Nonprofit tax law is an arcane and complex little area of practice, technically speaking and it’s also an irrelevant one for the vast majority of (c)(3) and (c)(4) exempt organizations. Last time I checked, financial transactions by exempt organizations were approximately equal to ten percent of the annual GDP. Which puts them a few percentage points above the securities industry and represents an enormous amount of money changing hands, none of which is subject to any systematic federal oversight of any kind whatsoever for practical purposes. The IRS doesn’t have the resources to do a lot more than follow up on a very small number of dubious entities about which they learn primarily from letters of complaint or the press, although it’s conceivable that someone who was capable of understanding a corrupt EO’s Form 990 might uncover its hijinks while reading it. But the odds of that remaining strictly in the realm of concept are overwhelmingly on the side of the putatively corrupt EO. The personnel just aren’t there. And for churches and religious organizations, it’s a non-issue altogether — they’re not required to file 990s unless they feel like it. In any event: There actually are some regulations and guidelines governing politically-related expenditures by (c)(3)s that go beyond the issue-advocacy/endorsement dichotomy, at least in theory. But my point is: The real problem is much, much bigger than even the millions tossed at Prop 8 by the LDS, its members, subsidiaries, and/or related-party entities. There are oceans of money sloshing around the nonprofit sector, to which no one pays any attention at all. That’s a very attractive set-up to anyone who has some cash that needs a place to stop and launder itself before turning up wherever it’s ultimately headed, and there’s no reason to think those don’t include places where they might directly benefit political parties, officials, and interests in any number of ways. And it never hurts to bear that in mind. It might come in handy some day.

That said, there are couple points I’d like to introduce. First, it’s not as simple as a mere “distinction between issue-advertising and candidate advertising.” There’s also lobbying on behalf of specific legislation, which falls between those two examples. It’s not forbidden the way a candidate endorsement is, but it’s not the same as advocating on a general issue. I would argue that a state constitutional amendment is a form of legislation — or at least close enough to justify an IRS interpretation to that effect.

Second, 501(c)3 does not use “a significant part” as the test, as you claimed in response #9, but “no substantial part” which is, I would argue, a much stricter standard. “Significant” would gauge the money spent on lobbying against more prosaic expenses, and for a church that probably spends $3 billion a year, it would have to be an astronomical amount.

But what is “substantial?” If they directed $20 million to Prop 8’s passage, that’s substantial, regardless of how big they are. To them, sure, it’s insignificant. But it’s clearly substantial. So substantial, they’re bragging about how they got Prop 8 passed.

If you take a local stake, and count up how many hours were spent in church-sponsored meetings, discussing Prop 8 and organizing the GOTV, is it “substantial”? Considering their bishops and stake presidents are unpaid, the true measure would be what percentage of time they spent advocating Prop 8.

Finally, I have heard rumors that LDS members were encouraged to donate to protectmarriage.com, which then reported back to local stakes who donated, and how much, and that a donation could be used to offset tithes. If that’s true, it means the LDS is being cute. Even though the money didn’t go through their hands, it’s clearly not a hands-off approach. And although LDS members can’t write off their prop 8 donations, it still looks bad. After all, why would the church go to such lengths, if not because they were worried about the “no substantial part” clause of 501(c)3?

But really, I find fault with me and every other Californian for putting up with such a goofy way of running our state. We voted for term limits and we do everything we can to keep our state assembly powerless, and so to get anything done we have to put it on the ballot. And to require 2/3 vote to raise taxes, but a bare majority to write discrimination into the state constitution? That’s absurd.

Here is something I found quickly on Non-profits and lobbying.

http://www.mncn.org/lobbylaw.htm

As to the political influence purchased with this wealth, that is subjective, I suppose. That’s why Obama and McCain debated at Rick Warren’s church and they tripped all over each other making sure everyone knew they were good Christians throughout the campaign. And that’s why Elizabeth Dole tried and failed to destroy her opponent with the “atheist” label — failed because it was a blatant lie, I might add. Try running as an atheist or a Wiccan or even a Buddhist for a statewide or national office and see how much influence religion has on our political process. Unions, corporations, trade associations, and political parties only wish they had such captive audiences with such open purses that they can threaten with damnation if they don’t toe the line….

It doesn’t have to be an either/or wrt taxation, I still maintain. If religious groups want to be politically active then by all means they should be while playing by the same rules all these other organizations do.