This diary is the first in a series I plan to write about (IMHO) one of the most dangerous organizations on the right today,
James Dobson's Focus on the Family. (For those of you who don't know about them, you should: they are one of the biggest sources of influence over and clout behind today's "christian crusaders".)
Although it is fairly long, there really is an important point to it at the end. The basis is a letter I just received from them. Crucially, I believe that this letter is evidence of a violation by Focus on the Family (a 501(C)(3) non-profit organization) of the restrictions that accompany their tax exempt status.
The purpose of this first diary (in the series I am writing about this letter) then is to query other DailyKos members, who I'm sure will know more about the law related to these, as to a) whether this is really a violation, and b) how to proceed if it is.
In my opinion, an ideal outcome of this would be for Focus on the Family to loose its C3 status! (But, even if this isn't possible, I'd settle for the lesser, but still rewarding, go-round of Dobson bashing.)
Background
Over the weekend, my wife and I got a thick envelope from James Dobson's organization, Focus on the Family. (Actually, it was addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. MyFirstName MyLastName" -- something I now notice after reading
James Dobson's War on America, so perhaps technically my wife is not as tainted as I by this association.)
Now before you get the wrong idea, I want to quickly point out that we are definitely not members of this organization, nor do we like getting mail from them! Several years ago my conservative, christian, republican mother, who is, I'm sorry to say, heavily influenced by "Dr." Dobson, took it upon herself to subscribe my (at that time) young family to his magazine. (It's a "mom" thing. She thought she was doing a good thing and I can forgive her for this.) Basically, this meant more junk mail and we just ignored it.
Then, after Bush got elected the first time and we started becoming more and more alarmed at the direction he and his cartel were taking this country, we started to feel uncomfortable and embarrassed to be receiving mail like this. Furthermore, my oldest son had learned how to read and I did not want him to be exposed. So we tried to cancel our subscription and get our name taken off their mailing list. For a little while, this worked, but then they started sending stuff again. So we tried again, and the same thing happened. To make a long story short, this has gone on now for over 3 years.
So when the letter arrived on Saturday, and my wife showed it to me, I groaned and told her to throw it away. (I can't even bring myself to put this in the recycling!) But she was drawn to open it, much like we're drawn to look at roadkill on the side of the road I guess, by the colorful picture on the front of the envelope. The writing on the envelope was "The Road NOT Taken and other encouraging news from Dr. James Dobson". Next to the "Road" part was a picture of a pole with two green street signs on it, as in the sort you'd find at an intersection. One simply read "RIGHT". The other read "LEFT" and next to it "DEAD END".
Anyway, as my wife read me portions of the letter, I got so pissed I decided I had to post it here. I guess if they're going to keep sending us this crap, the least I can do is try to do something positive with it!
Since the letter is a full six pages long and is copyrighted (see disclaimer below), I'm not going to post the whole thing here at once. Instead, I thought I'd break it down into sections and write a series of diaries about each, analyzing them from the perspective of a Christian who happens to also be, politically, a proud progressive, the point being two-fold: first, to just show what this dangerous organization is up to, and second to provide a resource to be used by other people with friends/family-members under the sway of this group.
Finally, in the process of writing this first diary, a third motivation also presented itself. I found myself increasingly suspicious that this letter violates the restrictions that are placed on C3 non-profit organizations.
Disclaimer:
Given the vindictive nature of the organization that I am about to write about, I feel the need to be extra careful here. The letter from which I will be quoting, signed by James C. Dobson, Ph.D. (Founder and Chairman of Focus on the Family Action) contains the following copyright statement:
This letter may be reproduced without charge and in its entirety for non-commercial and non-political purposes without prior permission from Focus on the Family Action, Inc. (c) 2005 Focus on the Family Action, Inc. All Rights Reserved. International Copyright Secured. Printed in the U.S.A. "Focus on the Family" is a registered trademark of Focus on the Family, a California Nonprofit Religious Corporation, and is used pursuant to a license agreement.
Therefore, I need to first say that I am posting this without authorization from Focus on the Family Action, Inc. under the "fair use" provisions of Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. (Except where noted explicitly, all typographic errors are mine. In all quotes, any emphasis has been added by me.)
Obviously, I am not trying to make money from this post, nor am I trying to help any commercial competitor of theirs. Furthermore, I assert that my purpose for posting this is "non-political". I am posting this not to advance the agenda of any particular political party nor influence government policy. (Indeed, since "Focus on the Family" claims to not be a political organization, the achievement of my goals should not have any direct political consequences. But this disclaimer has been added because the copyright holder is actually "Focus on the Family Action, Inc.", a slightly different organization. More on this below.)
Rather, my purpose for posting portions of this letter is to comment on its content -- both intellectual and religious. By revealing the rhetoric and agenda of this organization, I hope to provide people and groups that the organization plans to attack (as will be shown in the excerpts from the letter in future diaries) a warning and means of preparing a defense. And, as a Christian, it is my hope that by revealing the underlying hypocrisy, bigotry, and blatant arrogance inherent in this letter I might help prevent other Christians from being persuaded by this group of increasing influence over people who share my faith. Finally, as a citizen whose family members have donated to the allegedly apolitical organization of Focus on the Family, I post to allow a more thorough examination of this notion.
Letter Overview:
(From here on out, I'll refer to "Focus on the Family" as FotF and "Focus on the Family Action, Inc." as FotFAI.)
In this first installment, since my intro has already been so long, I am just going to give an overview of the letter, with some teaser quotes (enough to establish the letter's overtly political nature), and then talk about one issue. In future diaries, I'll analyze the propaganda in each of these sections in turn.
So the six-page letter is broken down as follows (for those of you fellow Bible scholars out there, his letter is quite obviously based on Paul's epistles as a model):
- Annoying background (i.e. gloating) section of the letter
- Paragraph 1: Pres. Bush is the best president in recent history!
- Paragraph 2: We should be excited Congress is now led by conservative christians (although "the battle for the culture is far from over")!
- Paragraph 3: Bashing of Kerry based on distortions of his abortion and gay marriage positions... And, this nice little apolitical tidbit:
... Shirley and I shared that concern. It was not because we favored a Republican as opposed to a Democrat in the White House. Rather, it was because the two major candidates and their parties were at opposite ends of the universe on the social issues that matter most. ...
Note the careful use of words here: making sure that this will be presented as their own personal view and not FotF's. Yet despite the smarminess, I believe the last sentence (in the context of the rest of the letter) makes fairly clear that both the Dobson's and FotF favored the Republican party.
- Paragraph 4: The linchpin of the election was the future make-up of the US Supreme Court.
There were a couple of unbelievable quotes here too, just to whet your appetite for future diaries:
... There was even speculation, whether rational or not, that Sen. Hillary Clinton could have become the next Chief Justice. ... During Justice Anthony Kennedy's confirmation hearings in 1988, Senator Edward Kennedy [D-MA] assured the country that this now 16-year veteran of the court did not consider the Constitution to be a "fossil frozen in the past." In other words, Justices can just make it up as they go along!
- Paragraph 5: Takes credit for getting Bush re-elected. More gloating about Values.
- Paragraph 6: Trying to explain what Values means --> Hollywood bashing.
- Paragraph 7: More Hollywood bashing. Distortions about campaign finance reform and contributions.
- Paragraph 8: In your face, Michael Moore! Take that Jimmy Carter!
- Homosexuality
- Paragraph 9: Even more influential for helping Bush get re-elected: homophobia.
- Paragraph 10: Vast majority of Americans say don't mess with "the traditional family". ("imperious judges"!)
- Paragraph 11: Anti-gay-marriage rallying cry! With the bonus that he actually calls Justice Kennedy "the most dangerous man in America"! Hmmm....
- Paragraph 12: Now we're invoking Lincoln's Gettysburg Address! (But hey, we actually agree on something here. Yep. We live in an oligarchy. We just disagree on who we should be concerned about.)
- Paragraph 13: Louisiana example of how Judge Morvant gave 80% of the people in the state the finger.
- Paragraph 14: Rehash of the MA appeal to SCOTUS. Check out this quote:
... This is a disturbing indication of the bias of this Court. It leans toward same-sex "marriage," and only a constitutional amendment will prevent it from legalizing it!
- Paragraph 15: A holy (s)hit list!! I couldn't believe this.
... Sen. Tom Daschle, [D-SD], who led those fillibusters, was defeated in November. Getting out in front of his headlights may have cost him his seat in the Senate. Let his colleagues beware, especially those representing "red" states. Many of them will be in the "bulls eye" the next time they seek re-election, including Ben Nelson [D-NE], Mark Dayton [D-MN], Robert Byrd [D-WV], Kent Conrad [D-ND], Jeff Bingaman [D-NM] and Bill Nelson [D-FL].
- Paragraph 16: Arlon Specter smack down.
- Paragraph 17: Let's kick Arlon Specter some more while he's down.
- Paragraph 18: Gotta keep an eye on that Arlon Specter!
... but you and I and many others will be watching to see that he lives up to his commitment. If he does, every single person who took action deserves thanks for helping put him in his place.
(This includes "our friend", Majority Leader Bill Frist of course.)
- Current Agenda
- Paragraph 19: We won a battle, but not the War. The Lefties are trying to make quoting the Bible "hate speech" and sneaking in other "anti-Christian legislation".
- Paragraph 20: Discussion of battles ahead: FMA, judges (appointed and elected), state legislature issues.
- Summary
- Paragraph 21: Thank you. Oh, and just so you don't think I'm arrogant or that we are political:
... Some members of the media are crediting me with playing a key role in the last election. Michael Crowley of The New Republic called me "a Republican kingmaker". Those comments are largely overstated and misplaced. While I wish I could recognize everyone, here are some of the real heroes...
Credits follow.
(Awwww, shucks. What a humble guy.)
- Paragraph 22: Explanation of and justification for the new C4 organization, FotFAI. (More on this below.)
- Paragraph 23: Kissing up to reader.
- Paragraph 24: A quote will do here:
Let me say again two things that I have said over and over during this past election: First, without prayer and fasting by many, all of our other efforts would have been in vain. Second, as I continue to say, no matter how many ballot measures we pass, no matter how many constitutional amendments we support, no matter how many God-fearing and God-honoring women and men are elected and appointed to public office, until the hearts of the people change, we will not turn around this culture and restore our Biblical foundations...
What mean we, kemo-sabe?
- Paragraph 25: The Benediction.
To be political, or not to be?
As I've indicated above, I believe that this letter potentially violates restrictions placed on FotF by the fact that they are a C3 non-profit. First, as is made clear in the letter, there are two sister organizations, "Focus on the Family", the C3 organization that accepts tax-deductible contributions, and "Focus on the Family Action, Inc.", the new C4 that is politically active. (This site has a fairly short summary of this distinction and the practice of C3s and C4s working together.)
The letter seems to be overly careful in recognizing these distinctions. For example, the following is a quote from Paragraph 22:
Finally, let me express my deepest appreciation to all of you for making it possible for Focus on the Family and Focus Action to be effective in the cultural battle. We introduced the new Focus Action ministry last May, not being sure how you would respond, since as a C4 organization, it is not possible to give tax-deductible receipts for contributions. But we needed this new organization to allow us the freedom to speak out on these vital issues. You were there for us, and we had the resources to go the distance. We were also concerned that gifts to Focus Action would limit ongoing contributions to the wider ministry of Focus on the Family. Once again, you stood by our side.
Furthermore, the letter has the following postscript:
P.S. The IRS requires us to be very careful to track separately donations to Focus on the Family and Focus on the Family Action. If you are able to support the efforts of Focus Action in the public square, without limitations placed on our C3 organization, please use the enclosed Action response device and envelope. If you would like to help further the ongoing family-strengthening ministries of Focus on the Family, please use that reply card and envelope. Whichever you may feel led to support --- possibly even both, you have my deepest appreciation.
But these two passages are precisely what made me suspicious! First, in the former paragraph, there were several clues. For example, I was surprised to see that the C4 wasn't formed until last May. Yet I'm positive FotF has been politically active for much longer than that! And what of the weird phrasing "..., it is not possible to give tax-deductible receipts for contributions"? (Why not just say: "..., contributions are not tax deductible." ?) And notice how the use of words like "us", "we" and "our" in this paragraph clearly imply that FotF and FotFAI are in fact the same group!
All of that is enough to make one suspicious, but the footnote and enclosures are enough to seal the deal. Notice the footnote phrase "possibly even both". Yes, in this single letter, there are two reply sheets, one for FotF and one for FotFAI, each with its own separate return envelope. The FotF reply sheet has the standard non-profit "uniform disclosure" statement on it and the FotFAI reply sheet has:
Contributions to Focus on the Family Action are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Focus on the Family Action is not allowed to accept corporate contributions.
This is all nice and cleanly separated so everything should be hunky-dory, right? Hmmm....
What about the fact that all of this arrived in a single envelope? I did some checking into this and found this helpful document for non-profits, "Playing by the Rules". Starting on page 39 with a section called "Improper Coordination between a C3, C4 and PAC", I discovered what appears to me to be not one, but several things that FotF and FotFAI did wrong. For, because while I am ostensibly not a member of FotF, my wife and I are definitely not a members of FotFAI! So how did we get on FotFAI's mailing list? (The main question here is: did FotF make our address available to other organizations too?) And, more importantly, the fact that the two organizations shared a single fundraising letter that is clearly very political in nature, signed by the founder of both, appears to be an obvious example of "Improper Coordination".
Yet, I don't know how accurate this "Playing by the Rules" document is to the actual regulations on 501C3's. Thus, this brings me to the main point of this first post about FotF: is it possible that this letter can be used as evidence to attack their C3 status? Any DKers out there care to comment on this?