In a fundraising plea to his mailing list this past week, Marc Multy, the President of the anti-gay marriage Group Stand for Marriage Maine, described his opponents as having "amassed a war chest from the homosexual political elite from nearly every corner of the country to impose their will on Mainers like us."
Indeed, the pro-gay marriage group No on 1 Protect Maine Equality has raised more than $2.30 million in itemized contributions from outside the state of Maine; this is more than the $1.82 million that Stand for Marriage Maine has raised from out-of-state.
However, most of No on 1's advantage is based on its substantial edge in fundraising from within the state of Maine. No on 1 has raised $1.89 million from 3,766 unique contributors within the state, whereas Stand for Marriage Maine has raised just $677,000 from 422 contributors, putting it at nearly a 3:1 disadvantage. All told, No on 1 has raised 43 percent of its funds from within Maine, as compared with 26 percent for the Yes on 1 campaign.
Additional detail on fundraising by the two groups, as gathered from the State of Maine's Campaign Finance Website, is below.
You will probably notice the large disparity in the average size of the contribution that each group has received: $3,862 for the anti-gay marriage group, versus $419 for No on 1. This is because Stand for Marriage Maine is exceptionally dependent on just two large donors: the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage, from which it has received $1,622,152, and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland (ME), from which it has received $529,666. Collectively, these two group's represent 83 percent of Yes on 1's fundraising. In addition, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland accounts for 81 percent of its in-state fundraising; without its contributions, Stand for Marriage Maine would have received just $127,218 in contributions from Mainers.
Protect Maine Equality, to be sure, has also benefited from some
heavyweight donors, earning $526,000 from Maine-based businessman Donald Sussman, and $267,589 from the Human Rights Campaign. And indeed, if you cull its donor list, you'll find a few big-name Hollywood celebrities: it's gotten $2,000, for instance, from Rob Reiner, $5,000 from David Geffen, and $10,000 from former U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg James Hormel.
Overall, however, its top 10 donors represent just 36 percent of its total fundraising haul, as compared to 91 percent for Yes on 1. Most of its contributions, rather, come from small donors, who account for its 9-to-1 advantage in the number of unique, itemized contributors within Maine, and its 28-to-1 advantage in its number of unique donors from outside the state.
Although it is always risky to generalize from a single example -- particularly given that the Yes on 1 campaign has been fairly inept -- it would seem that the grassroots energy on this issue has reversed, with the pro-gay marriage side feeling more emboldened than the traditional marriage groups. This is true both outside the state of Maine and within it.
10.24.2009
Despite Claims, Anti-Gay Group in Maine More Dependent on Out-of-State Funds
@ 6:50 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
86 comments
Hi Nate, Are the graph colors labelled correctly? It seems to me that they might be inverted.
Is the legend on the bar graph reversed? The blue bars are supposed to represent "No on 1", right?
I'm pretty sure the previous two commenters are correct - the graph key is flipped.
I think the big difference in funding as a whole may have to do with people being scared about Prop 8. Mainers may not want the same thing to happen in their state, and they see the possibility as being more concrete than did Californians last year.
I'm not sure how much you can conclude about the state-by-state origin of their money from that data, given that so much of it comes from a couple of big donors. They are likely acting as bundlers and contribution launderers for people who don't want their names associated with the Yes on 1 campaign. You won't know what's really going on unless the suit to have NOM's contributors made public goes through.
On the other hand, if NOM (yeah, I know - NJ is home to both RASPUBLICAN (ooga booga) and these asshats - I'm surprised we're not further right than Utah) is a front for grass-roots efforts, then...like...isn't that indicative of something? A lot of people want to tie their names to the No on 1 campaign, but relatively few are willing to tie themselves to the Yes on 1 one.
I think that - in and of itself - might be indicative. Then again, I'm thinking aloud and may have just succumbed to the same logical fallacies the progressives on this site often accuse the conservatives of falling for.
Yes, GRAPH is MISLABELED. Nate, please fix.
Maine is a weird place. They go 58-40% for Obama and elect two senators who stand directly in the way of all of Obama's campaign promises.
Nate - isn't Maine a very tiny media market? How much would it take to completely saturate it with this ad? (currently at about 27K)
http://www.actblue.com/page/obamafight
And where are snowe and collins on Prop 1?
obsessed?
This thread is about the finances of the ballot issue on Gay Marriage.
Maybe the video about the Public Option for health care should go on some other thread? Or are you trying to hi-jack a thread?
Mike in Maryland
I wonder how much of this money came from Mormons and Catholics? You know, this country used to be based on aseperation of church and state
I wonder how much of this money came from Mormons and Catholics? You know, this country used to be based on a seperation of church and state
Are you saying that the respective churches are donating or its members?
If the former, then their is a problem and their tax exempt status should be revoked.
If it is the latter, what is the problem? Does that mean only atheists can donate money to political causes? What if a Mormon gave money to the gay rights side?
Your numbers are all screw up. After the harrasment, retaliation and the persecution by gay activists after prop 8 to American voters, they now have no choice than have the organizations they support give money to causes they cherish.
You guys have created an environment of terror and hatred. This is why the polls are always wrong until the vote.
Like uner communism, the small people are silenced by a selfish and corrupt elite
Right, soleil. The "elite" gays are preventing Mormons everywhere from discriminating against them. What's going to happen to the country next? Gulags? Do you even realize how stupid you sound? You know, some opponents of gay marriage actually make their point fairly cogently.
Soleil:
the homophones murder, assault, and bash gays.
the religious right kicks them out of the churches they grew up in.
the neo-conservatives compare us to rapists and pedophiles and stoke up fear about us to deny us the right to live where we want, work where we choose, and defend our nation in the armed forces.
to add insult to injury, campaigns are waged against us to prevent us from marrying because god forbid kids be taught to respect those who are different.
so when you whine about boycotts and stolen yard signs, please forgive me if I fail to see how that's a campaign of terror and intimidation. terror is watching your friend's face get bashed in for the "crime" of being gay, asshat.
I thought the Mormon Church was the biggest supported of Prop 8 in California. How come no one went after their tax exemption then?
How is it fair that a church is a tax-free org, and yet they've dropped over a half million on a political issue? How am I mis-understand the separation of church and state?
I'm known I'm missing the obvious right answer, but it seems kind of shady that a religious organization can spend that much money on a social matter that doesn't involve them*
(*you could argue it's a church issue, but then the counter is that "marriage" as a religious ceremony is theirs to do however as they like, but "marriage" as a civic contract should be irrelevant to them)
For the separation of church and state people, churches (and other tax free orgs) are free to advocate on any issue they desire. They are prevented from supporting or opposing individual candidates.
For the separation of church and state people, churches (and other tax free orgs) are free to advocate on any issue they desire. They are prevented from supporting or opposing individual candidates.
I'm not sure that this is just advocating causes, they're pushing for particular legislation. Here's the relevant statute.
Corporations ... organized and operated exclusively for religious ... purposes ... no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
Subsection h explicitly says it does not apply to churches.
(Now, that having been said, I'm sure the guys giving money are some sort of religious PAC rather than an actual church. But churches cannot actually support or oppose legislation (at least according to my IANAL reading of the law).)
Johan said...
the homophones murder, assault, and bash gays.
That doesn't sound right. I demand you issue a contraction.
wow, I am impressed. Only one white wing nut job posted to the thread so far. (Of course, damning those intolerant gays for oppressing those whose hate and fear of gays make them want to forbid gays from marrying....) I am wondering if Nate's negative rights frame is being used in Maine. "Don't let the government stop us from marrying the person we love" is very effective and appeals to the libertarian right in addition to any rational person...
Ed said...
I wonder how much of this money came from Mormons and Catholics? You know, this country used to be based on a separation of church and state.
And then beavis bloviated...
Are you saying that the respective churches are donating or its members?
Both.
'Special collections' have been mandated in several Catholic dioceses, such collections to raise funds for anti-equality political drives.
The money comes (mostly) from the parishioners, but the collection of that money is enabled by the church and diocese.
Mike in Maryland
The YES on 1 folks have reported just 700 "donors", vs. 22,000 donations from the NO on 1 camp.
The YES on 1 folks are not reporting the names of all their donors to the state of Maine, in violation of the law, because they intend to keep the names of their so-called upstanding and righteous contributors secret. And they hope to accomplish this by suing the state of Maine for supposedly violating their Constitutional rights.
I can't remember anyone doing this in the past, I suppose it's OK though because this issue is about gay marriage - I just have to wonder, though, if this wasn't about gays would it be tolerated at all ?
Pan said...
Johan said...
the homophones murder, assault, and bash gays.
That doesn't sound right. I demand you issue a contraction.
Eye em frayed heed bee write, homophones ar the quay wons byting there nickers.
It's ten o'clock---do you know where your phones are?
Well, the harassing and intimidation of prop 8 donors by some gay activists sure wasn't cool and definitely doesn't help their cause.
The key is to PERSUADE people. I myself wasn't at first for civil unions when they were implemented here in Germany in, iirc, 1999. And I prefered civil unions over marriage until last year, I'd say.
I'm just really turned off by the villification of people on either side of this issue.
Anyway, I must say I'm disappointed by Obama's political cowardice in that he didn't immediately stop the Don't Ask, Don't Tell practice with a stroke of a pen. That's simply an idiotic policy, as the tolerant and entirely unproblematic practice in many other armies show.
But then, as much as I like Obama, I must say he's not being much of a fighter. Be it when it comes of Jewish settlements in the West Bank or the public option.
Ed said:
You know, this country used to be based on aseperation of church and state
This country was never based on a seperation of church and state. The words don't appear anywhere in the constitution.
The first ammendment restricts the governments involvement in religion. In no way does it restrict the church.
GROG-
No, the church can do anything as long as it does not mind being taxed, the tax exemptionis based on their religious purpose.
As for sep of church and state, you are wrong, but that is normal for you - First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Kinda sound like it is the First Amendment to those who can read.
Me, not you:
Where am I wrong?
That graph has got to be messed up. It doesn't match what's written in the article.
Grog said:" This country was never based on a seperation (sic) of church and state. The words don't appear anywhere in the constitution."
True, these words do not appear in the constitution but the meaning was made clear by the founding fathers. Please see Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association explaining the meaning and impact of the clause. This is the best known (though not the first) early use of the term 'wall of separation'.
Jefferson's idea of "Wall of Seperation" was that the government will not infringe upon the right of the people to worship God. If he meant anything else, he would have had no understanding of the First Ammendment. No where does it restrict the people's right to worship God. It only restricts the governments involvement in religion.
It's interesting that within days of that letter, Jefferson attended church in the House Chambers of the US Capital building.
Geez grog,
The wall works both ways. Organizzed religion has no place in government affairs just like the government has no place in the church.
Theocracies do not work, never have and never will.
itt: some queer from Jersey does something that he knows is a BAD IDEA.
Anyway.
Church and state is actually a precedent - that is, it cuts both ways. This is because when you let religion into the government - even if it's a "good" religion (like Evangelical Christianity) - it eventually leads to no good.
For example, Iran. Or, hell, even Sharia law in general. If it were Muslims that were the primary donators to this cause, would you feel quite as good about letting religious institutions influence policy?
I do think there's a place for religion, and I don't think that religious institutions should be forced to change their beliefs as long as they're not going out and directly harming people. I also don't think, however, that the Portland Diocese should be writing the law.
And then beavis bloviated...
Are you saying that the respective churches are donating or its members?
Both.
Bloviated?
Is there something wrong with asking for clarification?
His post implied that there is something wrong with individual members of a church donating money to political causes, which is false.
This whole thing is beyond stupid, it is unconstitutional to deny rights to law abiding groups of people. That should be the beginning and the end of the debate. Either we are equal or we are not.
That we have to make laws to protect various groups of people just shows how hypocritical many Americans are.
The church has no business in politics, but as we all know the government hasn't enforced it for a long time.
Look at tax-exempt hate groups, like focus on the family, moral majority and that church of nutbags in Kansas. They are directly active in politics, and should have their tax-exempt status revoked. Clinton didn't have the balls to do what is right and Obama hasn't shown much courage so he won't. Of course, the dream of Bush was to change the US into a totalitarian theocracy, so he obviously wasn't going to do anything about it.
Funny how the "law and order" tea party nutbags don't seem to mind this blatant violation of the law, much like they didn't seem to mind the deficit spending of Bush(it was deficit spending as the money went down a black hole).
beavis said:
Geez grog,
The wall works both ways. Organizzed religion has no place in government affairs just like the government has no place in the church.
Theocracies do not work, never have and never will.
That's your opinion and that's fine. But that's not what the constitution says. That's why Congress has never passed a law prohibiting prayer in public schools. It would be unconstitutional to infringe upon one's right to pray, whether it be on private or public property.
Btw, ignore Mike in Maryland. Everyone else does.
One wonders though, how much of the contribution from the Diocese is really "in-state." I mean, maybe a lot of it comes from parishoners, but who knows if some of that money is funneled in from larger/wealthier diocese, or perhaps from the Vatican?
Hard to classify the largest nongovernmental organization in the world as an "in-state" group.
Also @GROG
Churches have every right to violate the Wall of Separation, and I don't think anyone here would argue that they have first amendment rights to do or say whatever they want, or to donate to hate groups if they so choose.
But if they want to take advantage of a special benefit from the government like a 501c(3) tax-exempt status, they need to comply with the special rules associated with that status.
If they refuse to do that, they should pay taxes like the rest of us who engage in partisan politics.
*Meant to say...
I don't think anyone here would argue that they DO NOT have first amendment rights to do or say whatever they want, or to donate to hate groups if they so choose.
Double negatives don't not confuse the point...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
There are two parts to the separation of church and state, the 'establishment clause' and the 'free exercise clause'.
The establishment clause prohibits the government from promoting a religion as the country's official religion, or doing anything which may be perceived as such by the public.
The free exercise clause prohibits the government from regulating people's ability to join a specific religion, if they chose to do so.
So there is more to the separation of church and state than just "the government will not infringe upon the right of the people to worship God."
However, there is nothing in the constitution that stops religious organizations from giving money to political causes. On the other hand, there is nothing in the constitution that prevents the government from taxing churches, either.
Mike from Maryland, might one respectfully request you provide citations as to which Catholic dioceses have solicitied political contributions for the Maine "no on gay rights campaign" as part of the Mass?
Imagine being such a twisted bigot that you actually spend money in an effort to deny rights to your fellow citizens.
Not just rant on the internet, but actually take real money out of your wallet and send it to something like "Stand for Marriage Maine".
Even though you manifestly gain nothing by denying a large group of your fellow citizens the right to have their marriages legally recognized. (You have now and will continue to have the right to refuse to attend gay weddings, belong to a church that condemns gays, etc.)
I mean, passive bigotry is one thing, but to actually reach into your wallet and spend money that somebody did honest work to earn - either you or an ancestor, or at least the person that you or an ancestor cheated it out of or stole it from - that's pretty extreme.
Any fool who is fool enough to actually give money to anti-gay hate groups is embarrassing him/herself and his/her descendants for all of future history.
The free exercise clause prohibits the government from regulating people's ability to join a specific religion, if they chose to do so.
Or to exercise their religion freely, not just to join a specific religion.
"Free exercise" includes much more than just joining a religion.
Grog, while your claims are basically correct (and free exercise is indeed very broad), they really don't have much to do with the topic at hand.
Again, churches can legally do whatever they want, but why should the government give them a special tax advantage for promoting a political agenda? Let alone promoting hate groups?
GROG -
"Free exercise" includes much more than just joining a religion
What does it include?
$529,666 (I do love those last three digits) from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland Maine? Could this possibly be the same Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland that's closing churches left and right because of declining membership as well as tight finances?
http://www.portlanddiocese.net/newsroom.php?nid=452
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/117442.html
So where exactly are they getting this ½$M? I smell something fishy--and it ain't Maine lobster.
Again, Goldwater, one of Reagan's heroes, on religion:
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly.
The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate.
I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'
(1909-1998) US Senator (R-Arizona) Source: Congressional Record, September 16, 1981
And the reason congress hasn't passed any laws prohibiting school prayer is quite obviously because they are cowards. Knowing, it's very hard to get elected in certain parts of the country, if one does not portend to be a Christian, like Reagan who was not religious and did not attend church regularly either before or after he was president.
Most of the founding fathers had no use for religion as America was founded by Europeans coming to the New World to escape religious persecution.
The christian/politician ruse is one of the many kowtowing hypocrisies re: American politics.
ie the party of No! is the party of family values ... bwahaha!
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
What is it men cannot be made to believe!
-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal appeal.)
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
etc. etc.
carry on
"Or to exercise their religion freely, not just to join a specific religion."
Yes, to join and practice their religions as they see fit, although the practising part would be covered by freedom of speech even if it wasn't covered by the free exercise clause.
Yes GROG, as the 1st Amendment says - you can worship a man nailed to a cross who birthday happens to be celebrated on the shortest day of the year, when pagans had BIG parties. I am sure the birthdate is coincidental. That church has always been a positive influence too, it never fought wars in the Middle East or burned "witches" or nothing like that. That said, the 1st Amenement has 2 clauses. You seem to be reading the 1st Amendment like guys like you read the 2nd (ignoring the term "militia" therein). The 1st also says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - hmmmmmm - kinda sounds like the gov has to stay out of selecting state religions, kinds like when added to your fixation on the second clause that there IS A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! Two clauses, cuts both ways. Go back to the freeper sites now.
Me, not you said...
Grog, go back to the freeper sites now.
~~~~~~~~~~
Grog, BDP, Jeff, and other disingenuously smug, clueless trolls would just be among the many bigoted yahoo wingers, their Brethren, at freepertopia, redstate, etc. and not noticed. Hence, ergo, therefore they matriculated here.
shiloh said...
"And the reason congress hasn't passed any laws prohibiting school prayer is quite obviously because they are cowards."
Actually, prayer in school and anywhere else is pretty expressly covered by the First Amendment. I'm no strict theist but I remember praying quite a few times when grades were handed back in school. Nothing wrong with that.
ORGANIZED school prayer is a different matter, and the SCOTUS has found ample reason to ban it in a commonsense reading of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It does not require a Congressional action to ban organized prayers in (mandatorily attended) public institutions, nor should it.
Grog, BDP, Jeff, and other disingenuously smug, clueless trolls would just be among the many bigoted yahoo wingers, their Brethren, at freepertopia, redstate, etc. and not noticed. Hence, ergo, therefore they matriculated here.
Shiloh, you surprised me with that statement. I haven't taken you for the type who insults others just because they post opinions that disagree with your own.
Jacob said...
~~~~~~~~~~
Obviously I meant organized school prayer and again, most politicians don't want anything to do w/regulating Christian religions, in any way, shape or form, as it would not be prudent.
GROG said...
Shiloh, you surprised me
~~~~~~~~~~
Really lol just stating the obvious and actually that's part of the attraction of a small progressive blog ie having winger, one trick pony trolls like yourself keep saying the same nonsense over and over again as it's somewhat entertaining.
Whereas progressive posters also say the same thing over and over again as they reply to yahoo trolls repetition, this is a progressive blog, eh.
The ying and yang of political discussion on the net where most discussions end up going nowhere.
passive/aggressive futility ~ nothing new under the sun ... btw, one man's insults is another's truthful sarcasm.
"Come From Away" is no particular term of endearment in Maine.
There's good reason for the yes on 1 folks to be making an issue of 'outside' money. But it seems unlikely that the point will stick.
GbThrone said...
Mike from Maryland, might one respectfully request you provide citations as to which Catholic dioceses have solicitied political contributions for the Maine "no on gay rights campaign" as part of the Mass?
First - did I say that the diocese collected DURING mass? The diocese collected money for the anti-equal rights proposal in a special collection, after the usual and customary collection. If the collection of monies is considered part of mass, then yes, it was during mass. If the collection of monies is not considered part of mass, then no, it was not during mass. Since I'm not Catholic, I don't know.
Second - you are on the Internet as proven by your presence here. You can do a Google on the subject. You might find this search criteria gets you several hits (found almost 300 for me):
Maine prop1 catholic special collections
Mike in Maryland
shiloh said...
"Obviously I meant organized school prayer and again, most politicians don't want anything to do w/regulating Christian religions, in any way, shape or form, as it would not be prudent."
Point well taken. Still, I think it's important to make the distinction between prayer and organized prayer, as conservative attacks on school prayer bans almost invariably include deceptive language about banning students from praying in school. It's good to preempt that fallacy when we get the chance.
As for Congressional Democrats, I don't think that it is necessarily cowardice motivating them. Religious activity in schools utilizing public funds has been effectively banned since 1971, in the SCOTUS ruling Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602.
To legislate school prayer would be like legislation aimed at protecting flag desecration. Not only would it needlessly squander political capital, but it would only accomplish reinforcing an existing law. Such legislation may be a good statement of values for secularists, but would be entirely redundant legally.
beavis said...
Is there something wrong with asking for clarification?
See my response to GbThrone above.
Mike in Maryland
Jeez Mike,
It sounds like gbthrone and beavis were just asking for you to explain your point.
For the record, here is an article noting the collection announcement by the bishop; it's not that hard to find:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/northeast/view/20090906catholic_church_steps_up_anti-gay_marriage_effort/srvc=home&position=recent
Not everyone who asks questions about your post is trying to attack you.
GROG…
The issue that you are failing to grasp is tax-exempt status.
Nobody here, or elsewhere that I am aware of, is advocating stifling religious views in violation of the Bill of Rights. The problem is that churches enjoy a status regarding taxes that comes with a price, and that is that they keep their noses (and money) out of politics. This they do not do. (The relevant chapter and verse are in the tax codes, not the Constitution.)
If I had my way they would all be taxed to the hilt, then we’d see how much money was left over for “issue campaigning”. Funny how religions cherry-pick the Bible for their politics. I guess none of them ever read Jesus’ remark on politics—“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
Jacob,
I expect the TROLLs to not know how to do research, let alone be able to do it at all. When non-TROLLs expect everyone else to be their research monkeys, that's when I get fed up with some of them, and let loose of my temper.
The news about the Bangor diocese having money problems, shutting parishes, cutting back expenses, etc., has been in the news, yet in the posting by Nate, he posted ". . . the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland (ME), from which it has received $529,666." The diocese is having money problems, yet it is able to give more than $500,000? How and why?
A little bit in intellectual curiosity (something lacking in the TROLLs) about the statement written by Nate, or statements that I made, should have caused those with questions about the source of the money to do their own research. The information is not classified as a state secret.
Instead of imitating the TROLLs, I would expect non-TROLLs to do at least some basic research on their own, and not rely on others to be their research monkeys.
Mike in Maryland
The one who drinks watered-down wine?
Would you rather that the US follow the German system, where people pay a per capita tax in support of religious institutions?
But, unlike Germany where the government can state which religion(s) get the money and which ones don't, the U.S. Constitution makes it abundantly clear that it is unConstitutional for any religion to be favored over another.
That means your tax money would go to Southern Baptists AND Quakers AND Amish AND Roman Catholics AND Seventh Day Adventists AND Christian Scientists AND Jewish Congregations AND Wiccans AND Muslims AND Mormans AND the Moonies AND Hindus AND Buddhists AND . . . .
Then, since, under the Constitution, no religion can be shown favortism, how is the money distributed?
By need? Who determines if it is an actual need, or a 'wish-list' need? A congregation needs a new worship center? But the one they are in is only 20 years old, and the capacity is 20% more than the usual attendance, although overcrowded on the high holy day(s) for that congregation? How about the congregation that worships in a facility that has a leaking roof? Do they deserve more than the congregation down the street?
Per capita? Members or those who attend on an average worship day? Who determines how many people belong to which religion or congregation?
But then, the government would be discriminating against those who follow NO religion. Do they get a direct payment?
Any of the above sound feasible to you?
Mike in Maryland
Mike: I'm no expert on the German system, but what you're saying directly contradicts the font of all knowledge (Wikipedia).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Germany
It claims that the state collects additional income taxes from people who list any of a number of religions (From a limited list) alongside their taxes, which is then given to the religious institution they listed. Not saying the practice sounds like a good idea to me, but sounds much more logical and equitable than what you're suggestion.
@Mike in Maryland
I assume you were referring to me in your last comment since in my last comment I said "So where exactly are they getting this ½$M?" First, thank you for acknowledging that I am a non-Troll. However, I wasn't fishing for somebody else to do my research for me so much as making a rhetorical point. In hindsight, my comment was very poorly phrased and should have been more along the lines of "They can't afford to maintain nearly half of the churches in their diocese, but they can raise ½$M to perpetuate discrimination? How convenient."
Having said that, I did assume that a significant chunk of that money was raised out of state. So I am partially guilty of what you accused me of. I should have done a bit more research before making my last comment, but I stand by my above stated intention of that comment. I think that an institution that is downsizing due to financial straights, but can manage to raise ½$M to support (what I consider to be) hate legislation, is an immoral entity that is hurting not only those potentially affected by that question, but their own parishioners as well.
So it still smells fishy to me, but it may tomalley after all. ;-)
Might I note that scholarly publications always include references to their claims? So does Wikipedia, for that matter. Making claims and then expecting others to look them up seems wrong to me -- if only as a matter of efficiency. Better for one person to research it than for ten to.
What I find so ironic about Christian churches supporting such causes as Yes on 1 is that Jesus himself expressed tolerance for homosexual behavior. See Matthew 15:11.
I'm from Southern Illinois (or central Illinois, depending on how you define the cultural geography), but have lived my life in the St. Louis suburbs in both states. Basically, I'm from the Midwest, but am pretty close, geographically, to the South. Living where I live, in a Missouri St. Louis suburb, I see mostly Midwestern--but also some Southern--influences. Same-sex unions may happen in Illinois, but I won't get into IL politics.
When you make a prediction like Same-sex marriage has a 60% chance of winning in Maine, I take notice.
I think those of really interested or have a stake in this issue would LOVE a win for marriage equality in Maine.
Ben
the point should be continued that the real grassroots in this referendum battle is on the No side.
the people of maine are clearly (if voting by pocketbook) in favor of equality. about three times more in favor.
this is good for the issue as a whole. its only a matter of time before we think back on this like we do banned interracial marriage. when the DENIAL of a marriage license to any loving adult couple will be considered outrageous ie: the louisiana judge.
Nate, this is one of the most difficult posts to read I've ever seen from you, and they're not usually difficult at all. You need quotes around the names of the groups involved, at a minimum. Without that it all runs together and is pretty much incomprehensible.
@Pragmatus:
The issue that you are failing to grasp is tax-exempt status.
Nope. Not failing to grasp that.
The problem is that churches enjoy a status regarding taxes that comes with a price, and that is that they keep their noses (and money) out of politics.
Not true.
The church could lose it's tax exempt status if supports or opposes a canditate. This particular topic deals with an issue. The church is free to support or oppose issues or causes and keep it's tax exempt status.
This is from that far right wingnut website called irs.gov.
Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."
Grog:
Persuter gave the full text of the code above, complete with link. Meanwhile, you have the general definition of a 501(c)(3) that you got from somewhere on the IRS website.
In case you missed it, it read:
Here's the relevant statute.
Corporations ... organized and operated exclusively for religious ... purposes ... no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
Subsection h explicitly says it does not apply to churches.
To expand on what Joey said:
Quoting the relevant parts of subsection (h):
(h) Expenditures by public charities to influence legislation
...
(2) Definitions
(A) Lobbying expenditures
The term “lobbying expenditures” means expenditures for the purpose of influencing legislation (as defined in section 4911 (d)).
...
(3) Organizations to which this subsection applies
This subsection shall apply to any organization which...
(B) is not a disqualified organization under paragraph (5).
...
(5) Disqualified organizations
For purposes of paragraph (3) an organization is a disqualified organization if it is—
(A) described in section 170 (b)(1)(A)(i) (relating to churches),
(B) an integrated auxiliary of a church or of a convention or association of churches...
So churches are excluded from the exception provided by subsection (h). What exactly does "subsantial part" mean? Well, that's up to the judges in most cases, but even if churches were granted the exception of section (h) (to reiterate, they can't be), then their collection of money for a cause would be limited by the language of 4911(c)(2), the relevant parts of which state:
(2) Lobbying nontaxable amount
The lobbying nontaxable amount for any organization for any taxable year is the lesser of
(A) $1,000,000 or
(B) the amount determined under the following table:
If the exempt purposeexpenditures are— Over $1,500,000
The lobbying nontaxableamount is— $225,000 plus 5 percent of the excess of the exempt purpose expenditures over $1,500,000.
So even with this exception they would have to be pulling in over $7M this year to be able to give so much to Yes on 1. This seems unlikely, and for the threepeat, even if they did they don't enjoy this exception.
This is all ignoring that the morman church gave way over a million dollar, so they're in violation even with the exception.
Retrying that last sentence again: This is all ignoring that the mormon church gave way over a million dollars to Yes On 8, so they're in violation even with the exception. That they aren't being prosecuted is no better than any other corruption that goes unprosecuted.
Piddlesworth…
I entirely agree. Political corruption is political corruption, and the worst comes from religious organizations. The Mormons pulled strings in CA after they were exposed as having given well over a million $ to the Prop 8 campaign, even when one of their functionaries is recorded on videotape as verifying that the money was going to fight Prop 8. Suddenly however the scuffle over their tax-exempt status just evaporated. Gee, let’s see—we have a Republican governor, whose office is in charge of looking into such things. I wonder what happened…
Er—make that “…even when one of their functionaries is recorded on videotape as verifying that the money was going to support Prop 8.”
Grog: It's a fundamental issue of fairness. If Alex and Bob want to donate to opposing campaigns on the passage of the "Mandatory Nose Rings" Act, and Alex donates directly to, say, the "Campaign against making people wear nose rings", while Bob donates to the "Church of Nose Rings", there's no reason Bob's political contributions should go farther than Alex's. Bob being able to deduct the donation from his taxes in addition to the "Church" not having to pay taxes itself is fundamentally not right.
Mike in Maryland said:
Would you rather that the US follow the German system, where people pay a per capita tax in support of religious institutions?
But, unlike Germany where the government can state which religion(s) get the money and which ones don't, the U.S. Constitution makes it abundantly clear that it is unConstitutional for any religion to be favored over another.
That means your tax money would go to Southern Baptists AND Quakers AND Amish AND Roman Catholics AND Seventh Day Adventists AND Christian Scientists AND Jewish Congregations AND Wiccans AND Muslims AND Mormans AND the Moonies AND Hindus AND Buddhists AND . . . .
Disagree as I may with Germany's church tax, I've got to say that you have the distribution system all wrong. The state collects the tax specifically on behalf of the church the tax-payer belongs to - for example if s/he happens to be Roman-Catholic, the church directly receives the church tax revenue from the state. If you don't belong to any religious group (or, as you point out, one not (yet) recognized as an organized religion) then you need not pay any church tax.
I agree it's a questionable system at best, but it's nothing like the way you depict it. Other churches are still free to raise funds directly from their member who are unencumbered by the church tax. The German state just acts as an intermediary to collect church membership fees. It doesn't take everyone's money and give it to its favorite churches.
Has anyone noticed that the acronym for "Group Stand Marriage Maine" is gsmm? That doesn't sound like family values to me...
Thank you Jacob, for the press citation on Diocese of Portland fundraising re Maine Prop. 1.
Mike in Maryland, not a big deal, but this site has contained a lot of comments making unattributed or unsupported statements.
That's why I asked for your source citation.
"First - did I say that the diocese collected DURING mass? The diocese collected money for the anti-equal rights proposal in a special collection, after the usual and customary collection. If the collection of monies is considered part of mass, then yes, it was during mass. If the collection of monies is not considered part of mass, then no, it was not during mass. Since I'm not Catholic, I don't know."
Not sure if this has been answered yet, but Catholic collections (and second collections) do occur during Mass.
GROG,
I apologize if this post is redundant. I haven't actually gone through all the posts to see if anyone else has responded to your first amendment post. So for all I know this has been said already.
The part of the First Amendment you are missing is the establishment clause. You are right that this does not place any restrictions on churches, but it does restrict the government from supporting, endorsing, or legislating from a particular relgious view. It's certainly one of the easier Constitutional tests for a law to pass, but basically every law, regulation, ordinance, government action, etc. has to have at least some secular purpose to it.
Churches can try to have a law passed which mandates that everyone put a sign with John 3:16 on their front lawns. But said law would violate the constitution if it were actually passed. Not for limiting the practice of religion, though I suppose some might argue that it would. But rather such law would be a direct endorsement of a particular religious view by the government and as well there would be no secular purpose for doing it.
The problem has never been with school prayer in general. Some kid wants to pray in school he can, provided he doesn't disrupt class to do it. He can bow his head and pray at lunchtime, pray before tests, pray all he wants. What can't happen, what is the problem is when the school leads the prayer. It was especially a problem when teachers essentially demanded that every kid in class pray at the opening of the school day. But even if the kid can opt out and you essentially chastise the kid and place pressure on him to entere into a religious ritual, that is a problem.
A public school enforcing a particular religious view is atrocious, but one endorsing one is also a problem. The ten commandments on court house lawns are also problems for the same reason. Of course if it is something like what the Supreme Court has where you have the Code of Hammurabi and other ancient legal texts along with the ten commandments that's different. There is a secular purpose there, a display depicting the ancient evolutions and manifestations of the law.
So in short yes the establishment clause is essentially a mandate for a separation between church and state. The state should stay away from the church and the church should not have too much influence on the state's political decisions. Sure it focusses on the state in both instances but it has an effect on how much influence the church can have.
I'd be interested to know if the details of reported contributions highlighted here, such as the ratio to in-state to out-of-state donations, the number of unique donors and donation amount distribution works in any way as a leading indicator of the trend in polling results, or as a predictive modifier to the likely voter models used by pollsters.
Furthermore, could we use this kind of data more generally to better predict election day results?
NOM is just a PAC for Mormons and Catholics to transform their anti-gay theologies into the law of the land.
潤滑液,SM,內衣,性感內衣,自慰器,充氣娃娃,AV,
情趣,G點,性感丁字褲,情趣,角色扮演服,吊帶襪,丁字褲,情趣用品,無線跳蛋,
按摩棒,電動按摩棒,飛機杯,自慰套,自慰套,情趣用品,情趣內衣,
情趣按摩棒,.,
自慰套,角色扮演,按摩棒,跳蛋,情趣跳蛋,
色情小說|七夕情人,一夜情,
Hey Nate, how come you don't have any stats on the Washington State Referendum 71 that is coming up on Nov. 3rd as well? Two fundamentalists put that one on the ballot to rescind "everything but marriage" rights granted to LGBT couples by the Legislature and signed by Governor Gregoire. It is very important to LGBT couples like us who are Washingtonians. Help us out with some stats!
DansJuan
Post a Comment