Politics and the Church
Two recent events have caught my attention. While each of them deserves to be fully explored in separate posts, I am combining them to ask a bigger question about the Church’s involvement in shaping public policy.
This past year Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. has been pushing a tax reform package through the Utah State Legislature. One of the hotly contested measures was eliminating deductions for charitable giving. Lawmakers debated the provision for over five months without reaching a consensus. Then one day last September the LDS Church sent a representative to Utah’s Capitol Hill to read a statement before the committee working on this reform. The statement urged lawmakers to preserve the tax deductions for charitable donations. The result? Governor Huntsman immediately reigned in his expert witnesses, and lawmakers scrambled to clarify the meaning of the church statement. Weeks later, new reforms were proposed that preserved these deductions. In all fairness, many charitable organizations opposed this measure, not just the Church (including the Utah Homeowner’s Association, AARP, Utah Issues, the United Way, the Utah Symphony, the Utah Education Savings Plan, and others). However, only the Church’s opposition to this idea stopped it dead in its tracks. Over 80% of Utah’s lawmakers are LDS and many admitted that the Church’s statement put them in a difficult situation. (To read more about this, click here and here).
More recently (last week), Senator Bennett inserted a provision into the Department of Agriculture’s appropriation bill that “shields religious groups from a federal law against knowingly transporting, concealing, harboring or shielding an illegal immigrant.” Bennett’s motivation? Prodding by LDS Church officials to allow illegal immigrants to serve as missionaries. Rep. Tom Tancredo attacked this policy today as a loophole that allows religious groups to abet terrorists through “church activities.” (See this article.)
Now, I am less concerned with the substance of these policies. I am sure there are good reasons to support or oppose them. What is interesting to me is how the Church has become more assertive in politics and seems to be straying from their policy of at least appearing neutral. The Church must obviously walk a fine line between advocacy for protective policies and putting LDS lawmakers in an awkward, if not untenable situation. Add to this confusion the following quote from this speech by Elder Russell Nelson at a conference in Kiev, Ukraine:
Therefore, care must be exercised to assure that government remains truly neutral in matters of religion, not only in lip service and constitutional guarantees, but also in impartial application of the law. Individuals and institutions are naturally inclined to seek preference over others, but the state must not yield to those inclinations. To discriminate in favor of one religion, using nonreligious labels such as "culture" or "history," is to discriminate against others.
What are your thoughts on the matter?
posted by Doug Spencer @ 11/16/2005 10:38:00 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Okay, now that I've read Elder Nelson's quote again I'm not so sure it even applies. It seems like a stretch to say that the Church's involvement in the two cases I mentioned constitutes their seeking preference over other religious groups. My bad. I misread the quote the first time.
In any case, I still think there are some interesting issues to discuss here.
With my nose tightly plugged, I must say that Tancredo seems to have a point. (If the lawyers among us uniformly disagree with that, I would be happy to reconsider)
But if Tancredo is right, it would seem irresponsible for the Church to take the position it has. This is not a matter of church vs. church, but church vs. public safety. Senator Bennett seems to be listening to the lawyers who tell him what he wants to hear.
I'm inclined to think that lawmakers can fight for whatever policy they want. What troubles me is when they are pressured (publicly or privately) by the Church. If Bennett is really worried about illegals, then he should fight for it. If Church leaders called to convince him, that worries me.
Obviously this puts the Church in a difficult position; they have needs and rights and under the tax code they are just like any other charitable organization. They have the right to lobby and it makes sense that they use Utah lawmakers since the headquarters are in Utah.
However, there is something that still makes me uncomfortable with the situation, probably because of the statements made by members of the Utah State legislature who felt like they were put in an uncompromising position by the Church in terms of the flat tax measure. Some LDS lawmakers felt that they couldn't really vote for the policy they personally agreed with most. A vote for the proposal was now a vote against the Church.
I think the greater responsibility here is the Church's, not Smoot, Romney, Bennett, etc. Unfortunately I haven't come up with a viable solution. It seems silly to ask the Church to specifically lobby non-LDS members of Congress.
The purpose of this post was to solicit ideas about possible solutions, or even for somebody to help me accept that these scenarios aren't problematic in some way.
[T]hey have needs and rights and under the tax code they are just like any other charitable organization. They have the right to lobby...
Actually, under the tax code, charitable organizations do not have the right to lobby. If they are found to have engaged in lobbying, they can lose their tax-exempt status.
Last Lemming - you're mostly right: the Church may lose its 501(c)(3) status as a result of too much lobbying. However, they maintain the right to lobby - at least a little. Here is the official position of the IRS:
"no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status." (IRS Source)
The IRS clarifies what type of behavior is unacceptable:
"An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation." (same source as above)
While the Church has definitely engaged in these types of activities, it's probably a stretch to say that it constitutes a "substantial part" of the Church's overall activities, in which case their tax-exempt status does not seem to be in jeopardy.
However, your point is well-taken. Not only has the Church made some LDS lawmakers uncomfortable, but its behavior is discouraged by the IRS. This is interesting, since my original concern was with the Church's advocacy for a measure that would preserve the benefits of its tax status.
Yeah, I'm not too concerned or bothered. If you actually think Bennett does ANYTHING because he feels its the right thing to do then keep dreaming idealist, its not exactly what politics is. It is by definition the study of power, and with big decisions like this one, or any decision for that matter there are many close and powerful people who are leaning on congressmen and senators to do their will. We don't live in a democracy, and I don't know why it was ever called one. The founding fathers were elitists who never did, or would have trusted the American public, its why we have a republic, so puppets like Bennett can come up with proposals, and we have no clue where, when, or from whom the idea originated. People still need to convince him about his decision, and all of that is easily remedied with a little golf here, hawaii trip there, and campaign financing everywhere...and whatnot. As long as everyones hands are in the cookie jar, I'm glad the church's hands are there as well...I wish they were there more often. The only thing the church needs to stay neurtal about is party affiliation, when it comes to individual laws, they can say whatever the heck they want to say(while not actually lobbying)...so a solution to the problem?? What problem, carry on carry on carry on. Why are people so worried about religions having a say about something? Everyone has something to say, or some invested interest. I would rather have the church push for legislation than the sleezy hands of the ACLU, the tar smothered teeth of Joe Camel, the best quarter proffits ever oil companies, guns mc gunsalot, and old Q oldies AARP.
Brett - I think America's system of government is often referred to as a democracy because of its democratic features: citizen petitions, ballot initiatives, and the fact that all of our lawmakers are democratically elected.
Brett wrote: Why are people so worried about religions having a say about something?
I'm not opposed to religions having a say; like I said earlier, they have a right to lobby. But I am concerned about HOW they exercise that right (ala Sheldon's idea of spiritual capital - something not covered in Buckley v. Valeo).
Sheldon wrote: I think that the Church's approach to the Huntsman tax reform package was probably an extreme exception to the "norm" of the last 2 or 3 decades of non-intervention in politics (especially Utah politics).
I actually think the opposite is true. Not only has the Church been quite active: think ERA in early 70s, California's proposition 22 in 1999, etc., but the Church's politicking has been especially public in Utah: before this tax reform, the Church battled Salt Lake City in the courts about its downtown "revitalization" plans for years.
In fact, the Church's politicking in Utah has often aggravated certain non-Utah Mormons. For instance, it seems highly unlikely that the Church would dispatch a spokesperson to Wisconsin if that state were contemplating a similar tax reform. (I could be wrong).
Maybe this begs a larger question: is the Church equally responsible to all of its members when making political decisions? (does this include the village-dwelling Russians in my misison and the tithe-stealing Italians in Chris'?)
Sheldon - you're probably right. If you compare the Church's most recent events against Utah's 109 year history (and especially the 49 years before that), it looks like its position on Utah's tax reform is an exception.
But now I'm wondering what's so important about tax reform (specifically in Utah) that caused the Church to stray from the norm? I'm probably reading too much into this whole thing - I'm not even a Utah resident (and admittedly don't know much about Utah's political history).
I like your idea of "spiritual capital." I personally think the Church could (and should) encourage its members qua individuals to vote for or against certain measures. But I'm somehow uncomfortable when the Church promotes its agenda to members qua lawmakers.
I'm sure others think this distinction is so subtle that I'm wasting my time blogging about it. Maybe they're right.