Skip to comments.Minnesota marriage amendment foe allowed to keep donation anonymous
Posted on 08/18/2012 7:48:30 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
A Roman Catholic Church employee who gave $600 to a group leading the opposition to a Minnesota constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples does not have to reveal his name.
State campaign finance regulators said in a decision Friday, Aug. 17, that the donor could be identified as "John Doe" in contribution reports to protect him from being fired by church officials.
It is the first time an individual has been exempted from the state's disclosure requirement, said Gary Goldsmith, executive director of the state Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board.
The donor told the board that when he contributed to Minnesotans United for All Families this year, he was not aware that his name and address would be made public on the organization's disclosure statements.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
So, do we take it that this exemption only applies if you are pro-death?
A none too bright wolf amongst the sheep.
Another example of someone who took a position knowing their beliefs are in direct conflict with their job, now they want the government to protect them? It can’t be to hard to figure out who this guy is and quietly ask him to leave.
It does not go against the 1st Amendment. The church is not a government entity therefore not subject to the Bill of Rights. The Constitution protects us from government, not private establishments.
Of course, those who support the amendment will have their names, addresses, phone numbers, photos and daily schedules distributed to deranged employees of the local LGBTQ center, along with a list of nearby gun shops.
>> Of course, those who support the amendment will have their names, addresses, phone numbers...
If I were to donate to a cause promoting my politics in this area, I would hope that I could remain anonymous.
And, sauce for the goose. May “John Doe” eventually and recant as publicly as he has thus far acted privately.
"John Doe" is simply another one of Satan's useful idiots. That's something he should be proud of and loudly proclaim to the world. However, not only is he most likely intrinsically disordered, he's a coward to boot.
“So, do we take it that this exemption only applies if you are pro-death?”
Sauce, goose, gander.
Donate through somebody else. Easy enough.
Open to debate on this.
This is why religious groups and true charities (and by this I mean fully tax-exempt organizations) are legally prohibited from lobbying for or against candidates for political office. You can't have a group lobbying public officials on the one hand, while at the same time hiding behind a First Amendment right to free speech or free exercise of religion to shield themselves from public exposure.
If I were in the SF Bay Area and I wanted to contribute to the Prop. 8 campaign, I'd want to avoid being harassed on the job and my kids being targeted at school. I'd want to stay friends with my fellow Shape Note Singers and my fellow Community Gardeners.
So I guess I'd have to find somebody who would contribute my donation for me, somebody big enough to survive being revenge-listed on some gay blog. Because people in vulnerable positions can't give unless they're connected enough to find a bundler.
(True dilemma. Not mine -- I'm in TN --- but a dilemma for CA friends.)
Is that what it's come to?
The church leadership stands on the double standards of heaven and hell as most church institutions do. A house, claiming allegence to Jesus that is divided against itself, can not stand. That is the status of modern churches. :(
Yes, I'm afraid “it” has indeed come to that.
I think it will get worse.
I can remember a time in the USA when citizens did not openly fear government. We accepted as appropriate a certain level of law and regulation as necessary for a free and peacefull society.
We no longer live in a peacefull and free society. We are very close to the tipping point, IMHO.
As a nation, we are now so deeply divided that there no longer exists one joint society. We are merely collections of various groups in violent opposition to each other.
I believe this societal division was greatly enhanced after the 1960s when the culture of drugs really started. Since then our Nation has been opened to so many do-goody parties/groups that people no longer care or give thought to what the Founding Fathers sought to establish. Of course the political foundation for such a change goes back to the days of POTUSA Wilson and the intent to put our government under the control of internationalists.
A poll from July 22nd - still looks good:
“The poll by SurveyUSA, a public polling firm that partners with local TV stations, had 52 percent of voters saying they would vote for the amendment to 37 percent against it. Six percent were unsure; 5 percent would not vote.”
One does not have to use a religious reference to be pro traditional marriage. Society replenishes itself by providing a special nest [marriage] to raise replacement citizens. It is why there are exemptions by the IRS for families with children.
Same sex cohabiting is legal and they can establish a legal partnership with survival rights and powers of attorney, etc. They cannot, however, replenish society with citizens.
Marriage should stay traditional.
When I was younger, even when I disagreed with the occupants of the current seats of power, I assumed (perhaps naively) that there were some people "up there" who at least had an eye on the common good. By "up there" I meant in any position of influence: the legislature, business, the courts, industry, labor, finance, the military, the political parties. Someone must be smart enough to know what was going on, and responsible enough to have some course of corrective action in mind, based on the requirements of virtue and the good of the nation.
And I thought there were people of good will everywhere.
Now I just don't know.
Why not find a new line of work or are you trying to sabotage the employer's agenda from within ?
Can a double standard ever be so blatantly obvious?
Really? You know, I'd like to. Perhaps following Regime Change.
[Are] you trying to sabotage the employer's agenda from within?
Their "agenda" so far as they have one, is fine. Their source of funding, and their attitude toward it, gives me pause. To be as vague as necessary, they provide a valuable service through unconstitutional (10th Amendment) means.
So I don't mind doing it, and don't much mind who I do it for; but have a political position that makes me disapprove of their revenue stream.