corrective processes that come from it. I want all sides to be able to fairly make their case. But I also think that promoting a bigoted, wrong, and hurtful position should be incredibly difficult. If the Mormon church had to hypothetically lose their tax exempt status in order to spout their hate, I would not be broken up about it.
I’m just very hesitant about cleansing the public square of any opinions (be they “wrong”, “bigoted”, or “hurtful”). It is a dangerous thing for the health of a lively debate within the public square to start singling out people and positions as “hurtful” or “bigoted”.
A blog I read made this point this morning (I forgot where I read this so I am citing and paraphrasing without due credit): While dissent was considered “the highest form of patriotism” last year (that was the Obama message), now dissent is “racist” (see Carter’s recent remarks). Apparently conservatives are incapable of dissent and opposition on legitimate grounds, instead they are always simply accused of being racist, bigoted, hateful, etc. While there were surely some bigots out there supporting Prop 8, it is wrong to suggest that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a “bigot” or some other such thing. None of that name calling constitutes argument.
A pretty nice article by George Will (an agnostic) on lively debate in the public square:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/11/AR2009091103320.html