Politics | 11/26/2008 8:45 am

California to Investigate Mormon's Resources in Gay Marriage Fight

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

The Mormon Church led the fight for Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that overturned California’s gay marriages, but their efforts may not have been on the up and up. Investigators in the Golden State are currently looking into whether the Utah-based Church failed to report nonmonetary contributions to their cause, including phone banks and commercials.

The church filed a report of only $5,000 in contributions, which raised activist Fred Karger’s eyebrows and led him to file an official complaint. Obviously intrigued by the allegations, Roman Porter, who heads the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, decided to begin the investigation. He’s clear, however, that this process is not “a determination on the validity of the claims or the culpability of the individuals.”

Mormon officials won’t comment on the specific allegations, but promised their full cooperation. If found guilty in this case, the Church could face fines of $5,000 for each violation, and even more if this goes into civil courts.

68 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Another major reason for the separation of church and state—you want to play politics? Then lose you tax-exempt status immediately and permanently.

By fp1 on 11/26/2008 9:19 am

e-mail alert

I hope they get nailed on this. It is high time we put these churches back in their place in this country. Separation of church and state is critical and it protects both the state AND the churches. Most mainstream churches know this. I say MOST because the bishops of the Catholic church, which I would normally consider “mainstream” are also overstepping their boundaries.

By DeBrcaobj on 11/26/2008 10:01 am

e-mail alert

Should this loss of tax exempt status be applied to Farakhan’s Nation of Islam, to Pfleger’s Saint Sabina and Wright’s Trinity Church? Why is this the Mormon church is being questioned about political activities but not those churches I cite? Might this be because those America hating churches I cite are supporters of Obama? Quite the display of hypocrisy, I think. Okpulot Taha Choctaw Nation

By OkpulotTaha on 11/26/2008 10:54 am

e-mail alert

No not hypocrisy—The Mormon church actively supported Prop 8 with bucks, a lot of bucks, and that’s a no no—it can get your church in a pretty pickle with the IRS. As for the others you mentioned: if they gave money to a campaign as a church, an organization, then yes they should be zapped by the feds too. If as a Mormon or CAtholic or Muslim you volunteer as a private citizen, that’s an entirely different thing—but as a organization under tax exempt laws then you liable.

By fp1 on 11/26/2008 11:23 am

e-mail alert

Taha, any church that preaches politics from the pulpit should lose their nonprofit status. But don’t expect Obama to lead this charge.

By BuhBye on 11/29/2008 11:11 pm

e-mail alert

Frank comments, “The Mormon church actively supported Prop 8 with bucks, a lot of bucks, and that’s a no no….” As is political activism within an organized religion. IRS rules on this extend well beyond monetary donations, beyond volunteer efforts. The moment a church attempts to sway a political vote through any activity, which includes words, this is a violation of IRS tax exempt status rules. All three of those churches I cite along with many other churches, all publically endorsed Obama. This is a violation of IRS rules. Being specific about a society segment group, what I see happening is a large majority of gays support Obama. This is a case of gays not objecting to religion engaging in political activities while this supports the cause of gays and a case of gays objecting when a religion engages in political opposition to a gay agenda. This is clear hypocrisy and this harms the efforts of gays. I voted no on proposition 8 here in California. I support gay rights. Nonetheless, our peoples voted, majority, in favor of proposition 8. Our peoples have spoken and this vote should be respected. This is our democratic way; majority rules. Today, gays are attempting to defeat our democratic principles. I will not support this. Toss in hypocrisy on the part of gays, there is not a chance I will support any gay agenda. My expectation is people are to rise above petty political game playing, especially political hypocrisy. Okpulot Taha Choctaw Nation

By OkpulotTaha on 11/26/2008 11:50 am

e-mail alert

OT, you fail to understand the law. If a nonprofit participates in a political election, it is a violation of their tax-exempt status. The Society of Friends for example, has a sister arm, not tax-exempt nor non-profit, named The American Friends Service Committee. When American Quakers want to participate in the political process, they do it through the AFSC, not the Society of Friends. This is hornbook law. If the LDS violated this law, they should lose their tax-exempt status, just as any other non-profit organization would. “Our peoples voted, majority, in favor” BECAUSE they were lied to by advertising bought and paid for by Mormons who do not live in California. The advertising campaign lied, distorted, and misrepresented to gain their way. A good and proper way for a church to act, do you think? It is total BS to say that “gays are attempting to defeat our democratic principles.” Unless of course you mean the democratic principles of lying, cheating, and stealing to get your own way at any cost and no matter who it harms.

By MugsyPeabody on 11/27/2008 5:30 am

e-mail alert

Mugsy, You are exactly right… any organized religion which is involved in the political arena is absolutely breaking the law. The way most churches handle their political positions is as you wrote Mugsy, they have a different structure by which to be actively involved in the political and social action arena. I was very much involved in the 80’s with the AFSC in Pasadena. They accomplished so much good. I think this is the one area of conflict for me - doing good, raising people up, rather than being hateful, and tearing people apart, or bringing them down. If our society would work more toward doing good, raising people up instead of bringing people down, we would have no need to define marriage. Homosexuality has nothing whatsover to do with criminal acts. It is NOT about harming anyone. Homosexuality is simply a different way of relating. AND, homosexual marriage is about ADULT consensual relationships. Nothing less, nothing more.

By RoH on 11/27/2008 10:27 pm

e-mail alert

As I said on another thread, curious that the government is supposed to regulate women’s reproductive rights, gay sexual behavior, etc., but not the telephone companies, the public airwaves, the banks, insurance companies, mortgage industry, airlines, Halliburton’s government contracts, or the preservation and protection of the environment and endangered species.

By MugsyPeabody on 11/28/2008 12:54 am

e-mail alert

Mugsy Peabody, Everytime I see or hear the names, “Halliburton”, “KBR” and “Blackwater” I just want to throw something. I get so angry with the damage they have all done to US! They have taken this country for billions of dollars, and some of it still smacking us all in the face! Like: problems with some of the work, overcharging, “losing” money? and more. Did you know there is millions if not billions of dollars still unaccounted for in the Iraq debacle. They simply cannot find where that money went! This administration has simply raped the American People, and has thus far gotten away with it! No more! If I can do anything about it, they will pay!

By RoH on 11/28/2008 3:16 am

e-mail alert

Of course. We live in a country where the people fears its government, not the other way around as it was meant to be.

By KryssiK on 11/29/2008 3:49 pm

e-mail alert

Kryssi, I have a minature bumper sticker which reads: “A government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.” I rather believe it is a two pronged affect which also means that people 1) fear the government, so they walk on tip-toes afraid of stirring the pot, making waves, or of incurring wrath. Or there is the opposite affect which does in fact, affect many people, as well. 2) Being unyielding to fear mongering thus, defiant with intent to rebel against abuses of power. What do you think of this? Grin

By RoH on 11/29/2008 10:03 pm

e-mail alert

I guess all I can say is “you pay to play”. From what I have heard the Morman Church put a lot of gusto into this Prop 8 and if they didnt report it all, they should have to pay. GOD works in mysterious ways…

By CHardy on 11/26/2008 11:54 am

e-mail alert

Interesting thought. The folks around Joseph Smith in the 19th Century mistook his novel for a voice-of-god book and are harassing the rest of us with it to this day. I have long advocated removing the Book of Mormon from any hotel room I find it in. There are much much better written conceived fantasy novels than this, and certainly far deeper and more interesting books about philosophy. But I guess they liked the part where the men could screw as many women as they wanted. You know, pretty repressed back then….

By MugsyPeabody on 11/28/2008 12:57 am

e-mail alert

Mugsy, You hit the nail on the head, so to speak! The good ol’ church of many wives. And, if you have watched the news in the past year you would witness another off-shoot of the Mormon Church members being arrested for sex with a minor, (marriage to under aged children, with babies already). It is sick. What is it about men who want sex with young girls? It is just rape, no matter how you look at it. Even if the females consent to be married, they are not old enough to know what they want, or developed in a broader world view enough to know the difference. In my opinion it is still rape. And, rape is rape! Period.

By RoH on 11/30/2008 4:42 am