John Bolton: A Portrait of GOP Foolishness About Trump

Parallels between German conservatives in the early 1930's who thought they could control Hitler and today's Republicans who viewed Trump as a manageable route to furthering their agenda continue to compound.  Like their German counterparts, Republicans are discovering that their hopes of controlling Trump were mere delusions. Like Hitler, Trump is mentally unstable and views himself as accountable to no one.   In both instances, conservative idiocy has brought severe damage to their respective countries and their institutions.  Former National Security Adviser - of whom I am no fan - is an example of GOP foolishness and the reality that Trump is a dangerous loose canon focused only on himself and his narcissistic delusions of grandeur.  A column in the Washington Post looks at Bolton's belated realization of his own folly.  Here are excerpts:

Donald Trump’s explicitly declared position in the scandal consuming his presidency is that pressuring a foreign power to “investigate” a leading domestic political opponent absolutely falls within his rightfully exercised authority. Trump has said this, and so has his White House counsel, making this the White House’s official political, substantive and legal position.

But this defense is cracking up. That’s because we’re now learning, one after another, that all of the people around him knew that it was grievously wrong — that is, all except for those who were carrying out Trump’s corrupt scheme.

As this becomes more public, Trump’s position will grow increasingly unsustainable — not just as a rhetorical matter but also in terms of whether he’ll be able to keep the support of Senate Republicans, his final line of defense.

The latest domino to fall is John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser. The New York Times reports that in July, Bolton grew so alarmed by efforts to pressure Ukraine to launch “investigations” into Joe Biden and his son that he instructed an aide to alert White House lawyers.

That aide is Fiona Hill, a former senior White House adviser on Russia and Europe. Hill testified about this exchange with Bolton to House investigators as part of their impeachment inquiry. Hill told them that Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, Trump lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney had run what The Post calls a “shadow” campaign to pressure Ukraine to do Trump’s political bidding.

“I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” Bolton reportedly told Hill to tell White House lawyers.

Crucially, this eruption came after a meeting in early July at which Sondland made it clear that the goal of this shadow campaign was to get Ukraine to revive investigations into Burisma, the company on whose board Biden’s son Hunter sat. This confirmed for Bolton that the goal was to leverage Ukraine into acting as Trump’s weapon against Biden — that is, by manufacturing smears designed to debilitate him in the 2020 election.

That made Bolton go “ballistic.” And on another occasion, Bolton described Giuliani, one of the scheme’s ringleaders, as “a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up.”

This long-running plot, of course, culminated in Trump’s July 25 call in which he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to undertake investigations that would undercut the idea that Russia interfered on Trump’s behalf in 2016, and again help him rig the election in 2020.

Trump’s stance continues to be that this pressure was entirely within his legitimate authority. The White House counsel’s letter, which we now know was largely dictated by Trump, declares that there was “nothing wrong” with the July 25 call . . . .

Ultimately, Hitler ignored his advisers thinking he knew better than everyone else.  Things ultimately ended badly for not only Hitler but also his sycophants and millions of Germans.  Republicans truly need a lesson in history.

It's Time for Congress to Impeach Trump

During his occupancy of the White House, Donald Trump has viewed his position as that of a Mafia Don who uses his office to threaten and harm opponents, enrich himself and his family, and who views the law and norms of behavior as something to be ignored, if not flagrantly violated. For his base, as long as he maintains his racist drumbeat and continues to throw favors and privileges to Christofascists, the fact that the Constitution is being subverted and criminal behavior is being normalized simply doesn't matter.  Hopefully, a majority of Americans feel otherwise and will pay attention to the impeachment inquiry announced yesterday and support members of Congress who take their oaths of office seriously and hold fast to the concept that no one, including the president is above the law.  An op-ed by a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings lays out why Trump needs to be impeached.   Here are highlights:

For those of us who were there during Watergate, the Ukraine scandal is beginning to sound like an echo chamber.

Multiple reports say that President Trump used his office to press Ukraine’s president to investigate Joe Biden and provide damaging information about him, though there is no evidence of wrongdoing on Mr. Biden’s part. This was a bid to affect the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, just as the Democratic National Committee headquarters break-in at the Watergate complex aimed to affect the 1972 presidential election.

Mr. Trump’s reported actions would amount to a Nixonian misuse of presidential power that threatens our democracy and constitutes high crime and misdemeanor. The Constitution is clear: A president who uses presidential powers for purely personal and political reasons, as Mr. Trump appears to have done, commits an impeachable offense.

Mr. Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani have already acknowledged much of what has been reported about the Ukraine affair. On July 25, Mr. Trump spoke by phone with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and is said to have mentioned Mr. Biden eight times. It was not casual name dropping. Mr. Giuliani also spoke with Ukrainian officials at Mr. Trump’s direction starting last May, urging them to investigate Mr. Biden. Mr. Trump admits that about a week before the infamous phone call, he put nearly $400 million in congressionally appropriated military aid for Ukraine on hold. It was not released until Sept, 11, after news broke of a whistle-blower complaint about the Zelensky call, a complaint that the inspector general for the intelligence community found “credible” and “of urgent concern.” This strongly suggests there was no legitimate reason for the hold. [A]n unredacted version of the complaint must be released, and since the transcripts Richard Nixon turned over to Congress were doctored, Congress should also demand a backup recording of the call. Assuming Mr. Trump refuses, Ukraine undoubtedly has a transcript and a recording. That recording could well be analogous to the Nixon White House tapes, which showed the president’s personal involvement in the cover-up, and Congress should request it immediately.

Like Mr. Nixon, Mr. Trump appears to have acted for his own personal political interests as opposed to a legitimate national interest. Mr. Nixon used his personal lawyer to pay hush money to the Watergate burglars. Mr. Trump used his personal attorney as the go-between with Mr. Zelensky, urging the Ukrainian president to work with Mr. Giuliani to investigate Mr. Biden.

Going through Mr. Giuliani says it all. If Mr. Trump had a shred of evidence against Mr. Biden or any legitimate governmental objective in view, he would have directed the Justice Department or State Department to work directly with Ukraine.

Holding up military assistance to coerce Ukraine into investigating Mr. Biden is itself a grave, impeachable abuse of power if done for personal and political reasons. The inspector general made a reference to a promise to a foreign leader in the whistle-blower’s complaint, though we don’t yet know what it was. If Mr. Trump promised to reward Ukraine with military aid for finding dirt on Mr. Biden, that could constitute bribery, a separate constitutional ground for impeachment.

It’s a violation of campaign finance law to solicit campaign help from a foreign country, as Mr. Trump knows well from the Russia collusion investigation. It’s also Nixonian.

Although we didn’t know this at the time of his impeachment, Mr. Nixon also secretly sought the help of a foreign government during his 1968 election campaign. Worried that the Vietnam peace treaty President Lyndon B. Johnson was pursuing would cause his defeat, Mr. Nixon sabotaged it by secretly promising South Vietnam it would do better under a Nixon presidency. It worked. The treaty talks failed, voters elected Mr. Nixon, and peace did not come for many more years.

As the legal commentator Benjamin Wittes noted last week on the website Lawfare, in addition to constituting abuse of power, pressuring Ukraine to investigate Mr. Biden and his son for political purposes violates their civil liberties. That also recalls Watergate, because Mr. Nixon violated the civil liberties of Daniel Ellsberg, who was being prosecuted for leaking the Pentagon Papers. Among the grounds for Nixon’s impeachment was his involvement in breaking into Mr. Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office, seeking information to smear him.

Like Mr. Nixon’s, Mr. Trump’s reported actions demand impeachment — the one remedy to protect the rule of law, the rights of Americans and the integrity of our elections from a president bent on violating them. The framers created the impeachment power to safeguard democracy. It is Congress’s urgent responsibility to use it now.

Washington State:Catholic Churches Can’t Collect Donations to Overturn Gay Marriage Law

I noted recently that the Diocese of Yakima, Washington, was directing all churches in the diocese to have a special collection effort in September to raise money to help overturn Washington State's marriage equality law enacted earlier in the year.  Now, the state has stepped in and told the Catholic Church that it cannot proceed with its plan without violating the state's campaign finance laws (I still believe the IRS needs to step in as well).    It's yet another example of the "godly Christian" folk believing that they are above the laws that govern the rest of us.  I hope the state goes after NOM as well.  The Boston Edge has details on the smack down received by the Catholic Church.  Here are highlights:

OLYMPIA - Washington’s campaign finance watchdog says the state’s Catholic churches can’t collect donations from parishioners for the campaign seeking to overturn the state’s gay marriage law.

Last week, Yakima Bishop Joseph Tyson sent a letter to pastors in 41 parishes of the Yakima Diocese asking them to announce a special collection that would go to Preserve Marriage Washington, which is fighting the same-sex marriage law that was passed earlier this year. The diocese’s chief of staff, Monsignor Robert Siler, said Tuesday that the expected collection date was Sept. 8-9.

But Lori Anderson, a spokeswoman for the state’s Public Disclosure Commission, says no organization can be an intermediary for a contribution. She says the church can hand out envelopes, but either a member of Preserve Washington has to be on hand to collect them or parishioners must send them in individually.  Anderson said the restrictions stem from Initiative 134, which voters passed in 1992 to regulate political contributions and campaign spending.

Siler said the diocese coordinated its efforts with the Washington state Catholic Conference.

Anderson said that even so, what the church is proposing to do is what federal laws refer to as "bundling," and that isn’t allowed under state law. Anderson said PDC officials would be reaching out to church officials in the coming days.  "We just want to make sure they understand what they can and can’t do," she said.

"Under state law, no one can be an intermediary for a contribution," Anderson said. "It doesn’t matter if it’s a loose pile of money or if each is in a little envelope."

I hope the state holds tough against the Church and shuts down their effort.

Washington State Now Has Enough Votes to Enact Gay Marriage

Since this morning's post went up, Democratic Senator Mary Margaret Haugen (pictured at left) has released a statement that she will support passage of the Washington Senate version of the gay marriage bill. Should Haugen and others who have announced their support of passage of the bills, same sex marriage is all but assured since Governor Christine Gregoire supports the bills. While the haters NOM has pledge $250,000 to attack legislators that support the measure, such attempts at intimidation appear to be failing. KIRO-TV has details:

Haugen's announcement came has hundreds of people filled the capitol to advocate for and against gay marriage. State senators began considering the bill during a morning committee hearing.

In a statement, Haugen said, "I know this announcement makes me the so-called 25th vote, the vote that ensures passage. That's neither here nor there. If I were the first or the seventh or the 28th vote, my position would not be any different. I happen to be the 25th because I insisted on taking this much time to hear from my constituents and to sort it out for myself, to reconcile my religious beliefs with my beliefs as an American, as a legislator, and as a wife and mother who cannot deny to others the joys and benefits I enjoy."

Washington would become the seventh state to legalize same-sex marriages, following New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. Washington state has had a domestic partnership law since 2007, and a "everything but marriage" law since 2009.

Haugen said she took her time making up her mind to "to reconcile my religious beliefs with my beliefs as an American, as a legislator, and as a wife and mother who cannot deny to others the joys and benefits I enjoy. This is the right vote and it is the vote I will cast when this measure comes to the floor."

Opponents argued that the measure goes against traditional marriage and the Bible.

"You are saying as a committee and a Legislature that you know better than God," said Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church.

The National Organization for Marriage issued a statement Monday morning pledging a referendum campaign to fight any gay marriage law at the ballot.

My question again is: When is NOM going to be forced to disclose its funding sources? That information needs to come out NOW so that voters and citizens will really know who is behind the anti-gay hate campaign. As noted many times before, I would not be surprised to see the Catholic Church (and/or the Knights of Columbus) and Mormon Church's as big money contributors. Should that prove to be the case, then then next question is: When will they lose their tax exempt status?

9th Circuit Dishes Protect Marriage Washington

The Christofascist who backed the Referendum 71 effort in Washington State - an initiative that would have repealed recognition of same sex relationships in the State of Washington - continue to whine and engage in desperate attempts to keep the names of the bigots who signed the petitions to put Referendum 71 on the ballot secret. Frankly, I have ZERO respect for those who want to take away civil legal rights of others yet lack the balls and courage to stand up and acknowledge their hatred of others and religious based bigotry. Thankfully, the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit basically kicked the whiners to the curb and refused to allow the petitions to be kept secret. Pam's House Blend has details on the latest bitch slap delivered to the Referendum 71 proponents (their spokesman, Larry Stickney, is pictured at left). Here are some highlights:

Moot is the word that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals used to describe Protect Marriage Washington‘s too-late effort to prevent the Washington Secretary of State from releasing more copies of the Referendum 71 petitions to the public.

In October, Federal District Court Judge Benjamin Settle, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled in their case Doe v. Reed that PMW was not entitled to an exemption from the Public Records Act and that therefore the Referendum 71 petitions they submitted to the state must be made available to the public by the Secretary of State. He also revealed the identities of the Doe plaintiffs and witnesses which until then had been secret.

PMW found itself in a pickle because they had failed to pre-file a request for a stay before Judge Settle ruled. As a group concerned with keeping the names of R-71 signatories and Doe plaintiffs secret, pre-filing a motion for a stay would have been a logical precaution for PMW to take in the event Judge Settle ruled against them.

But they didn’t. Instead they filed emergency motions for injunction after the fact. Between the time of Judge Settle’s ruling and PMW’s after-the-fact emergency motions, numerous copies of the R-71 petitions and Judge Settle’s ruling itself had entered the public domain. In addition, some Doe witnesses have outed themselves.

PMW is affiliated with the anti-gay hate group National Organization for Marriage. Doe v. Reed is just one in a string of NOM-linked cases seeking — unsuccessfully — to use ballot measures and legislative campaigns about domestic partnerships or marriage equality as vehicles for attacking campaign finance disclosure laws or other open government laws. Recent articles describing related NOM-linked cases can be found here and here.

In November, 2009 over 53% of the electorate voted to approve Referendum 71, making Washington the first state in the nation to vote affirmatively in support of comprehensive relationship recognition for LGBT families. PMW was the organization trying to use the R-71 vote to overturn the law.

Judge: Prop 8 Campaign Must Release Campaign Data

In a ruling that will cause the freepers and Christo-fascists and Mormons to go berserk, a federal judge has ruled that the sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban must hand over some internal campaign records to lawyers seeking to overturn the voter-enacted initiative. I suspect that such records will (1) possibly reveal improprieties and campaign law violations, (2) violations of IRS laws by the Mormon and Catholic Churches, and (3) expose the names of bigots who prefer to hide their bigotry since they lack the courage to publicly stand behind measures that strip other citizens of legal rights - much like the anonymous commenters I encounter on this blog (and whom I do not publish because of their cowardice). I fully believe in full disclosure of campaign contributors and believe that groups should not be able to bundle donations so as to hide the identity of contributors from the public. Here are some highlights from the San Francisco Chronicle:

*

Denying a request to shield the information, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker said the Protect Marriage campaign had failed to show that providing private e-mails, memos and reports would inhibit the political activities of gay marriage opponents or subject them to unbridled harassment.

*

The judge agreed with lawyers for two unmarried same-sex couples who have sued to strike down the ban, known as Proposition 8, that confidential communications between the campaign's leaders and professional consultants could reveal a rationale for denying gays the right to wed that is relevant to the case. The lawsuit argues that the measure was motivated by hostility toward gays and as such must be struck down as inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equality.

*

"What was decided not to be said in a political campaign may cast light on what was actually said," Walker said. At the same time, the judge said the couples' lawyers must limit their fact-finding request to cover only central issues and individuals, including Mormon and Catholic church representatives who served on the executive committee that oversaw the campaign. He also left open the possibility that he would restrict public access to the documents.

*

An example of the kind of information the plaintiffs are seeking is discussions showing that the campaign decided against running ads stating that marriage must be reserved to a man and a woman to foster responsible parenting since that is an argument Protect Marriage's lawyers are making now to uphold Proposition 8, Dusseault said.

*
Depending on how and when the internal information is disseminated, its contents could revive the hostility some gay marriage supporters directed at Proposition 8's financial donors after the ballot initiative passed in November.

*

I suspect we already know the reasons behind the Prop. 8 campaign: animus towards gays and unconstitutional religious based discrimination. And again, if one doesn't have the guts to publicly support a measure such as Prop. 8, then maybe they need to rethink their support for the measure. The law should not shield bigots from public view.

Campaign Law Violation Complaint Filed Against LDS

John Aravosis is reporting at America Blog that a complaint has been filed against the Mormon Church for campaign finance law violations. At first blush, it looks like there could well be merit. I wonder if the Knights of Columbus should be scrutinized too. These folks wear religion around on their sleeves but all too often feel that (1) they are utterly above the law in terms of in-kind contribution reporting and (2) are exempt from telling the truth in their political ads. Here's the text of the letter:

*

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

SLC 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.htmlAnother 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.

*

Multimedia 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 .

*

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