DiscussMormonism.com

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:01 pm**

I have always felt that with the Church's phalanx of lawyers, they knew EXACTLY what they could and couldn't get away with, with respect to their Tax Exempt status. But if the CA FPPC finds that the church violated the Fair Political Practices laws, I'm not so sure.

I'm just seeing this and I'm not encouraged by their listing of "David S. Monson" as the current prophet of the Church. Still, at the very least, its more bad PR for the Church.

http://californiansagainsthate.blogspot.com/

Sworn Complaint Filed Against Mormon Church with California FPPC and 2 State Attorneys General

LOS ANGELES, CA – Fred Karger, Founder of Californians Against Hate today filed a Sworn Complaint with the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). In the complaint he accused The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) of not reporting numerous non monetary contributions to ProtectMarriage. com – Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal I.D. # 1302592.

From the Text of the Letter:

Church organized phone banks from Utah and Idaho
Sending direct mail to voters
Transported people to California over several weekends
Used the LDS Press Office to send out multiple News Releases to promote their activities to nonmembers
Walked precincts
Ran a speakers bureau
Distributed thousands of lawn signs and other campaign material
Organized a "surge to election day"
Church leaders travel to California
Set up of very elaborate web sites
Produced at least 9 commercials and 4 other video broadcasts all in support of Prop 8
Conducted at least 2 satellite simulcasts over 5 Western states.

All of these unreported contributions by the Mormon Church were on top of its massive fund-raising effort; the largest ever undertaken on a social issue ballot initiative.

Under California Election Law organizations such as the Mormon Church are not required to report activities if they strictly constitute "member communication. " We will explain why we feel that the activities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints went far beyond "member communication, " and were instead specifically targeted at California’s 17 million voters. By not reporting any of these non monetary contributions, the Mormon Church violated the Political Reform Act.

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:55 pm**

I would bet much of what they listed was carried out be individual members on their own.

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:06 pm**

The Church-wide call to support the Proposition 8 ballot measure, as well as the call, from the pulpit, for California members to vote for this ballot measure might also be proposed by those whom Crockett would describe as anonymous cowards.

Posted: **Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:31 pm**

In any court of law, this route will ultimately fail as prohibitions against non profits from politicking and making political contributions all come back to the context of being biased towards a candidate, not an issue.

Of course in California, it might be tough to find an actual court of law......

Posted: **Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:11 am**

Jason Bourne wrote:I would bet much of what they listed was carried out be individual members on their own.

With no prompting from the heirarchy? Forgive me, but I find that VERY hard to believe.

Posted: **Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:05 pm**

Dr. Shades wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:I would bet much of what they listed was carried out be individual members on their own.

With no prompting from the heirarchy? Forgive me, but I find that VERY hard to believe.

And on that score, I was part of a group working before the election to identify as many individual Mormon donors as possible. I was aware, on one level, that Mormons were making donations, but its quite something to watch the full scope of that fact emerge --- name by name, google search by google search. And once you start combing through the spread sheet, something else emerges; very few, IF ANY, donors, who turned out to be Mormon, contributed before the June letter was read over the pulpit at all CA Sacrament meetings. If individual Mormons, all on their own, were so fired up about this issue, there was nothing preventing them from donating before the letter was read. But they didn't. Donations made earlier than June, large and small, almost without exception, were made by non LDS donors.

Posted: **Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:48 pm**

Jason Bourne wrote:I would bet much of what they listed was carried out be individual members on their own.

With no prompting from the heirarchy? Forgive me, but I find that VERY hard to believe.

Gee did I say that? Prompting is one thing. Individuals organizing on their own is another. THe question then really hinges on whether the efforts of the LDS Church to influence this legislation were SUBSTANTIAL. This term seems to be mean substantial as compared to all the other things the organization does. I have not spent time looking for cases where and organizations tax status has been challenged because it had substantial activity in attempting to influence legislation. But my guess is what the LDS Church did is not substantial and thus they are not at risk.

Posted: **Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:43 pm**

Jason Bourne wrote:Gee did I say that? Prompting is one thing. Individuals organizing on their own is another.

Methinks thou mightest be missing the point: Individuals organized "on their own" thanks to the marching orders they received from Salt Lake City.

So the heirarchy is still responsible, since all this wouldn't have happened otherwise (see also RAJ's excellent contribution, above).

Posted: **Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:48 pm**

How does the law distinguish between "the church" and the men who run the church?

In other words, it is the men who run the church who wrote the letter read in Sac Marjorie Taylor-Greene, men who run the church who organized the movement to support Prop 8, men who run the church (SPs) who called members in to their offices to "ask" them to donate various amounts of money to the cause, and men who who run the church who designed the whole plan to get members to work together to remove the rights of a group of people in California.

Some members did what they were told, and were not physically forced to donate and work for the cause, still the leaders of the LDS church developed, organized, and promoted the plan that was implemented by members.

What is the church if not the leaders/members of the church?

~td~

Posted: **Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:52 pm**

Methinks thou mightest be missing the point: Individuals organized "on their own" thanks to the marching orders they received from Salt Lake City.

So the heirarchy is still responsible, since all this wouldn't have happened otherwise (see also RAJ's excellent contribution, above).

Yes and this still hinges on whether the activity is a SUBSTANTIAL part of the NFPs activity.

DiscussMormonism.com

The Church's Tax Exempt Status

The Church's Tax Exempt Status

Re: The Church's Tax Exempt Status

The Church's Tax Exempt Status

Re: The Church's Tax Exempt Status

Re: The Church's Tax Exempt Status

Re: The Church's Tax Exempt Status

Re: The Church's Tax Exempt Status

Re: The Church's Tax Exempt Status

Re: The Church's Tax Exempt Status

Re: The Church's Tax Exempt Status