Feeling the spirit of political rules

By Derek Price
With Permission

When The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently announced it would jump into California politics by supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, many Mormons - including myself - were appalled.

Some members were upset that their tithing donations would be used to support a political agenda with which they disagree. Others were disappointed to see the church once again veer from its hollow claim of "political neutrality." And some found it laughable that the LDS church, which was founded by people with famously liberal marriage arrangements, is now taking a "one man, one woman" stance.

Isn't that a little ironic?

Really, though, this isn't just an issue about Mormons, gays and the California Constitution. Aside from the unpleasant thought of individual religious groups trying to force their doctrine upon all people through the enactment of civil law, there's another reason churches should stay out of politics.

It's all about the money.

You see, when churches decide to turn themselves into de facto political committees, they flout America's campaign finance laws that are designed to keep the flow of political money transparent and limited in scope. While politically active churches may comply with the letter of the law, they definitely don't comply with the spirit. That gives them an unfair advantage.

If I were to donate to a political action committee or 527 group, for example, there are three major drawbacks compared with giving to a church. One, my donation would not be tax-deductible. Two, my money would be precisely tracked - and made public - because of campaign reporting requirements. And three, the law limits how much money I'm allowed to give.

Churches, though, don't have those limitations. When I give to a politically active church, I get a tax break. The money is also collected and spent in complete secrecy without any public tracking or accountability, and there's no limit to how much I can donate.

That's a little unfair, don't you think?

That's why whenever churches decide to play the political game - which I wish would never happen - they ought to at least abide by the same rules as everyone else. If they don't, they turn themselves into a money-laundering operation whereby contributions are made completely anonymously, then spent in unknown ways to influence public policy.

No matter where you stand on the issue of marriage freedom, it's wrong for any organization to flout America's already lax campaign finance rules by operating in darkness.

Let's hope the Mormon church sees the light. The church should either abide by the same restrictions as all political groups or - gasp! - let its members make up their own minds about which political issues to support.

---

* DEREK PRICE is a newspaper editor and lifelong Mormon living in Alabama.



Display:


Yes, regrettably.... (2.00 / 3)

501(c)4's are quickly replacing 527's as the soft-money vehicle of choice this cycle.

Political activists dissected the IRS/tax laws and quickly figured out that as long as the entity remains--supposedly--unaffiliated with any candidacy, they're abiding by the rules as they're written today.

Problem with all of this is you end up with folks like Karl Rove, receiving high, six-figure stipends from folks like Sheldon Adelson (the main money person behind Freedom's Watch), consulting with campaigns while simultaneously claiming they're not working for these new 501(c)4's.

And, then you have groups like Jamestown Associates, buying hundreds of millions of dollars worth of media for groups like Freedom's Watch, and simultaneously running the media for multiple congressional races (etc.) around the country, as well.

Where do you draw the line? Like so many other matters that are under-enforced in our society (i.e.: our banks, Wall Street, etc.), the rules are there.

If the laws were enforced, there wouldn't be a problem.

Essentially, it's now devolving into nothing less than a joke. It's a total sham.

Soft money? Hard money? Looks like it's just money, to me.

The old line that we're a nation of laws no longer rings true. What good are laws and regulations if they're systematically ignored?

This all holds true for the Church, as much as any other entity that decides to get into politics, IMHO.


by bobswern on Sun Jul 20, 2008 at 11:04:46 PM EST

Re: Yes, regrettably.... (2.00 / 3)

... the shenanigans have become so pervasive that I gave up trying to write about what I'd found (where to start?  once you start digging, the sheer volume of suspect activity that never gets properly investigated becomes overwhelming).  For example, the case of Marriage Education Initiatives:

http://deseretnews.com/article/content/m obile/1,5620,600105052,00.html

MEI seems to have blatantly broken the spirit and letter of campaign rules, but once the election's over, you never hear from or about them again.

A total sham, indeed.  

I'm glad Derek let me post his commentary here.  It's gratifying to see some myDD readers enjoyed it as well.


twitter.com/ChinoBlanco | youtube.com/ChinoBlanco
by Chino Blanco on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 12:51:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What's Sunday without a little scripture? (2.00 / 2)

And just for today, let's make it a little Mormon scripture:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/134

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

D&C 134:9


twitter.com/ChinoBlanco | youtube.com/ChinoBlanco
by Chino Blanco on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 01:26:00 AM EST

Derek: 'people can post this wherever they want' (2.00 / 1)

As such, might this be a useful Letter to the Editor to your local newspaper?


twitter.com/ChinoBlanco | youtube.com/ChinoBlanco
by Chino Blanco on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 03:36:15 AM EST

The Yes on 8 coalition is already unraveling ... (none / 0)

http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2008/07/ 18/california-prop-8-down-by-9-meanwhile -backers-in-lovers-quarrel/


twitter.com/ChinoBlanco | youtube.com/ChinoBlanco
by Chino Blanco on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:17:13 AM EST

How soon after the Prop 8 battle do Evangelicals (none / 0)

go back to picketing Mormon temples?

Just wondering.

I mean, considering that it's only July, and the ProtectMarriage.com folks are already characterizing their fellow travellers, Campaign for California Families, as a bunch of extremists, I'd guess we could expect to start seeing those pickets again some time around, say, November 5th.  


twitter.com/ChinoBlanco | youtube.com/ChinoBlanco
by Chino Blanco on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 08:52:09 AM EST

If $'s the nub, can we even get there from here? (none / 0)

I find it frustrating that I can pop over to the UK and find more LDS financial disclosure than I can in the USA (where there's effectively none, zip, nada).

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/reg isteredcharities/showcharity.asp?remchar =&chyno=242451

Whatever one may think of this utter lack of disclosure requirements here in the USA, at least it means that we all start from the same place when discussing LDS finances:  the dark.


twitter.com/ChinoBlanco | youtube.com/ChinoBlanco
by Chino Blanco on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 10:07:49 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.