Feeling the spirit of political rules
By Derek PriceWith 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.
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.
Advertisement





Is it still Sunday? How about some LDS scripture?
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/134
July 21, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Derek: 'people can post this wherever they want'
As such, might this be a useful Letter to the Editor to your local newspaper?
July 21, 2008 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Yes on 8 coalition is already unraveling ...
http://news.lavenderliberal.com/2008/07/18/california-prop-8-down-by-9-meanwhile-backers-in-lovers-quarrel/
July 21, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
How soon after the Prop 8 battle do Evangelicals 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.
July 21, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like Derek, what bothers me is the money.
In this regard, 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/registeredcharities/showcharity.asp?remchar=&chyno=242451
So much for accountability. I though Utah voted for Mr. Accountability twice, didn't they?
July 21, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chino,
I do not know how the tithing process works - if you were to withhold your contributions in protest, would the church kick you out or in some way penalize you?
Thanks!
IIOOII
July 21, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't get kicked out for not paying tithing, but you lose privileges (like Temple access and consideration for leadership). Although, if you stopped paying and made a public protest of the fact, I think you'd be called in and possibly excommunicated. I don't know that the lines have been drawn all that clearly, but framing any action as a "protest" is generally a no-no. That said, some prominent Mormons are now quite vocal in their opposition to Prop 8 and nothing's happened yet that I've heard. We'll see.
I do know there's some folks over at PostMormon.org planning a mass resignation to protest Prop 8. Not sure how that's shaping up, but it's apparently being planned.
July 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
x-posted at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/20/222411/641/853/554431
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/7/20/225357/041
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/20/225319/615
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7048
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6199
http://www.eenrblog.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2078
(noted for my own reference)
July 22, 2008 4:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, this is another great letter ...
http://www.sltrib.com/Opinion/ci_9952502
Is Jesus pleased?
As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I support same-sex marriages.
Even though I don't understand homosexuals, I support their rights as human beings. God created them, just as he did everyone else, but he endowed them with different feelings of attraction and intimacy.
All humans, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation, deserve the same protection and rights under the law.
Married heterosexual couples are protected in issues of joint ownership, government or workplace benefits, and making life and death decisions for a spouse, and it is discriminatory to judge a person unworthy of these same rights simply because of who they are.
Being different should never be the core issue when determining if someone is worthy of being treated as an equal child of God. Jesus taught us to love one another, to bear one another's burdens, to visit the sick, the poor and the fatherless. Never has he charged us to reject anyone.
When we tell someone they are unworthy of the same human rights and protections we enjoy simply because they live and act differently than we do, I wonder if Jesus is pleased with how we are handling this issue.
Carlyle Potter
St. George
07/21/2008
July 22, 2008 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/06/mormons/
Is this all that Mormons and Evangelicals have to bring the country in 2008?
Keller the Evangelical: All Mormons die and go to Hell.
Mitt the Mormon: It's Pepsi vs Coke.
Yeah, I know, Starbucks is on the rocks, but I don't actually take that as a metaphor for how I expect the 2008 election to turn out.
Are folks who talk like this not certifiably insane?
Or is it that they assume we are?
July 22, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink