California Ethics Commission finds Mormons guilty on 13 counts of late Prop 8

[Wolfman1982]

http://www.examiner.com/x-52997-San...n-13-counts-of-late-Prop-8-campaign-reporting

Reddits title

"Two years ago Prop 8 passed with hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in Mormon astroturfing. Yesterday they were found guilty on 13 counts of campaign fraud. The fine: $5538. That'll teach 'em."

ACRAMENTO, CA – On June 11th, the FPPC, in an unprecedented ruling against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, found the Salt Lake City based Church guilty on 13 counts of late campaign reporting. The Mormon Church was fined $5538 in an agreement worked out ending the 19 month long investigation. The Church was the primary backer of California’s Proposition 8, which ended gay marriage in California two years ago.

The Mormon Church initially admitted to spending only $2078 to pass Prop 8. When Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, filed his sworn complaint on November 13, 2008, he said they instantly attacked him.

The Mormon owned Salt Lake City Deseret News reported on November 14, 2008 that Church spokesman Scott Trotter said the allegations are “false” and the complaint — filed by Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate — has “many errors and misstatements.” Trotter said The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “has fully complied with the reporting requirements of the California Political Reform Act. Claims that the Church has violated the act and failed to report political expenditures made by the church are false. The church has, in fact, filed four reports with California authorities; these reports are a matter of public record. A further report will be filed on or before its due date, Jan. 30, 2009,” Trotter said.

Don Eaton a spokesman for the Mormon Church said in an interview with KGO-TV (ABC San Francisco) "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints put zero money in this.”

Three months later the Mormon Church filed an amended return in which they admitted to spending $190,000. Unfortunately, this was 3 months after the election, so 17 million California voters never were able to know the full extent of the Mormon involvement until well after the election.

The Mormon Church ran phone banks, sent out direct mail, had well designed web sites, produced 27 slick commercials, bussed people in from Utah and had lots of travel expenses by high ranking Church officials. They also raised approximately $30 million from Mormon families to pass Proposition 8.

The Mormon Church also was behind the creation of the infamous National Organization for Marriage (NOM) in 2007, and was the biggest contributor to pass Prop 8.

NOM continues to be one of the great mysteries of the world. I have been closely following them since they reared their ugly heads in California just three years ago.

NOM is currently under investigation in the state of Maine for possible money laundering, and failing to file the required campaign reports for that state’s Question 1 campaign. Question 1 took away gay marriage in Maine just last November.

NOM was also the largest contributor to that election by contributing $1.9 million to Yes on 1. They have steadfastly refused to identify any of their donors in spite of three federal court orders and a State Attorney General’s ruling demanding that they do so. It begs the question, whom are they working so hard to protect?

_______________________________________________________________

I think that fine is a joke in comparison to what they did. And I know, that not all Mormons are like that.

 

[HarlotMinx]

NOM has some seriously questionable finance practices. Personally I believe that any church that receives tax exemption should be barred from contributing money in any form to any political action group or directly funding any form of political agendas. Frankly, if people want to give their money to a political organization to oppose gay marriage then that's their constitutional right but using the churches tax exemption is a violation of separation of church and state. Another group that SERIOUSLY pisses my off is James Dobson's Focus on the Family who are even worse when it comes to questionable tax practices.

 

[John Doe]

NOM has some seriously questionable finance practices. Personally I believe that any church that receives tax exemption should be barred from contributing money in any form to any political action group or directly funding any form of political agendas. Frankly, if people want to give their money to a political organization to oppose gay marriage then that's their constitutional right but using the churches tax exemption is a violation of separation of church and state. Another group that SERIOUSLY pisses my off is James Dobson's Focus on the Family who are even worse when it comes to questionable tax practices.

Eccept there's a little problem with that. It would contradict that pesky separation of church and state thing. Y'know, the first clause in the 1st Amendment? It goes something like this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

 

[John Doe]

We allow churches a great deal of freedom, but we also acknowledge when a church becomes a political organization and attempt to control that.
Churches, for example, aren't allowed to endorse candidates, specifically (though they can address issues).
You want to be a church, great.
You want to be a political organization, you gotta play by the rules.
If we allow this sort of thing, then I don't see why every political org wouldn't just declare themselves churches first and then be able to run amok.
Actually, at that point, i'll just say I'm a church and never have to pay taxes again.

The distinction has been made clear several times between the spiritual 'wing' and the political 'wing' of an otherwise religious organization. The idea is that regulating the politic part does not violate the 1st Amendment because once that part ceases to be religious when it becomes political.

I think y'all just want an excuse to stick it to religion because you're bitter abut gay marriage.

 

[John Doe]

I find that a funny statement.
If a church got together and said that blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry, I can't imagine you'd ever say "you want to stick it to religion because you are bitter about blacks not being able to marry".

Why not?

 

[EMPRESSLAINIE]

It is my understanding that maybe last year the US Supreme Court made a ruling that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, yet it seems to be completely ignored.