Faith-based Electioneering

[punaboy]

This article reminds me of the "faith-based" politicking done by the LDS church during the push for a "pro-family" amendment to the CA constitution, and the opposition to same-sex marriage in Hawaii. Seems the Bush admin would like to make this kind of activity legal, and cool with the IRS as to tax exempt status, and separation of church and state. If this doesn't fly, the IRS may watch the LDS more closely in future, even when they are just acting on a moral, rather than a purely political, issue.

"June 3, 2004

Bush campaign recruiting church-goers in Pennsylvania

By Lara Jakes Jordan

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush's re-election campaign is trying to recruit supporters from 1,600 religious congregations in Pennsylvania - a political push that critics said Wednesday could cost churches their tax breaks.

An e-mail from the campaign's Pennsylvania office, obtained by The Associated Press, urges churchgoers to help organize ``Friendly Congregations'' where supporters can meet regularly to sign up voters and spread the Bush word.

``I'd like to ask if you would like to serve as a coordinator in your place of worship,'' says the e-mail, adorned with the Bush-Cheney logo, from Luke Bernstein, who runs the state campaign's coalitions operation and is a former staffer to Sen. Rick Santorum, the president's Pennsylvania chairman.

``We plan to undertake activities such as distributing general information/updates or voter registration materials in a place accessible to the congregation,'' the e-mail says.

The Internal Revenue Service prohibits political campaign activity, for or against any candidate, from taking place at all organizations that receive tax exempt status under a section of the federal tax code - including most churches and religious groups. Violators could lose their tax breaks and face excise taxes.

Bernstein refused comment. Kevin Madden, a Bush-Cheney spokesman at the campaign's headquarters, said the campaign did not mean to imply that religious supporters should actually congregate for the president at their places of worship. But he would not say whether the campaign is taking steps to make sure they don't.

``People of faith feel strongly about the president, are people we want to be part of our campaign,'' Madden said.

``This message is intended to be from individual to individual,'' Madden said. ``This is organizing with individuals who may be members of a church who we hope to identify as supporters and be part of our efforts.''

Madden said the campaign also is targeting ``Friendly Congregations'' in other states, but he could not say where. Pennsylvania is a key political swing state that offers 21 electoral votes. Bush lost the state in 2000 by a mere 204,000 votes.

The director of a nonpartisan watchdog group called the campaign's church appeal ``a breathtakingly sad example of mixing religion and politics.''

``I have never in my life seen such a direct campaign to politicize American churches - from any political party or from any candidate for public office,'' said Rev. Barry Lynn of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. ``By enrolling churches in an election scheme like this, I think the Bush-Cheney campaign is actually endangering those churches' tax exemptions without even the courtesy of telling them that they run a risk.''

[Guest TheProudDuck]

"Nonpartisan watchdog group" my adz. (Little woodworking humor there.) How come the good Rev. Lynn doesn't mention this?

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart...gi?ArtNum=52292

[punaboy]

interesting link, thanks PD... :)

but partisan finger pointing is not the point of the article. The point is that such antics as actually organizing precinct work thru churches, with block captains and group organizers, phone trees and publications for neighborhood distribution (which goes far beyond simply appearing at a church for a photo opp, which is a long-standing American political tradition) is attracting scrutiny, and may well result in the formal banning of such activities under threat of losing IRS tax exemption.

Which of course would impact the ability of the LDS church to repeat these tactics in future campaigns.

[Winnie G]

I plane on inviting my ward to my meet and greet that should push the right buttons.

Church and state have to stay apart; there is no other way.

Mix the two and you’ll have people being burned at the stake

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by punaboy@Jun 19 2004, 03:31 PM

interesting link, thanks PD... :)

but partisan finger pointing is not the point of the article. The point is that such antics as actually organizing precinct work thru churches, with block captains and group organizers, phone trees and publications for neighborhood distribution (which goes far beyond simply appearing at a church for a photo opp, which is a long-standing American political tradition) is attracting scrutiny, and may well result in the formal banning of such activities under threat of losing IRS tax exemption.

Which of course would impact the ability of the LDS church to repeat these tactics in future campaigns.

Based on my reading of the IRS regulations on tax-exempt organizations, using a church's membership list, or encouraging individual Republican (or Democrat) members of a church to use their church contacts to spread a political message, doesn't render the church itself a partisan organization. Now if the political organizing effort were directed towards the leadership of those churches, attempting to cause the leaders to use the formal church organization to spread a political message, that might be another story.

The LDS Church stops a long way from that point -- even forbidding (I believe) individual members to distribute political materials like voter guides in churches, or use church buildings for political rallies, or use ward lists for political purposes. I think they're OK.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Winnie G@Jun 19 2004, 06:06 PM

I plane on inviting my ward to my meet and greet that should push the right buttons.

Church and state have to stay apart; there is no other way.

Mix the two and you’ll have people being burned at the stake

True. On my mission in Iceland, there were weekly burnings of heretics out in front of the tax-supported Lutheran churches.

Tune in tomorrow for my explanation of how the Inquisition gets a bad rap.

[punaboy]

"The LDS Church stops a long way from that point -- even forbidding (I believe) individual members to distribute political materials like voter guides in churches, or use church buildings for political rallies, or use ward lists for political purposes. I think they're OK."

PD, in general I would agree with you here. But there is much evidence that the church went way beyond these things in the anti-gay marriage efforts of the 1990's. Here in Hawaii, Jack Hoag, a church PR specialist and well-connected businessman/politically savvy operator, was able to prevail on Stake Presidents to begin using quorums to announce his agenda and appeal to members for action and funds. He then appealed to bishops to canvass members for donations, which was subsequently done. In all this, Hoag was just copying the tek used by the CA Area Presidency during the CA "marriage amendment" campaign, where wards were organized for political action, and donations were aggresively sought from the members in church meetings.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Pun,

Although the distinction between "political" and "moral" questions can be pretty fine sometimes, I think there's at least a sharp distinction between political activity on behalf of a candidate or party generally, and advocacy of one position on a single issue that has both moral and political implications.

[srm]

where wards were organized for political action, and donations were aggresively sought from the members in church meetings.

Wards (at least my ward) were not so organized. Donations were never sought (aggresivly or otherwise) in any church meetings.

[srm]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jun 22 2004, 10:41 AM

Pun,

Although the distinction between "political" and "moral" questions can be pretty fine sometimes, I think there's at least a sharp distinction between political activity on behalf of a candidate or party generally, and advocacy of one position on a single issue that has both moral and political implications.

touche

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Winnie G@Jun 19 2004, 06:06 PM

I plane on inviting my ward to my meet and greet that should push the right buttons.

Church and state have to stay apart; there is no other way.

Mix the two and you’ll have people being burned at the stake 

The trouble is....do we separate moral living and state....do we separate high ideals and state....do we separate ethical behavior and state....

Do we call church God and God church...and if so...which church is God? When we quit having God in our state....we stop having.....a decent, moral, ethical state with high ideals and standards....

I think the terms 'church', 'God', and 'state' need to be thoroughly defined....

[punaboy]

PD says:

"Although the distinction between "political" and "moral" questions can be pretty fine sometimes, I think there's at least a sharp distinction between political activity on behalf of a candidate or party generally, and advocacy of one position on a single issue that has both moral and political implications. "

I agree there is some kind of distinction, but I question whether the effort to examine such things on a policy level will inspire the IRS to maintain the perception of such a sharp distinction. Public and legal scrutiny of such things in the full light of day has a way of causing changes in the playing field. This issue may well go to court, or to congress, and many cooks will get their hands into the froth...