Reports of other charitable organizations’ involvement

If you know of another organization’s involvement in Proposition 8 (or other legislation), post all the details you have in a comment here and I’ll make a page for it.

Thanks!

46 Responses to Reports of other charitable organizations’ involvement

  1. Lauren says:

    C. Peter Wagner’s Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders

    See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-wilson/meet-the-new-christian-ri_b_141998.html

  2. Tad says:

    Seventh-day Adventists

  3. Sonora Snyder says:

    The Catholic Church printed endorsements and reminders to Vote for Prop 8 in their bulletins. Specifically at St. Bernadette Church in L.A. on Don Felipe Drive at the insistence of Father Al.

  4. Great source for citing the public endorsements and political positions used to sway church goers from the pulpit to the election boxes:

    “Voters in Arizona and California will decide a few days from now whether to change their state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. In California, Proposition 8 would reverse a recent court decision that allows same-sex marriage. In Arizona, where same-sex marriage is not legal, Proposition 102 would prevent it from being allowed in the future.

    Almost immediately, several religious organizations, including Catholics, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and several evangelical Christian groups, took official positions in support of both propositions, while several other religious groups such as Methodists, Episcopalians and the United Church of Christ, urged members to vote against them”

  5. Here is just one example of the Catholic church advising voters how to vote. This is their bulletin and here is one pulled quote:

    OCTOBER 26
    Election Corner – Your Vote as a Faithful Citizen: Proposition 6

    “It is for this reason that the California bishops are opposing Proposition 6, the so-called Safe Neighborhoods Act.” They feel that it merely focuses on stricter and longer incarceration standards which neither heals nor reconciles violent acts. This proposition deals with the symptoms of crime, rather than the prevention of it, by taking away billions of dollars from education and social services and not increasing public safety.”

  6. FYI, there can be no pleading ignorance. The Catholic Church made this website (usccb.org) for all parishes to refer to before inadvertently endorsing a candidate or overshooting the allotted resources to lobby an initiative, amendment, or proposition:

    The IRC limits the amount of lobbying in which section 501(c)(3) organizations may engage. Under section 501(c)(3), Catholic organizations may engage in lobbying activities only if they do not constitute a substantial part of their total activities, measured by time, effort, expenditure and other relevant factors… A few cases suggest that the line between what is substantial and what is insubstantial lies somewhere between 5% and 15% of an organization’s total activities…. [See: Murray Seasongood v. Commissioner, 227 F.2d 907 (6th Cir. 1955) (less than 5% time and effort was not substantial); Haswell v. U.S., 500 F.2d 1133 (Ct.Cl. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1107 (1975) (16-20% of budget was substantial).]

    [Editor: Thanks for this note. As I’ve posted elsewhere, the case law does point to this, but it’s certainly far from clear. There are also older tests in which “substantial” was interpreted to mean a particular dollar amount but I don’t have the citations in front of me, and these have recently been in disfavor.]

  7. Chris says:

    The following was reported as well in the Wall Street Journal. “The Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic group, has given more than $1.25 million to support Proposition 8. Focus on the Family, a nonprofit organization composed mainly of evangelical Protestants, has given more than $400,000.” Are you going to file 501(c)(3) complaints against them as well?

    [Editor: I don’t know enough about them, but I certainly encourage those of you who do to file complaints, yes. Don’t forget that the LDS Church and its members (at its instruction) donated 20 and 50 times those amounts, respectively, and constituted an absolute majority of all funds spent on pro-prop-8 “prop”aganda. Consequently, its activities were more substantial.]

  8. Joanna Clark says:

    The November 2, 2008 Newsletter of the Mission San Juan Capistrano Basilica urged parishioners to vote yes on 8. I didn’t check the website, but since the newsletter included a statement from the California bishops, I assume that there was most-likely something on their website prior to the election. The Catholic church should likewise lose their 501c(3) status. I’d also check out the Knights of Columbus.

    I have no problem with a religious leader stating to their parishioners that a controversial proposition will be on the ballot, and I – the priest, minister, rabbi, etc – urge you to evaluate all of the facts, BOTH pro and con, before you decide how you vote. My problem is when they cross the line and tell them how to vote.

  9. ryan says:

    Focus on the Family is hiding behind the LDS church….letting them do all their dirty work.

  10. Mark says:

    This seems like it could backfire — there were a lot of 501(c)(3) LGBT organizations involved in the No-on-8 campaign.

  11. Jeff says:

    I am inclined to agree with Mark, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Not sure that this will really work well.

  12. Eric says:

    You can access the CA Secretary of State Prop 8 contribution database through sfgate.com. It looks like Focus On The Family contributed $593,967.21 to Prop 8.

  13. R Little says:

    I have to agree with Mark. But right is right and any violation should be dealt with. I do not believe anyone but myself and the person I choose to marry should have a say regarding those plans, after all the rest of California is NOT going to live in my home. So, why should they have a say as to who I marry?

  14. Manjai says:

    Nineteenth Avenue Chinese Baptist Church
    1398 – 19th Ave
    San Francisco, CA 94122
    (415) 566-1902
    Rev. Vincent Chau

    They had “Yes on Prop 8” signs in English and Chinese posted outside their building. And I have the photos to prove it. Can I file a complaint with the IRS?

  15. Manjai says:

    The SFGate also reported that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in the US) had given $200,000 to back Prop 8.

  16. bothsidesareouttaline says:

    You want to know who else was “involved” so you can throw rocks at them too? Awesome.

  17. kennyidaho says:

    GLAAD a 501(c)(3) openly admitted that it donated $100,000 in august for in kind services and $50,000 in October to the vote NO side.

    http://www.glaad.org/media/release_detail.php?id=4776

    In the name of equality GLAAD should beheld responsible for their donations as well.

  18. Mary Elizabeth Nichols says:

    I am interested in seeking an end to the activist roles of organizations which receive the benefit of being shielded from taxes with the condition of no political advocacy.

    Should the organizations want to assume that role, they should seek a 501 (c) (4) or other status.

    To do otherwise these apostolic groups violate not only the US tax code but also the commonly preached injunctions against deception & theft!

  19. Vincent Kruse says:

    The bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix made a video speech played in all the churches that demanded that Roman Catholics vote for Proposition 102 (the same effect as Prop 8, amended the Arizona Constitution to define marriage according to church doctrine: it passed Nov 4th). The bishop stated that Catholics were obligated to follow church teaching and implied that Catholics could only vote for the amendment. The video was posted on the diocese’s website.

  20. Bob Regent says:

    The Cartoon Church of the Chocolate Marshmallow Pie. They dumped millions into the Yes on 8 campaign. We should picket all their churches and revoke their tax exemption status.

  21. Becky says:

    I’m not certain that GLAAD is a 501(c)(3) organization. I tried to find confirmation on their website that they indeed have tax exempt status, and I couldn’t find any information about it. Normally, if they are, they say it loud and proud, because then any donation made is tax deductible for the donor.

  22. Jason says:

    Putting an insert in a parish bulletin or displaying signs is not “substantial part” of a church’s activity. Having tax exempt status does not rob a chuch of its free speech rights. People here seem to be saying that if a church says anything yea or nay on a piece of legislation or policy, it should lose its tax exempt status–even if the endorsement is an incidental part of its actities.

  23. joe says:

    So, is the blog host going to go after all those organizations that voted against prop 8? Is this out of vengeance or justice? I really do want an answer. Let me know which organizations did support going against prop 8 and I’ll file a complaint with the IRS along with the others.

  24. kennyidaho says:

    Becky you must not have looked very hard. The link I posted to GLAAD admitting to donating funds to the NO side.

    http://www.glaad.org/media/release_detail.php?id=4776

    Right under the story there is two ## and under that is some text that says:

    Please read our privacy policy. If you no longer wish to receive GLAAD emails, click here.GLAAD is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that depends on your support. If you are a member,please accept our thanks. If you would like to support our important work, please visit us online.

  25. bryan says:

    “# joe Says:
    8 November 2008 at 11:56 am

    So, is the blog host going to go after all those organizations that voted against prop 8? Is this out of vengeance or justice? I really do want an answer. Let me know which organizations did support going against prop 8 and I’ll file a complaint with the IRS along with the others.”

    Feel free to do so by starting your own blog or doing your own footwork. That is not what this website was intended for. Go start your own. This type of post is essentially the same as posting a negative feeling about Britney Spears on her fan website. What is the f-ing point? Just to harrass? Well, get over it. It is not anyone’s duty (BUT YOUR OWN) to do the work you want to do. Complain about all you want to, but don’t expect people who are looking to repeal the vote on 8 to help you keep the vote. Are you nuts? Or are you just ignorant? Either way, stop wasting other people’s time and look elsewhere for the hatred of which you speak.

  26. kennyidaho says:

    Bryan the post does say.

    If you know of another organization’s involvement in Proposition 8 (or other legislation), post all the details you have in a comment here and I’ll make a page for it.

    There is no specifics. Lets face it the whole debate is about equality.

  27. Sunny says:

    I WILL COUNTER-SUE ALL PRO-GAY CHURCHES THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE OPPOSITION OF PROP. 8 SUCH AS ST. PAUL’S EPISCOPAL CHAPEL IN SAN DIEGO AND THE UNITARIAN / UNIVERSAL CHURCH LEADERS THAT ATTENDED THEIR “MAKE THE RIGHT CALL” CHURCH SERVICE WHICH INCLUDED A PRESS CONFERENCE, CALL CENTER AND A BUS THAT TOOK PEOPLE TO THE POLLS TO VOTE AGAINST PROP. 8. THERE ARE NEWS STORIES ALL OVER THE INTERNET THAT CONTAIN INTERVIEWS OF CHURCH LEADERS WHO WERE AGAINST PROP. 8. DON’T BE MORONS – YOUR GAY-FRIENDLY CHURCHES CAN AND WILL BE SUED FOR GETTING INVOLVED WITH POLITICS, TOO!

  28. Shelly says:

    Contributor name Promised Land Fellowship
    Occupation
    Employer
    City San Francisco
    State or country CA
    ZIP 94103
    Position Support
    Amount $1,000.00
    Payment type
    Transaction date 10/29/2008
    Committee name PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM – YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL

  29. jenny demilo says:

    @kennyidaho umm are you serious? GLAAD isn’t a church or a religious organization its is the “gay and lesbian alliance against DEFIMATION” maybe you should look up that last word, looks like you need to.

    changing the CA Constitution to discriminate is dead ass wrong, the LDS involvement was substantial and also dead ass wrong and they SHOULD be held responsible for their actions. If they wanna be a political power player they should have to pay their damn taxes.

  30. lds501c3 says:

    Hi folks,

    I’ve gotten a bit overwhelmed by the massive response to this project. I might not have time to create pages for everyone on my own, but I’ll try to figure something out. 🙂

    Inasmuch as the LDS church and known Church members contributed about half of the funds to the Protect Marriage Coalition, they may be the only organization whose activities rise to the level of “substantial” (excepting those organizations who made a 501(h) election for the Prop 8 campaign.)

  31. Vincent Kruse says:

    This isn’t about the so-called “free speech” rights of any church but about whether taxpayer dollars should subsidize the millions of dollars of real and other property churches own while they engage in politics. Prompting or cajoling or browbeating their members to write checks and do volunteering isn’t participating? Oh yeah? Since when?

    These churches want to enshrine their doctrines into civil law. Period. They want political power; they want society to bow to their narrow-minded little fourth-century ideas. This instance – Prop 8 in California, Prop 102 here in AZ – showed churches working to deprive a whole class of citizens from a civil right: the right to engage in a civil contract of matrrimony. I want the right to marry in the civil community apart from the religious communities which I neither adher to nor believe in. What these churches do or say in their churches is irrelevant to me, but when they interfere with my civil and constitutional rights it means they are making war on us.

    I’m filing a complaint with the IRS. Let ’em pay.

  32. valerie fern says:

    There are two Presbyterian churches in Salinas, CA that heavily funded Yes on Prop 8 and also spoke for weeks during theri sermons and services about hatred, gay lifestyles, etc. They funded a “Protect the Family” march in Old Town Salinas in October, lead by a multi-millionaire named Jeff Taylor , who was the parade’s Grand Marshall. The Taylor family owns TaylorMaid Farms here in the Salinas Valley, and their father was the founder of Fresh Express. Luckily, Jeff taylor lost his bid for Congress last week to Sam Farr. Thanks for geting this words out.

  33. F. Vazquez says:

    According to Contribution Database located at http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8

    “Roman Catholic Bishop” From Sacramento, CA contributed over $6,000.00

    “St Kieran Catholic Church” From El Cajon, CA Contributed $500.00

    “St Stepens Catholic Church” From Valley Center, CA contributed $1,000.00

    The California Catholic Bishops openly published the following information regarding Prop 8 and pamphlets for circulation in all parishes.
    http://www.cacatholic.org/news/catholic-bishops-support-proposition-8.html

    [Editor: Thanks for posting this. Do we have any idea about whether they instructed their parishioners to donate time and money as well, or just on how to vote?]

  34. F. Vazquez says:

    I quote from their website http://www.cacatholic.org/bishops-statements/a-statement-of-the-catholic-bishops-of-california-in-support-of-proposition-8.html

    “And finally, we strongly encourage Catholics to provide both the financial support and the volunteer efforts needed for the passage of Proposition 8”

  35. Ken says:

    So is your beef with churches contributing to yes on 8, or with churches getting involved in this process at all? Plenty were no on 8, and I demand the same attention be given there. Be honest.

  36. Martin says:

    Rick Warren with Saddleback church of Orange County sent letter to parisheners urging them to vote “yes” on Prop 8. I use to actually like the guy…

  37. Dennis says:

    This issue is really about whether one particular religious cult has the right to dictate their beliefs to all the citizens of California thru the referendum process and if that constitutes a violation of the rights of the individual. First of all, not all Christian churches are in agreement on this issue. There are Christian churches marrying gay people and others such as the Catholics who will not. That is their right….within their private organizations and their private belief systems. No one is or was forcing these people to accept or marry gays within their churches. This is a civil issue as to whether the state of California shall be mandated to follow the particular beliefs of a particular cult within a religious community….period.
    To deride and deprive individuals of their civil rights (not religous rights) is the real issue here. Notwithstanding the passage of Proposition 8, the civil authorities determined thru the judiciary (and most likely will determine again) that there is no justification under the Constitution to discriminate against gays on the issuance of a marriage license.
    In 1965 a similar referendum was passed in California by a 65% margin, re-instating the “rights” of landlords to discriminate against individuals based on race, religion, ethnic background and any other reason in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Many do not apparently remember that. That referendum also sought to change the California Constitution and was passed, however, it was subsequently invalidated by the California Supreme Court as discriminatory….not affording equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court of Californa has already ruled on this issue earlier this year and will most likely rule the same way again. Not only is this hateful act discriminatory but it sets up one particular Christian cult belief system as the supreme law of the state, thereby breaching the seperation clause of the US Constitution. These self appointed “Christians” will be hopping mad when 8 is overturned but they need to understand once and for all that their silly beliefs end where others lives begin…

  38. patricia lundberg says:

    The MEGA CHURCH by my home had a man there fasting and praying for prop 8 for at least a month, and then they helped to organize fasting and praying for prop 8 at san diego stadium the saturday prior to the vote.

    it is SKYLINE CHURCH in San Diego… HUGE GIANT and had the signs posted all over their property, as well.

  39. UrsusDomesticus says:

    We can all be tankful that, aside from doctors murdered by Christian extremists, the shooting has not begun. We must all pray that it never does. At the same time there can be no denying that the county has entered an undeclared civil war between religious extremists who work feverishly and sometimes outside the law to press their fairy tale beliefs on the general population.

    Depending on how tax returns are filed this year, the Mormon Church may have violated federal regulations relating to the use of tax exempt funds. If this is the case, the church must be sanctioned. As in our first Civil War, this will be won by economics, by denying an adversary means to carry the fight.

    I see the boycott less as punishment than as a reminder that straying beyond lawful boundaries in the otherwise lawful promotion of a political cause can and will have hard hitting financial repercussions. The boycott of Mormon and Knights of Columbus owned businesses is justified to deprive these religious bigots their means to support future political actions.

    If the Mormon church does indeed fail to disclose these expenses as in violation of their tax exempt status, a class action suit cannot be far behind. If the IRS fails to apply sanctions, a federal suit against the US Government is in order for permitting this violation of the Establishment Clause.

    Nor would the class be limited to gays and lesbians. My right as a heterosexual man to marry someone of my own gender has been trampled as well. My reasons for doing such a thing would be irrelevant. Such a class would consist of all unmarried adults in California otherwise permitted to marry the opposite gender. If successful, such a lawsuit would surely destroy the fiscal base of the Mormon church.

    I for one advocate the lawful taking of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City and converting it to a gay rights center, much in the spirit of the North when it seized General Lee’s home and grounds and converted it to what would eventually become Arlington National Cemetery.

    Now that Mormons have trammeled the rights of gays, lesbians, albeit all unmarried people of California, they are calling for calm in the wake of this travesty. Some may view the No on H8 response to their actions as discriminatory. Tell me new, Mormon brothers, how does that discrimination feel now that it has blown into your own yard?

  40. Mo says:

    The American Family Association (AFA) is a 501(c)(3) organization, so they are tax-exempt. While they claim a primary morality-in-media mission, in fact their primary focus is the religiously motivated opposition to the advancement of pro-gay legislation, and dismantlement of existing pro-gay legislation.

    http://www.afa.net/about.asp

    The AFA produced a “Voter Guide” during the 2008 presidential primary that listed the positions of the 5 major candidates regarding 9 issues. Of the 9 issues discussed, 4 issues directly addressed gay rights. Strangely, none addressed morality-in-the-media.

    http://www.afa.net/pdfs/08vg.pdf

    The AFA’s “Voter Guide” violates the IRS rule that 501(c)(3) organizations “absolutely refrain from participating in the political campaigns of candidates.”

    http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1023/ar01.html

    In pertinent part: “A [501(c)(3)] organization must be operated to further one or more of the exempt purposes stated in its organizing document. Certain other activities are prohibited or restricted, including, but not limited to, the following activities. A 501(c)(3) organization must:
    a. Absolutely refrain from participating in the political campaigns of candidates for local, state, or federal office.”

    I share your estimation that the LDS church particularly overstepped its mission as a church to become a political lobbying organization with regards to its support of Prop 8. However, due to the AFA’s ongoing masquerade as a religious organization that CONSTANTLY engages in politicking at a national and local level, I think their organization merits inclusion into any grassroots effort to revoke tax-exempt status to overtly political organizations

  41. Jonas says:

    I agree. The point of separation of church and state was mainly to prevent the omnipotent churches from taking over vulnerable national governments, not to prevent governments from interfering with churches. I myself especially tremble at the possibility that the mighty Mormon and Pentecostal juggernauts might establish a theocracy, and we should definitely use the federal government to take their tax-exempt status away because they stood up for what they believed in (rightly or wrongly); there’s NO way that would constitute government coercion of church activities.

  42. pekblaple says:

    royal vegas flash casino conrad jupiters hotel and casino red rock casino employment opportunities .las vegas casino and resorts regent casino winnipeg playing casino games twin rivers casino .tulalip casino night club las vegas casino buildings .mirage casino chips length casino royale dells casino century casino and hotel edmonton .is the same as piggs peak internet casino .in the attached .Usualy .Here Before harrah’s cherokee casino x26 hotel reef casino community benefit fund sometime Following a nevada casino news And magic diamond casino bozeman minnesota casino locations What is prism online casino and this is the best resource on inside so princes of the night at crown casino hollywood casino in grantville as for me Why river rock hotel and casino stuff new casino in burnaby quebec casino hotels purple lounge casino because ione casino ace casino tucson capri casino diamond club casino As to isleta casino Realy nice
    play for real money casino start online casino .Information on when site cachecreek.com cache creek casino i’m with four bears casino Heh, sean sullivan casino .which contains all of the .compare .with so red river casino sex casino game In Information on rascal casino too epiphone casino vs mr white casino royale le meridien port vila resort and casino vanuatu olympia group casino Here site cachecreek.com cache creek casino Ok, here Heh, .

  43. Heron says:

    You quote 501(c)(3), but you conveniently ignore the fact that 501(c)(3) references 501(h) – activities *permitted* by 501(h) are permitted by 501(c)(3).

    The LDS Church’s minor involvement in Proposition 8 was permitted under 501(h), and therefore permitted under 501(c)(3).

    The IRS obviously knows the tax code better than you; your push to file complaints on this issue does nothing but waste the IRS’s time and raise our taxes to pay for that lost time.

    So, thanks for raising my taxes with your pointless complaint.

  44. Heron says:

    Oops, wrong page, sorry. Editor, please delete this and my previous comment on this page. I’ll re-post on the main page.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: