The Proposition 8-like ballot measure will be voted on Tuesday, and no one is predicting the outcome.
In the meantime, the court has apparently sided with Karger that NOM can’t hide its contributors forever.
In the wake of Karger’s continued questions about just who is behind this effort — hint: look no further than the Mormon Church — NOM posted its 2008 IRS return on its website. See, they’re not hiding anything.
Indeed, this tax return is very revealing — up to a point.
It reveals an organization whose stated mission is “to educate the general public on the importance of marriage between one man and one woman in law and society.” Well, not exactly. Its actual mission is to seek out and destroy same sex marriage rights wherever they may be found. But let’s not quibble over semantics.
The return reveals that NOM raised $518,667 in 2007, and $2,968,880 in 2008. That buys a lot of signatures and TV ads.
But if you want to know who the major donors were, you’ll have to look elsewhere, because page after page of donor reports are blank. There are spaces for the names, but they’re not filled in. This group is certainly consistent in its refusal to be above-board and open with the public which it seeks to influence.
I was curious about what a 501 (c) (4) organization is, as opposed to a 501 (c) (3), the more familiar form of nonprofit that is strictly prohibited from political activities. According to the IRS, “a section 501 (c) (4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.” Well, that would seem to make NOM ineligible for the tax exemption.
But the IRS is contradictory on this issue. It also states: “Seeking legislation germane to the organization’s programs is a permissible means of attaining social welfare purposes. Thus, a section 501 (c) (4) social welfare organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status.”
Just what are it’s “exempt purposes,” anyway?
Perhaps the IRS never envisioned a group whose “social welfare purposes” involved attacking the welfare of a specific group of people and working against the betterment of society as a whole. Social welfare, indeed. Since when is the general social welfare promoted by relentlessly attacking hard-won civil rights of a minority group?
For more information on Karger’s most recent battle, visit www.californiansagainsthate.com/fiveforfred/.
CINDY FRAZIER is city editor of the Coastline Pilot. She can be contacted at (949) 494-2087 or cindy.frazier@latimes.com.
