Zakuska Posted October 17, 2011 Author Posted October 17, 2011 If he was distributing statements prepared by, say, Perry's campaign, then sure. But he's not, and the statement is not being made by CARM, nor is he making it on behalf of CARM. And agian, he wasn't opposing or promoting him as president.Using his 501c3 Assets he is distributing infromation designed to disparage people from voting for a Mormon a clear law violation. If he wasn't doing anything wrong then why did he remove it when it was brought to his attention?
Zakuska Posted October 17, 2011 Author Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) Then the promotion of Romney here or there by LDS members would also violate the law.Not in the least. I do not beleive MormonDialogue is a 501c3 organization like Matt has plastered all over the front page of CARM. CARM is a 501©3, non-profit, Christian ministry dedicated to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and the promotion and defense of the Christian Gospel, Doctrine, and Theology. CARM analyzes religions such as Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Universalism, Wicca, etc., and compares them to the Bible. We also analyze secular ideas such as abortion, atheism, evolution, and relativism. In all our analyses we use logic and evidence to defend Christianity and promote the truth of the Bible which is the inspired word of God. Check out the Navigation Bar on the left to see what CARM has to offer.http://www.C***.orgIf Matt were paying taxes then it would not be a problem. Edited October 17, 2011 by Zakuska
seriously honestly Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Not in the least. I do not beleive MormonDialogue is a 501c3 organization like Matt has plastered all over the front page of CARM.If Matt were paying taxes then it would not be a problem.Your probably right, but my last post was referring to your concern about forum participants saying things about Romney. That wouldn't be a violation of the law..
Zakuska Posted October 17, 2011 Author Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) Your probably right, but my last post was referring to your concern about forum participants saying things about Romney. That wouldn't be a violation of the law..Not neccesarily. Becasue Matt is allowing such posts to stand on 501c3 assets, thereby "distributing them" for public consumption. Therefore he may be required to remove them. Edited October 17, 2011 by Zakuska
Calm Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 If the boards are provided as a public service separate from the ministry, I see it as possible that any discussion is okay. If not, there might be a problem but I highly doubt---- unless one can demonstrate a significant offense or a significant audience and impact---that the IRS would see it as worth their time though they might instruct them to remove it.
seriously honestly Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Not neccesarily. Becasue Matt is allowing such posts to stand on 501c3 assets, thereby "distributing them" for public consumption. Therefore he may be required to remove them. They are not statements made by or on behalf of the organiztion in question.
Zakuska Posted October 17, 2011 Author Posted October 17, 2011 They are not statements made by or on behalf of the organiztion in question.Doesn't have to be by the organization...Distributing statements prepared by others that favor or oppose any candidate for public office will also violate the prohibition.Matt is enabling others.
Nemesis Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Then the promotion of Romney here or there by LDS members would also violate the law.This board does not promote any candidate and we are not registered as a not for profit organization but privately funded. Nice try though.Nemesis
seriously honestly Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 This board does not promote any candidate and we are not registered as a not for profit organization but privately funded. Nice try though.Nemesis I already clarified my point above
seriously honestly Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Not neccesarily. Becasue Matt is allowing such posts to stand on 501c3 assets, thereby "distributing them" for public consumption. Therefore he may be required to remove them.So the IRS should start censoring statement (pro or con) made by those participating in a 501c3 organization even when they are of personal opinion and are not made by or on behalf of the organization (and consequently punishing the orgainzation for distrubuting them)?
Zakuska Posted October 17, 2011 Author Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) So the IRS should start censoring statement (pro or con) made by those participating in a 501c3 organization even when they are of personal opinion and are not made by or on behalf of the organization (and consequently punishing the orgainzation for distrubuting them)?No... the IRS should revoke their 501c Status because they are enabling others to state opinion which violates the law. If they payed their taxes just like everybody else then they have a right to the public square and to campaign for anyone they wish. Edited October 17, 2011 by Zakuska
phaedrus ut Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 If they're breaking the law I wonder when they're going to be arrested?Phaedrus
Zakuska Posted October 17, 2011 Author Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) If they're breaking the law I wonder when they're going to be arrested?PhaedrusArrested? No the IRS fines them and then revokes their 501c3 Status.Thats what is happening to Rick Perry's Pastor buddy.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/so-why-is-a-church-state-separation-group-asking-the-irs-to-investigate-pastor-jeffress/ Edited October 17, 2011 by Zakuska
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 If they're breaking the law I wonder when they're going to be arrested?PhaedrusThen who could we play with?
phaedrus ut Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Arrested? No the IRS fines them and then revokes their 501c3 Status.I know and I meant it to be more tongue in cheek. Yes they're possibly breaking the administrative regulations of the IRS and their tax exempt status is in jeopardy. The government has used this tax status as a tool with religious institutions before. In 1970 the IRS mailed a letter to private educational institutions warning them that their tax exempt status was in jeopardy because of racial discrimination. This letter ultimately resulted in the case Bob Jones Univ. V. United States.Phaedrus
Zakuska Posted October 17, 2011 Author Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) Well thats probably a Good thing. They would look at an arrest as persecution for Christs sake. Edited October 17, 2011 by Zakuska
Rob Bowman Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Zakuska,Hi there. I'm trying to understand your reasoning. Here is the quote that you provided from the IRS (your emphases):Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention. Distributing statements prepared by others that favor or oppose any candidate for public office will also violate the prohibition. Allowing a candidate to use an organization’s assets or facilities will also violate the prohibition if other candidates are not given an equivalent opportunity. Although section 501©(3) organizations may engage in some activities to promote voter registration, encourage voter participation, and provide voter education, they will violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention if they engage in an activity that favors or opposes any candidate for public office. Certain activities will require an evaluation of all the facts and circumstances to determine whether they result in political campaign intervention.I honestly do not see how an article arguing that evangelical Christians should vote their conscience based on the issues they consider most important, and explaining some of the pros and cons the author sees in an evangelical Christian voting for a Mormon (not voting for a particular candidate), violates the above law. "Voter education" does not violate the law unless it specifically favors or opposes a particular candidate.You also wrote:No... the IRS should revoke their 501c Status because they are enabling others to state opinion which violates the law.I'm confident you're mistaken about this. A nonprofit organization that permits anyone to post any political opinion he or she likes is not "distributing statements prepared by others that favor or oppose any candidate" but merely providing a forum for people to present differing viewpoints. When Rick Warren invited John McCain and Barack Obama to speak at his church, he was not distributing statements favoring either candidate, even though he provided a forum in which both could speak in his own support.You mentioned an article on our website that you feel may also violate the restriction. As soon as we can have our webmaster do so, we will be pulling the article while we review the legalities. The issue is complicated by the fact that there is a difference between saying "I could never vote for candidates who believe X or who favor policy Y" (whether the issue is their views on abortion, same-sex marriage, church-state relations, race, religion, or whatever) might be construed differently than saying "I will not vote for Mr. Z." But we certainly want to make sure that we do not even unintentionally violate the law.
Zakuska Posted October 18, 2011 Author Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) Zakuska,Hi there. I'm trying to understand your reasoning. Here is the quote that you provided from the IRS (your emphases):I honestly do not see how an article arguing that evangelical Christians should vote their conscience based on the issues they consider most important, and explaining some of the pros and cons the author sees in an evangelical Christian voting for a Mormon (not voting for a particular candidate), violates the above law. "Voter education" does not violate the law unless it specifically favors or opposes a particular candidate.You also wrote:I'm confident you're mistaken about this. A nonprofit organization that permits anyone to post any political opinion he or she likes is not "distributing statements prepared by others that favor or oppose any candidate" but merely providing a forum for people to present differing viewpoints. When Rick Warren invited John McCain and Barack Obama to speak at his church, he was not distributing statements favoring either candidate, even though he provided a forum in which both could speak in his own support.And theres the difference. Hosting a debate where competing candiates speaks, and providing a public forum for any Tom, D ick and Mary off the street to put in a plug for the candidate of their choice is very different.You mentioned an article on our website that you feel may also violate the restriction. As soon as we can have our webmaster do so, we will be pulling the article while we review the legalities. The issue is complicated by the fact that there is a difference between saying "I could never vote for candidates who believe X or who favor policy Y" (whether the issue is their views on abortion, same-sex marriage, church-state relations, race, religion, or whatever) might be construed differently than saying "I will not vote for Mr. Z." But we certainly want to make sure that we do not even unintentionally violate the law.Thank you Rob. Of course the easiest way is by simply dropping the 501C3. Edited October 18, 2011 by Zakuska
Rob Bowman Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Zakuska,You wrote:And theres the difference. Hosting a debate where competing candiates speaks, and providing a public forum for any Tom, D ick and Mary off the street to put in a plug for the candidate of their choice is very different.Different, yes, but not materially different with respect to the law.You wrote:Thank you Rob. Of course the easiest way is by simply dropping the 501C3.That makes no sense. IRR does not engage in political activities. We are talking about, at most, one web article that was an opinion piece that was not politically motivated or oriented and that it is possible someone might construe as an infraction of the law. The easiest thing to do is obviously to remove the article, assuming for the sake of argument that it is an infraction.
Libs Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 I was wondering if this issue has anything to do with MDD not allowing political discussions? I don't think they are a non-profit organization, but maybe it could hurt the church, somehow? Or, perhaps, it's just the board owners preference?
Calm Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 The only reason they have stated is because of the contention it causes, ie poster saying faithful LDS must align themselves or distance themselves from certain political parties, accusing someone of being less spiritually faithful due to political orientation, etc.
TAO Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) The only reason they have stated is because of the contention it causes, ie poster saying faithful LDS must align themselves or distance themselves from certain political parties, accusing someone of being less spiritually faithful due to political orientation, etc.Actually, that reminds me... I need to bump the thread in social hall =).Yeah, I agree... I think it's to stop the arguing that goes on over politics... which we have alot of already... more of it would just be... not good =P. Edited October 18, 2011 by TAO
Libs Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Ah, thanks, Calmoriah. I hadn't ever seen it explained.
Recommended Posts