Karger contends that The Mormon Church organized phone banks from Utah and Idaho, sent direct mail to voters, transported people to California over several weekends, used the LDS NewsRoom to send out News Releases to promote their activities, walked precincts, ran a speakers bureau, distributed thousands of lawn signs and other campaign material, organized a “surge to election day,” had Church leaders travel to California, set up very elaborate web sites, produced at least 9 commercials and 4 other video broadcasts and conducted at least 2 satellite simulcasts over 5 Western states. All of these actions were geared toward nonmembers.Karger also sent letter to Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) FPPC Chairman Ross Johnson, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. Read it below the fold.
November 13, 2008
Chairman Ross Johnson
Fair Political Practices Commission
428 J Street, Suite 800
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
California Department of Justice
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Attorney General Mark Shurtleff
Office of the Attorney General
Utah State Capitol Complex
350 North State Street Suite 230
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-2320
Dear Chairman Johnson, Generals Brown & Shurtleff:
Today we filed a formal complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) aka the Mormon Church of Salt Lake City, Utah for not reporting various non monetary contributions to ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, A Project of California Renewal I.D. # 1302592. The Mormon Church has been highly secretive about its massive involvement in the campaign, but we managed to piece together evidence of some of their more visible activities done directly to communicate with California voters, including:
· Church organized phone banks from Utah and Idaho
· Sending direct mail to voters
· Transported people to California over several weekends
· Used the LDS Press Office to send out multiple News Releases to promote their activities to nonmembers
· Walked precincts
· Ran a speakers bureau
· Distributed thousands of lawn signs and other campaign material
· Organized a “surge to election day”
· Church leaders travel to California
· Set up of very elaborate web sites
· Produced at least 9 commercials and 4 other video broadcasts all in support of Prop 8
· Conducted at least 2 satellite simulcasts over 5 Western states.
All of these unreported contributions by the Mormon Church were on top of its massive fund-raising effort; the largest ever undertaken on a social issue ballot initiative.
Under California Election Law organizations such as the Mormon Church are not required to report activities if they strictly constitute “member communication.” We will explain why we feel that the activities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints went far beyond “member communication,” and were instead specifically targeted at California’s 17 million voters. By not reporting any of these non monetary contributions, the Mormon Church violated the Political Reform Act.
The only mention of compliance was a news story stating that the Mormon Church reported a single non monetary contribution of $2078.00 for Church Elder L. Whitney Clayton’s travel expenses for one trip to California. Was there only one trip? Were no other Church officials traveling to California for such an important campaign?
The Mormon Church made the Yes on Prop 8 campaign a national priority beginning on June 20,, 2008 when Church President David S. Monson sent his now famous letter to be read in every church building, where he said, “We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment (Prop 8) by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.” http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage This was their call to action, and was undoubtedly designed to get members to begin the outreach to nonmembers.
Two other organizations that were also involved in the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, reported substantial non monetary contributions. The National Organization for Marriage of Princeton, New Jersey reported 49 separate non monetary contributions between 02/01/08 and 4/16/08 totaling $210,634,75. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family of Colorado Springs, Colorado reported non monetary contributions between 12/7/07 and 10/15/08 of $83,790.00.
Phone Banks
On October 8, 2008 the Associated Press reported that “Mormons Recruit Out-of-State for Gay Marriage Ban. Mormons living outside California have been asked to volunteer for a telephone campaign to help pass a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage in the state.”
The Mormon Church announced one week before the November 4, 2008 election that it was canceling its phone centers in Utah established to call California voters. Were these in operation before they were canceled? What were the costs of these phone centers? How many calls were made to California voters from these massive call centers?
News reports said that students at BYU – Idaho in Rexford, Idaho were using a call center in that town every Thursday evening to call voters in California. This type of interstate phone network requires a lot of setup, supervision, voter sheets, scripts, training and the price of the calls. Call centers are used to communicate with
nonmembers. Phone centers in place to contact nonmembers would constitute a contribution. No contribution was reported.
Gary Lawrence – State LDS Grassroots Director
Veteran political operative Gary Lawrence http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/CompanyDetail.aspx?CompanyID=55969576&cs=QHDVgcoxQ was based in Orange County, California. His title was State LDS Grassroots Director. Lawrence’s mission was to direct all Mormon activities in California (attached). He had a web site set up expressly for this purpose: http://yesonprop8.blogspot.com/2008/08/gary-lawrence-grass-roots-coordinator.html
Gary Lawrence’s operation had a timeline beginning on August 16, 2008 though election day of 12 Saturday precinct walks. All walkers were to be Mormons leading up to the election day surge of 100,000 Mormon volunteers and they went door-to-door to canvass nonmember voters. Was the Church actively involved in this massive recruitment? Here is a copy of the Mormon Organizational memo: http://wikileaks.org/leak/lds-proposition8-notes-2008.pdf This directive from Church Elders Ballard, Christopheron & Clayton detail Church plans for yard signs, schedule, volunteers, out of state calling teams, speakers bureau and voter registration. More internet communications are available on this site: http://www.p8california.com/Job.html Did the Church participate financially in this massive voter outreach? If so, all of these voter communication activities to nonmembers constitute a contribution. No contribution was reported.
Saturday Rallies
These took place throughout California on the 3 Saturdays prior to the election. Thousands of yellow T-shirt clad Yes on 8 supporters were lined up for miles with signs in targeted areas of the state yelling, chanting and screaming at passing motorists. There were reports that these demonstrators were mostly Mormons, and that many were bussed in from Utah and surrounding states. We have heard that some of the busses had out of state license plates. Who paid for the buses, travel costs, meals and other expenses of all the Mormon participants? No contributions were reported.
Satellite Broadcasts
It appears that the first satellite simulcast was on October 8, 2008 and was beamed to 5 Western states. Apostle Robert D. Hales led this broadcast on various aspects of the campaign, including how to deal with the issues and how to conduct yourself. http://www.meridianmagazine.com/churchupdate/081010prop8.html
Another satellite broadcast took place at a later date, and was led by Church Elders M. Russell Ballard, Quentin L. Cook and L. Whitney Clayton. It addressed the Church's doctrine of marriage and participation in the Protect Marriage Coalition. Then the Newsroom of the Mormon Church issued a Press Release (attached) about this broadcast making it available to California voters and anyone with internet access. This video was not password protected and was promoted by the Church and available to nonmembers. Here is the press release about it as well as other Mormon activities: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/same-sex-marriage-and-proposition-8 Satellite broadcasts to hundreds of locations are very expensive, and by making it available to nonmembers, it is a contribution. No contribution was reported.
Multi-media Program
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appeared to have done a tremendous amount of work in this area. A very slick web site (attached) http://www.preservingmarriage.org/ was developed specifically for the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. The title is “Preserving the Divine Institution of Marriage.” This web site states that it is “An Official Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” c 2008 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.
PreservingMarriage.com is primarily a showcase for 9 separate Yes on Prop 8 commercials that are very professionally produced. They feature mostly young people talking about why same-sex marriage is wrong. There is an email update request box, and another to send feedback. The viewer is encouraged to share this site and “spread the word.” Site visits are not limited to just Mormons, and everyone is “invited to share these videos with others.” There is even a very prominent “Vote Yes on Prop 8, Support Traditional Marriage” banner on the home page. Certainly this web site was put in place to reach California voters. It is on the internet, and therefore available to all.
This web page on PreservingMarriage.com has 13 very professionally made commercials and videos: http://www.preservingmarriage.org/videos.html (attached).
All of these commercials as well as their web site were clearly designed to communicate with the public. No contribution was reported.
Church Denial
On November 9, 2008 Don Eaton a spokesman for the Mormon Church was quoted on ABC – KGO Television stating, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints put zero money in this (election).” When I personally spoke with him Monday, November 10, 2008 and asked him if the PreservingMarriage.com web site was sponsored by the Church, he quickly said that it was not, but was “a part of the campaign.”
In 1998, the Mormon Church directly contributed $1.1 million to ban same-sex marriages in Alaska and Hawaii, and received widespread criticism for that. So this year in California it appears that the Mormon Church was trying to avoid any direct contributions to Yes on Prop 8, and instead raised millions from its member families. That is legal, but all the money spent to communicate with nonmembers must be reported if it exceed $100. Clearly the Mormon Church has vastly exceeded that threshold. We ask that the Fair Political Practices Commission and the Attorneys General of California and Utah immediately begin a full and thorough investigation of all campaign related activities undertaken by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah to determine if there were any reporting violations.
Thank you very much for your prompt attention to this very important matter.
Sincerely,
Fred Karger
Founder / Campaign Manager
Californians Against Hate
http://californiansagainsthate.com/619-592-2008
cc: Commissioner Timothy A. Hodson
Commissioner A. Eugene Huguenin, Jr.
Commissioner Robert Leidigh
Commissioners Ray Remy
It has been a strange couple of weeks. Just last week, I saw something that I never thought I'd see in my lifetime, and felt like I was witnessing it for all my ancestors who didn't live to see a hope fulfilled. But - with a "twoness of being" that DuBois probably didn't imagine when he coined the term - it was a deeply conflicted moment.
As a black man, in that moment I felt like more of an American than I ever had before, like a barrier to full citizenship and belonging had been raised. As a gay man with a husband and a family, however, I ended up feeling like less of an American than I ever had before; divorced from the celebrating and even the historic significance of the moment by a barrier to citizenship and belonging that fell more firmly into place even as another one was lifted.
My response to the events of the past week have been informed by that "twoness of being," and a conflict that demands I prioritize one part of my identity over another. It's nothing new to black gay Americans, and we often come down on different sides of that struggle. Lines are drawn, and suddenly I have to be careful of what I say. While I can't say which side anyone else should come down on, some of the rhetoric of the past week - particularly around race and marriage - is troubling.
I'm struck, in particular by Jasmyne Cannick's claim that marriage isn't important for black gays and lesbians.
Why? Because I don't see why the right to marry should be a priority for me or other black people. Gay marriage? Please. At a time when blacks are still more likely than whites to be pulled over for no reason, more likely to be unemployed than whites, more likely to live at or below the poverty line, I was too busy trying to get black people registered to vote, period; I wasn't about to focus my attention on what couldn't help but feel like a secondary issue.
The first problem with Proposition 8 was the issue of marriage itself. The white gay community never successfully communicated to blacks why it should matter to us above everything else -- not just to me as a lesbian but to blacks generally. The way I see it, the white gay community is banging its head against the glass ceiling of a room called equality, believing that a breakthrough on marriage will bestow on it parity with heterosexuals. But the right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights. Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?
Marriage is not a panacea, and no substitute for the much needed socioeconomic reforms, but marriage equality would help my family, many other black gay and lesbian families, and our children. In fact, some of the very issues Cannick brought up would be impacted by marriage equality in ways that would benefit black gay and lesbian couples and families.
The economy is in a downturn, and we all know that when the rest of America catches a cold, our communities get pneumonia. Unfortunately, not having access to the benefits and protections of marriage leaves too many of our families out in the cold. The National Black Justice Coalition's joint report with the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force on Black same-sex households from the 2000 census data shows that Black same-sex couples report less annual median income than Black married opposite-sex couples and White same-sex couples. In difficult times inequality forces them to make do with fewer resources than their heterosexual married counterparts, because they're ineligible for protections and benefits that help families stay afloat in crises.
Figures are abstract, but represent real families pay a real price for inequality. Mikki Mozelle and Lisa Kebreau, a black lesbian couple - among those for whom Cannick thinks marriage equality isn't a priority - who were also one of the plaintiff couples in Maryland's marriage lawsuit, spent upwards of $6,000 on legal documents to give their family a few protections, and with no guarantee that their documents will be recognized.
Iin the Maryland County where I live, a $55 application fee gets you a marriage license and the 1,049 benefits and protections that come with it. So heterosexuals pay about $0.05 per protection/benefit. For Mozlle and Kebreau (and other black gay couples) pay hundreds of times more than heterosexuals for less protection and fewer benefits, and often out a less income.
No matter how expensive they are, not having those documents exacts a cost. Ask Takia Foskey and Jo Rabb, a black lesbian couple - for whom, Cannick says, marriage equality isn't all that important - and plaintiffs in Maryland's marriage lawsuit. In 2003, Rabb had emergency gall bladder surgery. Foskey was not allowed to see Rabb, receive any information about her condition, or sit in the family waiting room. Because she was not family.
Foskey and Rabb resemble a lot of other black same-sex couples, who are 25% more likely to hold municipal jobs, and who are twice as likely to raise children. Rabb, a Baltimore city bus driver, cannot enroll Foskey and her children in the state health plan. So,went without health insurance while Foskey worked part-time,including a son with asthma. Foskey and her children are ineligible for the death benefits from Rabb's employer, if she should have an accident on her route.
Because of ineligibility for the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, neither Rabb or Foskey have the job security to take time off and care for the other in the event of an accident or illness. In addition, Rabb could not use medical leave to care for either of Foskey's biological children. Our families are more likely to include non-biological - adopted or jointly-raised - children, who also suffer the consequences of the inequality.
Alicia Heath-Toby and Saundra Toby-Heath, a black lesbian coulple - yet another for whom Cannick has declared marriage equality a low priority - and plaintiff in the New Jersey Marriage Case, paid two health insurance premiums, because neither could carry the other her health insurance. They couldn't get family policy, because, they are not legally a family; twenty years together and grandchildren notwithstanding
Add the above and the lack of marriage equality becomes even more expensive financially. Cannick is right about too many Blacks living at or below the poverty line, or living just this side of it. For black gay families, inequality adds another economic burden to the reality lower incomes, and paying more for fewer protections, while also raising children.
Inequality exacts a different price when lose a loved one dies unexpectedly.
Wesley Mercer, a gay black man, was among many gay and lesbian Americans who lost their lives on September 11, 2001. Mercer, 70, a vice president of corporate security for Morgan Stanley, died helping evacuate others from the World Trade Center. His partner of 26 years, Bill Randolph, also a black gay man. struggled to get equal recognition for her relationship with Mercer. Morgan Stanley gave him $700 to cover immediate expenses, and later a check for $10,000. Though Mercer supplied half the household income, Randolph will not receive Social Security benefits, workers compensation, Mercer's pension for 25 years service in the army, or special memorial funds, because only spouse are eligible.
Randolph had spoken up about what he faced as a gay man losing a partner on 9/11, without the benefits and protections of marriage. I doubt he believes he doesn't need marriage equality. I doubt any of the black gay couples who were plaintiffs in some of the state-level lawsuits -Corey Davis & Andre LeJune (CA), Mikki Mozelle & Lisa Kebreau (MD), Alvin Williams & Nigel Simon (MD), Takia Foskey & Jo Rabb (MD), Alicia Heath-Toby & Saundra Toby-Heath (NJ) - would agree that that it's a "secondary issue."
Sometimes the cost cannot be calculated in dollars and cents.
This weekend, while in downtown D.C., we ran into a friend of ours and his son, who is just a year younger than our oldest. While the two boys played together, we chatted about the election, and learned that he had spent election day volunteering, doing voter defense in Virginia.
We've known him for almost six years. We celebrated with him and his partner - a black gay couple - when they adopted their son after several disappointments, and we celebrated their wedding with them. Two years ago his husband -an apparently healthy man - collapsed at work, and was rushed to the hospital. Our friend arrived at the hospital only to be told that without proof of their relationship he could not see his husband or receive any information about his husband's condition.
Without knowing what was wrong, or whether his husband would survive until he got back, he drove home, retrieved their legal documents, returned to the hospital and was allowed to see his husband, with enough to say goodbye.
I told that story to our white, heterosexual neighbor. She shared with me what happened when her husband was rushed to the hospital. She said she arrived at the hospital and said three words: "I'm his wife." She got three words in response: "Right this way."
The difference is stark, and while it may be an insignificant difference to Cannick, it wasn't to our friend, or to Takia Foskey and Jo Rabb, and it probably isn't to any of the 85,000 black same-sex couples across the country, struggling with the day to day economic challenges of inequality that make it difficult to protect and provide for our families.
Anti-gay marriage amendments and ballot initiatives like Proposition 8 only harm black gay and lesbian couples who are already economically disadvantaged. Cannick may think marriage equality is "secondary" to other issues, or can wait until others are addressed. But for thousands of our families -who will continue to suffer injustices economic and otherwise, indefinitely and without remedy.
For many black gay and lesbian couples and their families, inequality is a daily burden that only makes it more difficult to make ends meet, put food on the table, keep a roof over their heads, and simply provide for their families.
For many of our families, marriage equality is not a "luxury," as Cannick calls it. It is justice.
Marriage isn't the only solution to these problems, by any means, and it for many it may not be the right solution. It shouldn't be our only focus on or strategy. But neither should marriage be rejected out of hand for everyone.
There are many paths to justice. We each chose ours for different, often deeply personal reasons. Sometimes they weave together in places where we need help and can help one another to keep going. Sometimes they part, but they inevitably cross again. We will meet each other many times on our winding paths to justice. We will need each other again. Let's not put roadblocks in front of each other.
I won't ask Cannick to change her priorities. I wish she wouldn't decide for my family, and other Black gay families, what our priorities are or should be.
Subscribe to daily Email
0 comments:
Post a Comment