Bill requiring financial transparency from religious mega-groups fails

[Ian David]

Cross-posted in the GLBT Group:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=26766&mesg_id=26766


Bill requiring financial disclosures from religious groups defeated

By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | January 25, 2006

The Massachusetts House today soundly defeated legislation that would require religious organizations to file annual financial reports with the state, dealing a major blow to lawmakers who sought to make churches and other institutions more accountable to the public.

By a vote of 147-3, the House shot down the latest in a stream of controversial bills that have come to the floor in recent weeks, including failed legislation to grant in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants and a primary seat belt bill that narrowly passed last week.

The legislation on religious organizations, which prompted fierce lobbying and scores of phone calls and e-mails to legislators, was seen as a major test of the Catholic Church's influence on Beacon Hill. The church was joined by many other religious groups in opposing the bill, saying it was an unwarranted and costly intrusion by the state into the practice of religion.

The bill would have required all religious organizations to file limited information about their finances and real estate holdings annually with the attorney general's charities division, and would have mandated that any organization with annual revenues of more than $500,000 file detailed financial reports every year.

More:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/01/25/bill_requiring_financial_disclosures_from_religious_groups_defeated/


See also:

New study connects the dots between churches, antigay groups
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid25053.asp

Substantial amount of AIDS funding goes to (extremist) religious groups
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2006/01/substantial_amo.html

See related thread:

Money Flows To Bigoted Churches
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x26741

[Zenlitened]

1. That totally fucking blows. These so-called "churches" fought this thing..

... tooth-and-nail because they DREAD the possibility we'll see how much money goes directly from their collection plates to politics -- the hateful, regressive, destructive causes so favored by the "religious."

Sickening.

[Idylle Moon Dancer]

2. yes. crap.

I need to get myself up to speed on state politics. I don't even know who's my rep. in the statehouse anymore.

[Ian David]

3. This is the perfect bill for a public referendum.

Let The People Vote!

We need to know: how much are churches paying to keep abuse victims quiet?

It's unfortunate that it might stir-up some anti-Catholic sentiment when we talk about the pedophilia scandal, but remember: we're doing this out of love.

We need to do this to protect the children and the families.

And then there is the public's compelling interest in where their donations and tax money is going, etc.

Let The People Vote!

[Zenlitened]

4. Hee hee! Well, of course, we have only the purest of motives!

Seriously, though... I'm more concerned about "church" money being spent to promote anti-gay ballot issues.

Doing my taxes this year, not a dime of the money I gave to groups like MassEquality or HRC is tax-deductible... because they're all about politics.

Yet the other side in this fight is bankrolled by the catholic church -- feel free to itemize those donations on "Schedule B."

:grr:

Does money from collection plates go right into the hands of lobbyists and lawyers working to deny civil liberties to citizens? How about money "for the poor" -- is it paying the salaries of signature-gatherers? Who knows what kind of shell game they're playing?

I don't know. And they'll do anything it takes to make sure we never find out.

[Ian David]

5. PRECISELY! N/T

[polmaven]

7. I really have to disagree

There is more than the Catholic Church in Massachusetts.

I am the lay leader of a United Methodist Church....and yes...I am VERY liberal, as is my pastor, and the pastor before her.

The problem with this bill is not necessarily it's motive. I understand that. The problems are important.

1) It would hurt the church it was originally aimed at the least. The Catholic Church in MA is overseen by 4 Diocese, and the $$ is controlled by them. Each Dioceses would have been required to hire a CPA each year to do the reporting. The UM churches, in contrast, control our own budgets and affairs, and each would be required to hire a CPA individually (from outside the congregation) to file. For churches struggling just to keep the roof from leaking, etc, that is a big burden.

2) My individual church's finances are a wide open book, and the N.E. Conference's financial books are pretty open as well. They are published in a report each year after our annual conference meeting. The book can be purchased for, I think, $18.00 by anyone who wants to see it. It lists all that went on at the conference, and all officials, and all ministerial members, and all lay leaders,,,,etc. Wide open!

3) I really don't see how this was Constitutional.

4) If there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, the religious organizations are already required, with a warrant, to show the books to officials.

[YankeyMCC]

8. Why are churches exempt from the same standards of

open books as other non-profits?

If there is a potential for financial burden in the bill (hiring cpa's) I'd support changes to help (although I don't see how the cost can be eliminated and don't see why it should) that but I don't see how enforcing open books violates the establishment clause.

[polmaven]

9. I have no problem

with the requirement I mentioned that, given probable cause, the books of the church are available with a warrant.

Churches are not like any other non-profit, as they are not regulated by the state. They are not charities. While part of what they do may be charitable work, they are not charitable organizations.

I also have no problem with members of the religious organization asking it's leaders to make the financial books transparent. As I said, in the UM Church, they already are. The reports in my individual church are available for the world to see if they ask. One of the State reps recently said to me that since the public gives the church aw tax exempt status, they should expect the accountability in return.

As far as the Constitutionality, I really think this comes way to close to government interference into the churches' business. The bill required way more than just an accountant's report each year. It required the names of the people who took the collections every week, the names of the people who did all the counting, the depositing, and, indeed, the giving.

I do NOT want the government regulating the affairs of my church any more than I want the church to be interfering in the government.

[YankeyMCC]

10. ALmost

I almost agree with this statement:
"I do NOT want the government regulating the affairs of my church any more than I want the church to be interfering in the government."

The government has the right even the obligation to regulate many things including religious organizations that do things like ask for people's money for whatever reason.

I would change that statement to something like "I do NOT want the government Entangled with or dictating the affairs of my church any more than I want the church to be interfering in the government."

I don't agree that requiring open books is interference of any sort. And "Churches are not like any other non-profit, as they are not regulated by the state" That points exactly to my issue with this. They should be. Just because they do different work doesn't mean they have less responsibility to the people who's money they ask for and take or that the government has less responsibility to regulate.

[polmaven]

11. I agree that the people

giving the money have every right to know what is being done with that money, and, as I stated before, at least in the UM church, both at the local and at higher levels, the books are WIDE open. What is being done with the $$ collected is reported on a regular basis, both to the people who give it and to anyone else who cares to know.

The proposed budget for the upcoming year is put before anyone interested enough to come to the annual meeting,and it is voted on by the members present. Copies are then put out on a table in the Narthex, and can be taken by anyone who walks past.

Larger expenditures require a special vote of the congregations. My local church recently had to sell a parcel of our land, and we had to jump through hoops of CHURCH government before we did it.

I think that is true with MOST religious organizations. I also think the government may be within its authority to require churches to do THAT...Regular and open reports to the members and anyone who has donated, done by the officers the members of the church have elected. Reports to the donors....not to the government.

Because there is some question within one denomination is not a reason for all of us to have to be regulated. We both know what happens when government gets involved, particularly with fiscal matters.

In this bill, Each report required another filing fee. Each time the church elected new officers, those officers would have to be reported to the state... with another fee being paid. The paper work would require putting someone on the payroll to do it, something most churches I know cannot afford, particularly if they are going to continue to do the work they were meant to do.

You don't agree that regulation leads only to more regulation? That is interference and that is not acceptable in this country.

[YankeyMCC]

12. No I don't agree

that regulation leads only to more regulation. We regulate almost everything in this country as does most developed countries and for good reason.

I would be fine with negotiating the limits on what size (based on how many people and how much money) organization must met the regulation, or perhaps make it a sliding scale sort of thing with smaller organizations (I don't care if they are churches or non-profits, and notice I say non-profits not "charities" because there are plenty of non-charity non-profits the work they do it irrelevant it's the money they handle in the name of the people that give it to them and how they collect and use that money). But it is unfair and unjust to exempt some organizations from the same regulation similar organizations have to met just because they are called a "church".

[paineinthearse]

6. vote count

Is there a "clerk of the house" site that posts votes?