this seems like it should be illegal. the out-of-state funding of one side of an initiative that only applies to the state. doesn't that seem like it'd be easy to make illegal? hmm...

I agree. Although that doesn't quite solve it, given how powerful the LDS Church still is in California alone. Let's suppose almost all Mormons lived in California, and had their headquarters in Fresno. Then what? Make it illegal for them to contribute towards any ballot efforts at all? What about lobbying Congress? If illegal for them, who is it still legal for? How to distinguish religions with frighteningly unified membership from other kinds of organizations also with frighteningly unified membership (e.g., labor unions, which I nonetheless believe are important and necessary)?

oh, i was just objecting to the funding from out of state, not the source. i guess this is the problem with atheists. we'll never be as powerful as the religious because we have no centralized power. and we aren't so easily herded. alas - i see now why those traits are useful!

on a separate but, i guess, related note, i don't think that lobbying should be legal. haven't there been enough studies that show that just hearing something enough times will make you believe it or at least think of it favorably whether or not it's true? do we need that kind of background noise to effect people who run our country? nah.

All right, so no lobbying. So the Sierra Club or Greenpeace or Citizens against Government Waste can't talk to legislators or regulators any more either, yes? I somehow don't think that would turn out well for our country, even if it were constitutional, which it's not.

I am happy to keep it legal as long as the LDS Church loses its tax-exempt status.

Then what? Make it illegal for them to contribute towards any ballot efforts at all? What about lobbying Congress?

Personally, I find the prospect of tossing out the First Amendment (two different provisions!) a lot scarier than the LDS church. Making one's right to make political contributions subject to a religious test? (Or maybe that should be punctuated "?!?") Joining a church and listening to what its leaders say doesn't strike me as remotely grounds for treating the members' political activity differently under the law from that of any other American citizen.

How to distinguish religions with frighteningly unified membership from other kinds of organizations also with frighteningly unified membership (e.g., labor unions, which I nonetheless believe are important and necessary)?

Lots of ways. Religious organizations can't give a portion of mandatory membership fees directly to political campaigns. They also can't make members' employment dependent on membership in the religion, no one's required to give space within a private organization for them to proselytize, it would be illegal for a government to require that all its organs and subcontractors use Mormon labor, etc.

(So, votes for equalizing the status of all those potentially frightening organizations? :-) )

Assuming that they're limiting themselves to persuading their members to engage in legal political activity, how are they threatening the authority of government or the people? Mormons aren't separate from the people, and religious leaders encouraging their members to vote the moral principles they ostensibly subscribe to is neither new nor inconsistent with democracy.

I don't agree with them in this particular case. But as a member of a religious minority which has been accused of being an alien presence wielding illegitimate influence in government once or twice in the course of history, the idea concerns me a little. An identical piece aimed at uncovering just how many donors to a political cause were Jews would certainly make me uneasy, even without the flat statement that their involvement constituted a "hijacking"-- particularly in a way that, e.g., soliciting contributions from out-of-state supporters of same-sex marriage isn't.

Though the Advocate piece doesn't even make clear that the money in question is coming from Mormons outside the state. If there are 770,000 LDS members in California, it wouldn't be hard for the bulk of those 59,000 donors to be in-state. (Insofar as that's relevant, given that California evidently doesn't make out-of-state contributions off-limits.)

I hope you win. I think the initiative is a dumb way to legislate, but I think that your winning on this issue will establish legitimacy for same-sex marriage before the public in a way that the pure judicial approach won't. Regardless, though, it's not clear to me that this article shows your opponents to be doing anything clearly wrong.

Heh, I thought you might chime in on this. I actually agree with you somewhat more than one might assume given the alarmist tone of my post (once again the provocateur... and in this case in the service of a very specific agenda of trying to get readers riled up enough to take action).

But the reason this feels very wrong to me is that it is not merely coincidental that all of these contributors are uniting behind a common cause that is consistent with their beliefs about how they as well as everyone else should be restricted by law. This is a centralized, institutionalized system of directives to each and every member in congregations throughout California and these other states that they must make this the main priority of the current electoral season, and meet a quota of volunteer hours and monetary contributions. The slavish, cultish obedience, resulting in staggeringly successful numbers, is where this gets scary. I can solicit help from any willing acquaintance outside my state, but I have no organized way of reaching thousands and making it clear that they are not valid members of their community unless they follow my directive (nor would I want to exercise such authority). This is certainly an exaggeration, but I think illustrates the dangers of unchecked, unregulated organizations when they begin turning their vice grip on their members' rational thinking into real results at the ballot box affecting everyone else as well as themselves. We manage to get laws on the books blocking a lot of what your average worst-case-scenario cult might try to enact or take away, but it means little when the Constitution itself is so weak against tampering. We have essentially been saved by the inward directed efforts of most such groups, or we'd've been in a real mess long ago. So, in light of this all still being legal, I can't say that it's "wrong" in a legal sense, but I still think it's very dangerous and very bad.

It almost certainly should be illegal for out of state residents to contribute funds towards in-state campaigns for or against state ballot measures. More to the point, I don't see why it shouldn't be illegal for tax-exempt religious organizations to contribute funds intended to influence any laws whatsoever. It's already illegal to do this for candidates, so they are altering the State via the remaining legal channel. Members should be free to vote how they like, obviously, but I don't think that's the same as having a central authority state the platform and the schedule for organized monetary collections. I know that I'm trying (and failing) to tread a fine line between different kinds of social organizing, and what restrictions there should be, but although I don't have the answer I do think it's something that can't be ignored, given how easy it is for lies to be financed and then spread all over TV with no repercussions and no recourse for the opponents other than financing and spreading their own countermessage.

And of course we agree that it's pretty absurd how easy it is for the populace to alter the state Constitution here and in many states, making a farce of the power of the judiciary to make decisions based on constitutionality.

aha!

i believe you've found the solution! it isn't that churches, etc should be disallowed a say or donation rights, but that they should be taxed. that's it! tax the hell out of churches. tax their land, tax their income. why? because they have a say in our government... it's the converse of "no taxation without representation." it's "you want a say, you have to pay!"

face it, we can just assume that church leaders are expressing some opinion or other on ballot measures, and that they hold some sway in their congregation, so basically the church effectively controls some of the vote! tax churches and be done with it!

i believe you've found the solution! it isn't that churches, etc should be disallowed a say or donation rights, but that they should be taxed. that's it! tax the hell out of churches. tax their land, tax their income. why? because they have a say in our government... it's the converse of "no taxation without representation." it's "you want a say, you have to pay!"

Would that also apply to other nonprofits that take political positions? (A quick google finds various 501(c)(3)'s with clearly stated positions both generally advocating same-sex marriage and specifically opposing Prop 8 on their sites: PFLAG, the Pacific Justice Institute, Trikone, Brooklyn Pride, etc.) There's certainly an argument to be made that the nonprofit sector has gotten too large and too far away from specifically charitable concerns into straightforward interest group promotion, all across the political spectrum. (For that matter, though I speak against my professional interest, are universities really so different from other service businesses as to justify their status?) Specifically targeting religious organizations, rather than tax exempt organizations more generally, strikes me as more problematic and harder to justify.

This is a centralized, institutionalized system of directives to each and every member in congregations throughout California and these other states that they must make this the main priority of the current electoral season, and meet a quota of volunteer hours and monetary contributions. The slavish, cultish obedience, resulting in staggeringly successful numbers, is where this gets scary. I can solicit help from any willing acquaintance outside my state, but I have no organized way of reaching thousands and making it clear that they are not valid members of their community unless they follow my directive (nor would I want to exercise such authority). This is certainly an exaggeration, but I think illustrates the dangers of unchecked, unregulated organizations when they begin turning their vice grip on their members' rational thinking into real results at the ballot box affecting everyone else as well as themselves.

What distinguishes a "cult" in this context from other religious organizations? How is the reasoning above different from that given in 1960 for keeping JFK out of the White House, or for denying Catholics full political rights in early modern Britain?

(And, indeed, the California Catholic Conference, the official voice of California's bishops, issued a statement encouraging parishioners "to provide both the financial support and the volunteer efforts needed for the passage of Proposition 8." Do we need to keep an eye on those Catholics, too? :-) )

What is the LDS church doing that's illegitimate? It's a voluntary organization, whose only sanction is the withdrawal of membership, not scourging or burning at the stake. What distinguishes "slavish, cultish obedience" from enthusiastic support for a cause?

The LDS church isn't "enacting" anything. They're calling on their members to exercise their political rights as Americans. 2% of the population of California isn't going to do anything to the the CA constitution unless they can persuade a majority of voters to go along with them. Their only avenue for doing that is the exercise of their basic rights of free expression.

That's the opposite of scary to me. Scary is voters being intimidated, blocked from the polls, or beaten up. Or voting being made irrelevant because the Popular Front has seized the capitol and the broadcasting stations. Or if the LDS church were shown to be stuffing the ballot box with fake names, providing Utahans with fake California IDs, or hacking into voting machines, I'd be all for throwing the book at them. (Though of course here in Chicago, we just call that sort of thing standard operating procedure.)

But exhorting their members to try to get the message out on what they consider to be a major moral issue? That's not a subversion of democracy, that is democracy.

More to the point, I don't see why it shouldn't be illegal for tax-exempt religious organizations to contribute funds intended to influence any laws whatsoever.

Is the LDS Church organization contributing funds itself? As I recall the article, it just said they were asking their members to make contributions.

What level of political activity should lead to loss of tax-exempt status (or whether religious organizations should be tax exempt at all) is something on which I don't have strong opinions, except that it should be applied evenly and not only to scary organizations or those that the legislative majority disagrees with. And with consideration for the way tax policy could be used to erode freedom of religion. ("It's not discrimination at all. We're taxing every yarmulke, in every synagogue, church, mosque, and meeting house, all at the same rate.")

Psst. It's "vise grip", though in this case "vice grip" may be even more appropriate!

Mormons

Come on really? It’s bad enough that the Catholic Church and other REAL religions are trying to take us out, but now we’re being fucked with by nothing more than a cult! (Yea I said it) a cult.

They are just mad because polygamy is not legal

Re: Mormons

I'm personally glad I can donate to the cause, even though I'm out of state. I even had a little fundraiser party! I see it as the battlefront of the nation, as do the mormons, I guess. I don't see how donating money violates people's rights. Despite the influence of these advertisements, people still have free choice.

I agree that it's weird so many state constitutions are so fickle. I like the way the federal government has many time-rates-of-change that smooth out short lived stupidities. And the constitution should be the hardest to change!

Does anyone know what to do when a constitutional amendment passes that blatantly contradicts another part of the constitution? This seems entirely possible when it's that easy to change the darn thing. Won't that even happen if 8 passes? The rest of the California constitution still has the equal protection parts?!

Re: Mormons

I don't know the specifics for California, but I believe that generally an amendment would supersede prior provisions it contradicted, construed as narrowly as possible. So it wouldn't amend the equal protection provision away, but it would establish that it didn't apply in this particular case. (Which was, after all, how the clause was being read up until this year.) There's no such thing as an unconstitutional constitutional amendment.

(With the possible exception, on the federal level, of depriving a state of equal representation in the Senate, or banning the slave trade before 1808.)

Re: Mormons

How did your fundraiser party go? That's pretty cool that you chose to do that!

While I pretty much agree with you, I remain troubled by the fact that TV ads are so effective in terms of influencing people's choices, and there are no repercussions whatsoever for outright lying, unless an adequately strong counter-force is able to muster up the funds and people to mount an effort. This applies to candidates as well. The MSM calls out some of the lies, but in modern times we're increasingly relying on passionate people in the blogosphere to spread the word and hold people accountable.

A commitment to tithe 10% of one's increase is a prerequisite for baptism in the LDS church. I know of no other sizable religious group in America that is so directly involved in the finances of its members. This frightens me greatly, because they hold many beliefs that I find morally repugnant, and are using their financial/political clout to spread them. Whether or not it's legal, it's still terrible.

A number of conservative protestant churches require it, as do some Jewish synagogues (Technically the Jewish Maaser only applies to income/produce in the Holy Land, but many synagogues have equivalent Membership fees. For example: http://www.hvcn.org/info/bethisrael/membership.php?page=dues)

Whether you consider those as sizable is up to you, but I think it's also important to keep in mind that at most churches, a devout Christian who routinely doesn't give when the plate comes around will be frowned upon, and eventually asked why they aren't helping.

A commitment to tithe 10% of one's increase is a prerequisite for baptism in the LDS church. I know of no other sizable religious group in America that is so directly involved in the finances of its members.

Tithing isn't original to the LDS-- it comes straight out of Judaism (where it remains in force, at least among the Orthodox) and through Christianity (particularly, these days, evangelicals). The LDS are probably more effective at collecting it, but it's hard to see success at a broadly recognized religious duty as a particular count against them.

Not to put too fine a point on it, responding to voters' willingness to devote time and money to a cause is one of the mechanisms whereby a democratic society functions. It's the exact counterpart of the sort of activism that many people on this thread likely admire. (And if a single digit percentage of the population pursuing its interests by recruiting supporters and using the legal means at its disposal is wrong, where does that leave the effort that culminated with In re Marriage Cases earlier this year?)

If it's bad, it's bad because of what they believe, not the way in which they're pursuing those beliefs. In a world full of people willing to cheat on levels ranging from stuffing ballot boxes to blowing up polling places and murdering political opponents, the idea that an organization that appears to be playing wholly within the rules is particularly sinister strikes me as unconvincing.

(If anything looks sinister to me, it's the resemblance of various characterizations of Mormons to those previous generations used for other religious minorities.)

But I'm probably repeating myself by now, and I have a plane to catch fairly soon. (To a country untroubled by religious freedom guarantees or contested elections, as it happens.) So it's probably time for me to wrap up my participation in this thread. ("At last!" they said. :-) ) Best wishes on defeating Prop 8.

Have a great trip! (and I look forward to the extensive photo diaries...)
Sometime when you get back you might be curious to check out the photos etc from my trips to China and Japan.

I certainly value your input on this thread, and you've made the case convincingly that the reason the rules are set up to allow situations like this is that if we tried to disallow it through laws, we would do more harm than good (and often to causes we believe in).

My final thought, however, is that it strikes me that our system has no real structural safeguards: even while doing everything completely within the rules, it could easily be upended in a catastrophic way if enough people simultaneously decided to do the same thing, ruthlessly and in concert. Luckily we are fairly resistant to suddenly becoming Cylons (though this kind of fear is well documented in film and literature), and I'm left with the feeling that this is all that's saving us: our general tendency towards tolerance and, especially, towards dissent. fengshui describes above how dissent is the norm among many of the world's Catholics, for example. So when a group shows how powerful they can become, and how much influence they can wield, simply through a striking lack of dissent among their members, it makes me very nervous. There are dangers here, that the system isn't set up to defend itself against.

Tithing isn't original to the LDS-- it comes straight out of Judaism (where it remains in force, at least among the Orthodox) and through Christianity (particularly, these days, evangelicals).

Sorry, I should have clarified. My point is that tithing is a prerequisite for baptism: you cannot be a member of the LDS church unless you pledge to give them 10% a year. This is certainly not the case for Judaism, nor most denominations of Christianity.

If it's bad, it's bad because of what they believe, not the way in which they're pursuing those beliefs.

Exactly. They believe things which I find extraordinarily immoral. They are unusually efficient in consolidating political power, which they are using to harm people.

The fact that they are 'playing fair' excuses nothing. Most of the stuff done by Scientologists, the Westboro Baptist Church, and LaRouche followers is legal; I'm still not obligated to approve of their actions. Indeed, I think "particularly sinister" is a very accurate description.

Wow. I just checked your facebook to see what you're up to these days and the answer is apparently "being super gung-ho about the no on 8 campaign". I wish I could say the same for the rest of my friends. I've been to the phone bank in the castro. It was encouraging, definitely. I'll be volunteering with No on 8 on election day.

I'm really nervous about this proposition. And I have a midterm the morning after the election, which is cruel.

Wow, that is cruel! Come to grad school where there are no midterms (except for ones you have to grad, LOL)!

Yeah, they are doing some great work there at the phonebank. I'm heading there in a couple hours to join them for the "Bar Crawl" in the Castro. It's the only late night "visibility exercise" on the schedule I posted in my proceeding entry. Should be fun! Maybe I'll see you on election day also (although I haven't figured out which city I'm going to get trained for yet...)

You're doing an all day slot, hm? I'm doing the morning slot (630-10) and the evening slot (430-830) so I can go to classes during the day.

I'm doing the morning slot plus the 11:00-2:00 one. Then I'm heading back to Berkeley to vote, and be back at my place for afternoon/evening watching TV (and internet) of the election results. I would never be able to concentrate on GOTV efforts by then anyway, what with needing to be glued to constant information....