Mormon Church Reports Spending $180,000 on Proposition 8

[_RAJ]

TD asked:

I thought political campaigns are required by law to disclose all contributions received, and organization/religions/companies are required, by law, to disclose political contributions.

Am I mistaken?

I believe the problem may be one of timeliness. The Church may be in line for criticism for not reporting these non monetary contributions earlier. In contrast to, say, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) of Princeton, New Jersey, who reported $210,634.75 in non monetary contributions while the campaign was underway and Focus on the Family of Colorado Springs, who reported $83,790.00 --- no "non monetary contributions" were reported by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until last Friday. I think, technically, as long as they file what they just did by next Monday, they're ok.

As an aside, one of the talking points I heard from several LDS sources right after the election, was that the Church proper contributed NO money to the Yes on 8 campaign, except for a small, roughly $2000 travel contribution.

[_harmony]

As an aside, one of the talking points I heard from several LDS sources right after the election, was that the Church proper contributed NO money to the Yes on 8 campaign, except for a small, roughly $2000 travel contribution.

Well, when you deal with billions every day, $180,000 is probably the same as $2000.



.

[_Jason Bourne]

I have never said the Church broke the law. I would just like to see that if the Church (or any other church) gets involved in politics (as is its right to do), then it pay the same price the rest of us do: taxes. I realize this would require a change in the law, but I would like to see the change.


True, and its episodes like this (i.e., the Church's heavy involvement in passing Prop. H8te) that could lead to such a change, which I would welcome

So start a letter writing campaign to your congress persons and senators.

[_Jason Bourne]

Are there any churches that are not tax exempt? I mean... how big of a change would this really be? Huge? Small?

in my opinion to lose its tax exemption would be huge. Fist donations in all forms would not be tax deductible for the contributors. Next all donations would be taxable to the Church. Also, income earned on investments would be taxable as well. It would take about a 40% plus hit.

[_Jason Bourne]

EDITED TO ADD: I think I misunderstood the initial post on this -- I thought the poster was referring to the bake sale as an effort to raise funds for a political issue (like Prop. H8te), but as Jason points out, it could be for some other RS-related reason. That said, on page 181 of the CHI, the list of prohibited activities on Church property includes "holding unauthorized fund-raising projects." Moreover, the list on which that prohibition appears is a subset of the instruction that "Church property should not be used for commercial or political purposes which would violate laws that permit [the Church's] tax exemption." On page 161 of the CHI, it states that fund-raising activities are not approved if they "would be taxable." Again, in light of this language, I would not be surprised if the leadership shut down this type of activity. It appears the Church's tax-exempt status is the 'Golden Calf' of today's Mormonism.

Yes that was my point. It is highly unlikely a bake sale would cause the Church to lose its tax exemption. Nor would a scout spaghetti dinner.
But you are correct. It is a high priority for the church to maintain its exemption.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

So start a letter writing campaign to your congress persons and senators.

I may just do that ..., then again, the Church is creating so much bad PR for itself that there may be no need.

[_solomarineris]

As Downtown Mall Project, no tithing money is involved here.
Rest assured.

[_solomarineris]

It is one thing for a church to take a stand. Another thing for a church to break the law.

I think /the Church should be above the law, it is logical, since it is Lord's only treu Church.

[_harmony]

It is one thing for a church to take a stand. Another thing for a church to break the law.

I think /the Church should be above the law, it is logical, since it is Lord's only treu Church.

But is it? That's the depressing question.

[_Mercury]

I like the idea that the LDS church was involved in politics over this issue. People may not agree with the issue but it was good to be involved. I have to take my hat off to the LDS church for taking a stand.

I like the idea that the KKK was involved in politics over racial issues. People may not agree with the issue but it was good to be involved. I have to take my hat off to the KKK for taking a stand. :smile