Deadman's picture

    Bittersweet ...

    By Deadman on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 12:24pm | Politics

    Looks like Prop 8 is going to pass in California. It's a shame that on a historic night in American politics, the voters of one of this country's bluest states may have decided to take a step backward for civil rights. Hate to throw out anything negative out there on a day like today, but the lack of leadership on gay marriage by leading Democratic politicians, including our President-elect and Vice President-elect, is probably one of the reason the progress has been halting at best on the issue. Alas, support for gay marriage doesn't appear to be feasible right now for politicians with national aspirations, or at the least, no one appears brave enough to test that piece of conventional wisdom.

    On the positive front, marijuana decriminalization continues to take tiny steps forward, with measures being passed in Michigan and Massachusetts. Doctor-assisted suicide law passed in Washington. A renewable energy initiative passed in Missouri (though that doesn't take the sting out of my hometown state's likely pick of McCain). And somewhat surprisingly, pro-life initiatives were voted down in South Dakota and Colorado.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    The Prop. 8 outcome certainly doesn't look good.  As a Californian, it's very disappointing to me.  I can tell you firsthand that a lot of this is the result of the money and organizational power of churches.  Personally, I feel that if churches want to use their organizational strength and capital to affect political outcomes then they should be taxed just like everyone else.  I know that's a far cry from being a popular idea, but I just don't see how it's fair for them to be exempt from the tax system when they are acting directly to fund petitioning efforts to put measures on the ballot, not to mention GOTV efforts.

    In lighter news, it looks like Prop. 4, which would have required compulsory parental notification by physicians of a minor's intent to have an abortion, is going to fail.  We also passed Prop. 2, which will require that farmers allow for animals to be able to stand and turn around in cages by 2015.

    If you're a real political junkie, check out California's little discussed Prop. 11.  It looks like it passed as well and is a potentially serious change to redistricting.  California has 53 of the 435 seats in Congress, so it's worth knowing about.


    by DF on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 12:40pm

    i think you raise an interesting point regarding churches and their tax-exempt status. The whole point behind that status is to help ensure the separation of church and state; if it's only a one-way street, that doesn't seem quite right.

    Though i am curious when you say 'acting directly' to fund these efforts, what does that mean ... I was under the (perhaps naive) assumption that such direct efforts would be illegal.

    and i was very happy to hear about that the animal cage law passed!


    by Deadman on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 12:57pm

    Churches and other tax-exempt nonprofits are prohibited from political activity. That's why politically active churches sometimes lose their exemptions.

    To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization...may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

    "Substantial" is not clearly defined, but courts have previously considered lobbying expenditures under 10% of total expenditures to be insubstantial. So most churches can safely advocate for or against certain ballot initiatives without risking tax exempt status, though they cannot endorse or attack political candidates.

    While the law could obviously be tightened, it might be difficult to craft clearly. Do you prohibit "influencing" legislation altogether? What counts as influencing? Also, think about what such legislation would do to all the other non-profits that that work for issues closer to your heart, e.g. environment, anti-poverty, animal rights, etc. If you gag the churches, you gag them too.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 1:57pm

    G, I'm on my mobile right now. So, I don't know how this will come out. Either way, I'll respond more dutifully when I get home later. Per the link you provided, the IRS caps such expenditures (for those applying the expenditure criteria, which seems like it may be optional) at $1M. Regardless, the LDS dumped millions into this. They're 501(c)3. I don't like it.

    In fairness, I'm not a fan of the initiative process. The "No on 8" campaign was pitiful. Even so, my impression from being on the ground here is that religious money and influence went a long way. Perhaps this is more an issue of enforcing current restraints rather than furthering new reforms, but more on this later.


    by DF on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 9:06pm

    One irony of this election: From what I understand, Prop. 8 is popular among African-Americans. So Obama's success in bringing black voters to the polls had the effect of bolstering Prop. 8.

    I'm glad about Props. 2 & 11, but I hate governance by proposition. Call me an elitist, but I don't think that uneducated citizens should be able to vote for complex legislation. There is too much risk of "scamnitiatives" that seek to confuse voters with misleading titles. More importantly, ballot initiatives result in a "tyranny of the majority" that the Constitution's framers explicitly sought to avoid. There have been some pretty nasty props out there, including Prop. 8 and it's brethren. When I lived in CA, I refused to vote for any ballot initiatives on principle. I'll probably write a full post on this matter sometime in the future.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 2:08pm

    I just can't believe how Yes on 8 totally snuck up on me.  Didn't occur to me that it could possibly pass until a week ago.  And the fact that 4 was even close.....


    by CaliforniaPaige on Wed, 11/05/2008 - 2:15pm

    Latest Comments