I’m not sure I see what is “unfair,” about permitting non-profit entities to contribute large sums of money to a cause.
Under your proposed formula, the Mormon church could certainly not have done what it did… but neither could the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, the Jewish Mosaic, the American Jewish Committee, the Progressive Jewish Alliance, National Council of Jewish Women, the Anti-Defamation League, the League of Women Voters of California, Amnesty International, all Episcopal dioceses in the state, and the California Teachers Association (among a host of others) – all of which contributed substantial money, time and effort to fighting Prop 8.
Now, ask yourself this question: are you reading this and thinking, “OK, how can I revise the rules to keep my guys in the game but kick their guys out?” Or are you genuinely opposed to any non-profit group spending large sums of money, no matter which way they roll?
I can’t agree with your indifference to the process - at the very least, a vote in a legislature is the first of several damping mechanisms designed to keep the system from going utterly haywire, as a pure direct democracy could do in a heartbeat.
Well, it’s worth noting that the text offered for public approval by the electorate had been extensively hammered out in committee first. It wasn’t a case of several hundred (or thousand) items individually voted on and then cobbled together, now were there competing versions of the text being circulated with the biggest vote-getter winning.
I don’t have time at the moment to review all 100+ Articles of Amendment that have been applied to the Mass. Constitution, but each time runs a risk that the passions of the day will get something quite unpleasant written into law. Personally, my default positions are that amendments that increase personal liberty are good, while those that restrict it or maintain restrictions on it are bad. For some quick cases in point:
Sounds good to me. But these rejected amendments from a while back:
… are dickish and unnecessary. Legitimate? Sure. But simple conformity to procedure is not my sole concern.
Bricker, I concede all of your points. I am disappointed that We the People have an Og-given right to vote avay the Og-given rights of the minority. I am disappointed that so many people do not educate themselves before deciding what candidates and what ideas to vote for. And I am disappointed that the only way to educate oneself about a candidate or an idea is to study such biased propaganda. But I have no suggestions to improve the system, and at least so far the trend has been toward more rights for more people.
I’d suggest there is no perfectly fair way to make this distinction, but do the Mormons have this right and tax-exempt status?
I don’t actually know to what extent (if any) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (and the other organizations you have listed) enjoys such status; it just seems to me that when they become overtly political, they’ve chosen to do without SOCAS protections.
I don’t think that the purpose of the law is to limit churches’ ability to influence politics, so much as it is to prevent political organizations from claiming to be churches. The Mormon church has substantial resources at its disposal, only a small amount of which are funneled towards political goals. The fact that their total resources are much vaster than most other organizations largely reflects the fact that the Mormons are vastly more influential in American society than most other organizations. As much as I wish they were less influential, I don’t think we should try to fix through legislative means.
No one is saying you can’t offer an opinion on “good” or bad," of course. But rhodes’ comment was that it would not be appropriate – suggesting something more than a judgment on whether their actions are wise.
So long as we agree that the action has legitimacy, that we as a society should give it effect, I have no problem with the further opining that it’s dickish or otherwise sucks.
What worries me is the tendency to claim that the stuff I don’t like shouldn’t be recognized as legitimate, and the stuff I do like, created by the same process, should absolutely enjoy the presumption of legitimacy. That way lies madness.
I am “genuinely opposed to any non-profit group spending large sums of money, no matter which way they roll” to fund completely partisan political causes. Spend however much you want on research, homeless shelters, beautifying a city, even fighting legal battles, but elections shouldn’t be decided by who can outspend who. I also have problems with out of state groups spending many millions to affect policy in another state and would say the same if it was a gay rights group spending millions to pass same-sex marriage in Mississippi, and you can only imagine the shitstorm it would stir among the conservatives if they did.
The only things I can say is: none of these things are prohibited by the law as it stands, and I don’t agree that any of them are such a bad thing that the law should change.
Not that I’m aware of. I welcome correction on the point, but a church is a 501(c)(3) corporation just like Amnesty International. I suppose the church has an easier time of getting the designation, but that’s not a huge difference. Religion gets an almost automatic pass; other organizations must submit their bylaws. But once granted, I don’t think there’s any substantive difference.
ALthough it’s not my area of law, I do serve on the board of directors of a 501(c)(3) non-profit, most recently as the corporate treasurer, and so I have some familiarity with the process.
Sincere thanks for the legal information, Bricker.
I’ll amend my statement to “I will gladly support anything that exposes the Latter Day Saints for the lying douchebag simpleminded five-times-double-damned magick worshiping hypocrites I believe them to be and hinders their effectiveness as a political force in advancing their faith-in-shit-that-would-make-a-schizoaffective-illiterate-Voodoo-practitioner-say-‘How-fucked-up-is-that?’ based agenda on others”. And if anybody can make a case for any illegal or questionable activity that could result in their tax exempt status being revoked, I’d be deliriously happy. And if it’s not valid but still causes them great trouble, I won’t be sad.
That I know for a fact to be within my legal rights.
I had thought the reports in the film and elsewhere about LDS parents rejecting their gay children had been exaggerated. But last night the LDS mother of my wife’s gay cousin posted on Facebook that we should all call the Lt. Gov. of California and ask that the recent Proposition 8 decision be appealed and the voice of the people be heard. Supposedly this is a narrow window of opportunity for the Lt. Gov. to go behind the Governator’s back while he is out of town.
What is wrong with these people? How can a mother’s loyalty to a bigotted octogenerian Prophet outweigh her loyalty to her own son? This boy is forbidden from having any contact with his neices and nephews because his Mormon sister thinks all gays are pedophiles. And his mother is encouraging people to supress his rights.
