The petition and legal explanation are here. Basically, religious organizations in the U.S. are given tax-exempt status on condition that "no substantial part of [their] activities" include "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation...[or] participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."
The LDS spent millions on ads to deprive gay Californians of their civil rights.
The argument is simple: We can all use our money to support whatever causes we choose. But if we do so, we are not entitled to tax-exempt status of non-political organizations.
I think it's pretty clear that the LDS church was trying to "influence legislation" with its support of Prop 8 (though the church was not directly contributing funds to the cause, it was recommending that members support the effort). That's different from it's support of other measures (the federal marriage amendment), where their support was less specific.
The question is then I think whether this support constitutes a "substantial part of [their] activities". As far as I know there were a few messages, but for example, not one word of the general conference last month was about Prop 8. The fact that a lot of members gave a lot of money and put in a lot of work, in response to a letter sent from church headquarters, doesn't prove that the church has become a political organization, any more than 90% of the vote in the Utah GOP primary proves that the church was campaigning for Romney.
Did the Church send a letter in support of Romney's candidacy.
If they had would you still argue that it would not consitute a "substantial part of [their] activities," and was therefore ok?
You're right Norm there is a difference there, since the church was obviously not taking a stand in the Romney campaign but there were in the Prop 8 campaign. Maybe that's the crucial difference as far as the law is concerned. But it seems like a variety of churches were sounding off on the initiative, including some churches against, and LDS people were merely more involved and visible. Is it within the rights of a religion to teach that marriage is between a man and a woman (or that to say such things is "against God's law"), but not to point out that there's an initiative campaign precisely about that very issue?
My knee-jerk reaction was to approve of this petition. But then, didn't members of the LDS church who made contributions do so with taxable income?
A 501 (C)(3) can campaign on behalf of a ballot inniative and do issue education.
For the most I think the churches stay out of the ballot initiatives but I don't think it violates the tax code.
Endorsing candidates during services, on church stationary, or spending church moneys supporting candidates are violations
Yeah, this petition is silly and contains some misinformation.
First, C3's are allowed to lobby to a limited extent and do issue campaigns.
If you removed this ability orgs like the American Cancer society wouldn't be allowed to endorse an initiative designating more money to Cancer research but would be able to publicly advocate for more funding for Cancer research.
Might as well make a charitable contribution to your local law firm and cut out the middle man.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm unfamiliar with the fine points of the law. But while I think it's fine for a church to make public pronouncements on what they consider moral issues. I think it should be illegal to come out against specific ballot initiatives. It may be quite obvious that they are concerned about a specific issue, but that I think is better left unsaid.
I think we would all feel better if Mormons expressed less opinions, particularly when it comes to the marital practices of others.
But I think we should realize that charitable speech ranges a variety of organizations and if we add restrictions to their speech we do the same to all the rest.
From Wiki: "The types of charitable organization that are considered by the IRS to be organized for the public benefit include those that are organized for:
So if you don't want to restrict those groups as well, you either have to create a new subset of Charitable groups for religion(this gives the US Govt some power to define religion vs reality) or you have to declare Ballot initiatives partisan elections.
Well, the Mormons have totally pissed off yet another - even more powerful - group in America:
Holocaust survivors said Monday they are through trying to negotiate with the Mormon church over posthumous baptisms of Jews killed in Nazi concentration camps, saying the church has repeatedly violated a 13-year-old agreement barring the practice.
[...]"We ask you to respect us and our Judaism just as we respect your religion," Michel said in a statement released ahead of the news conference. "We ask you to leave our six million Jews, all victims of the Holocaust, alone, they suffered enough."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081110/aponreus/baptizingthedead;ylt=AhTF4WNHoQHqZYuQJzFpa3tvzwcF
I don't know if any of this stuff warrants a repeal of their tax-exempt status, but it definitely warrants a repeal of respect for their beliefs.
I am not talking about donations made by individual members. I am talking about a letter sent out in June 2008 to all LDS congregants telling them how to vote. And what may be direct contributions.
We agree.
On other comments, as I have already said, I am not discussing restricting free speech. I am discussing tax-exempt status for organizations that use that status inappropriately. We can disagree over whether LDS did so, but the slippy slope argument is weak.
Sorry, that should read, LDS congregants in CA.
Like I said earlier, I think this is legal.