The LDS Newsroom released a statement correcting media misstatements regarding the recent filing of its final report of financial assistance to the Yes on 8 campaign.
On Friday, 30 January, the Church filed the final report of its contributions (all of which were non-monetary) to the ProtectMarriage.com coalition. The report, submitted in advance of the 31 January deadline, details in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58.
The value of the Church's in-kind (non-monetary) contribution is less than one half of one percent of the total funds (approximately $40 million) raised for the "Yes on 8" campaign. The Church did not make any cash contribution.
The statement further claims that the LDS Church "has been filing required contribution reports throughout the campaign" and that it believes it has "complied with California law."
And that's the point the media seems to be missing. The LDS Church and its members have a right to voice their opinion and make financial contributions, whether in cash or in kind. The law requires certain disclosures to be made; the LDS Church has apprently complied with those requirements. Plenty of other organizations have done the same. An LA Times article notes that Focus on the Family donated $657,000 and the California Democratic Central Committee donated $350,000. So what's wrong with the LDS donations?
For an example of how to misstate information, see this SF Chronicle story. The first sentence reads: "Mormon church officials, facing an ongoing investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, Friday reported nearly $190,000 in previously unlisted assistance to the successful campaign for Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California." That misleads readers on at least two counts, first suggesting the filing was made in response to the FPPC investigation rather than the filing due date of January 31, and second suggesting that some information in the latest report was improperly omitted from earlier reports, which the LDS statement denies was the case.
Readers will notice how careful the LDS statement is to make the point that no direct cash contributions were made by the LDS Church. I think this reflects a desire by LDS leaders to avoid having Mormons who make financial contributions to the LDS Church think their cash donations are simply being redirected to support a political campaign. LDS leaders apparently prefer to have individual Mormons make their own direct financial contributions to political campaigns (and I'll note that some individual Mormons undoubtedly contributed to the No on 8 side of the campaign). This makes sense in terms of empowering individual Mormons to choose where their political contributions go, although from a financial perspective there isn't really any difference between cash contributed directly to the Yes on 8 campaign and cash spent to pay the salaries and travel costs of LDS employees assisting the campaign. It is still an expenditure of resources that comes from the financial contributions of individual Mormons.
But how the LDS Church contributes to a campaign, if at all, is a decision for LDS leaders to make -- there is nothing illegal or improper about the resources the Church expended to support Prop 8. And the policy of letting individual Mormons make direct cash contributions voluntarily, on their own initiative, to whichever side of the issue they favor, seems hard to criticize.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Adding my name to the list of those who are at least as furious as organizations such as Focus on the Family; much more angry, in fact, as they hid, daintily, behind the skirts of the Mormon church allowing us to take all of the brunt. Pfffft, I say. And I mean it to sting. Not that we didn't deserve it. The (appropriately proportioned) brunt.
Oh, as to the "Nothing illegal" part; it appears that the church waited for the settlement of a lawsuit that would have allowed individual donors to not report. Suddenly, after the lawsuit was lost, instantly, poof! Not 2K, somewhere more like 190K donations. Hmmmm. I want to try that on my financial disclosure statements.
It doesn't appear, despite the difference between 2K and 190K, that anything illegal actually happened.
It will be interesting if the CA Supreme Court decides Prop 8 was a revision (requiring 2/3 majority) rather than an amendment (where majority is sufficient). This would retroactively affirm the original CA Supreme Court position that marriage should be extended to same-sex couples.
In a day where civil unions grant so many benefits and extra-marital sex between consenting adults is not "punished," I'm confused at the outcry.
I'm LDS and many of my forebears were denied legal recognition of their "marriages." The LDS attempted to get legal coverage for their practices and instead got the Edmunds-Tucker Act, confiscating Church property, disenfranchising Utah's women, annulled laws allowing illegitimate children to inherit, etc. My forebears and the LDS generally suffered significant financial damage when their marriages were not recognized. Not to mention the mental anguish when the children went to schools where the curriculum was selected by the state to indoctrinate the kids against their parent's unions and their religion.
No such governmental backlash is taking place for those in same-sex relationships. They can engage in the sex, have the parties, buy the formal clothes, enjoy the effective privileges that they would if they had a piece of parchment.
Since I was born while the state in which my parents lived considered inter-racial marriages such as their's "void and prohibited," I know the lack of legal recognition is a burr. But in today's world, does it make any tangible difference?
Meg -
Why is marriage about property and children when you discuss the Mormon experience, but when you shift to a discussion of same-sex relationships, it's suddenly all about sex and parties?
As if there were no LGBT folks on the planet who might share the same aspirations for the their families that we share for ours.
And, reality check, yes, our inadequate and unequal laws do have a tangible impact.
I wonder what Lily would think of your comment here?
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/Chino_Blanco/lily.jpg
Anyway, nobody's interested in competing in your Oppression Olympics ... it's not about who's had it worse in other times and places, it's about doing the right thing here and now.
Meg,
Aside from not bother to reply to Chino's valid question, why don't you tell us why marriage turns from being about family (for str8s only) to being about parties and sex (for the queers only, obviously)?
"It doesn't appear, despite the difference between 2K and 190K, that anything illegal actually happened."
It's already been said - perhaps not "illegal" but certainly unethical. (Not that ethics and religion were ever paired.) And certainnly immoral - to vote to take some people's rights away.
"It will be interesting if the CA Supreme Court decides Prop 8 was a revision (requiring 2/3 majority) rather than an amendment (where majority is sufficient). This would retroactively affirm the original CA Supreme Court position that marriage should be extended to same-sex couples."
That is the logical outcome of an overtly UN-Constitutional ballot measure.
"In a day where civil unions grant so many benefits and extra-marital sex between consenting adults is not "punished," I'm confused at the outcry."
Meg, you so clearly need a clue, so here's four:
1. Civil unions do not confer the 1,176 FEDERAL benefits on 'civilly' 'unionized' couples. That's why. Thanx 4 askin'.
2. Besides, PLY (people like YOU) keep on fergettin' - some 30 States have either passed laws of changed their Constitutions to prevent even civil unions from happening, and/or to prevent any benefits being proferred that even resemble those given to married couples.
3. It is about the denial of both the Equal Protections clause and the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the Constitution to gay American citizens.
4. It is about the denial of the inalienable rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness to gay American Citizens.
Try a little doing to others what you would have them do to you so you'll know what it feels like.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.