A Voice From The Dust: Don't Vote For Harry Reid

Harry Reid is in the reelection fight of his life. A recently deceased LDS woman, speaking from the dust, has encouraged Nevadans not to vote for Senator Reid. The Las Vegas Review Journal tells the story: 

"Election 2010 has just heard from a member of the Silent Majority.

You know, from a deceased person.

Chances are good you never met Charlotte McCourt during her 84 years, but I’m willing to bet you’ll be hearing about her in the coming days now that her obituary has taken Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to task. It’s the kind of small story that has the potential to ricochet like a bullet through the campaign showdown between incumbent Reid and Republican challenger Sharron Angle.

Not because McCourt, who died July 8 after a long illness, was a political player or business powerbroker, but precisely because she was neither of those things. She was a homemaker, proud mother and grand mother and wife of 67 years to Patrick McCourt.

And she was at one time a loyal supporter of Harry Reid.

Her obituary, printed in Tuesday’s Review-Journal, reads in part, “We believe that Mom would say she was mortified to have taken a large role in the election of Harry Reid to U.S. Congress. Let the record show Charlotte was displeased with his work. Please, in lieu of flowers, vote for another more worthy candidate.”

Ouch.

McCourt was born Dec. 25 in Wellington, Utah and was a 40-year Nevada resident. She was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Perhaps by coincidence, Reid’s re-election hangs in no small part on his ability to encourage conservative and religious Democrats to support him. He is also a member of the LDS faith."

Is Reid Campaign Hiding Its Activities To Evade Campaign Finance Laws?

Harry Reid's campaign and the Nevada State Democratic Party appear to be playing games with federal campaign finance laws as to expenditures to maintain and promote the fake "TheRealSharronAngle.com" website.

That fake website was launched by the Reid campaign, as a press release from the Reid Campaign made clear, Reid Campaign Re-Launches Sharron Angle's Campaign Website:

As reported by Politico, the original Disclaimer at the bottom of the fake website stated that it was paid for by the Reid campaign.

The Reid campaign was forced to take down the fake website because the Reid campaign was misleading the public, and also obtaining names and contact information on Angle supporters under false pretenses.

After the fake website was taken down, the web address "TheRealSharronAngle.com" was re-directed to a cheesy website supposedly run by the Nevada State Democratic Party (see below), titled "Sharon Angle's Underground Bunker."

The Reid campaign then scrubbed the fake website, and re-launched it in a manner which was less deceptive, including eliminating the forms for Angle supporters to provide names and e-mail addresses and to sign up to volunteer.

But an interesting thing happened after the Reid campaign scrubbed the fake Angle website.

Now, the Disclaimer at the bottom claims that the website has no connection to the Reid campaign: "PAID FOR BY THE NEVADA STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE."

But clearly this Disclaimer is not true. The fake website was a creation of the Reid campaign, and continues to be run by the Reid campaign even after the scrubbed version was re-launched (emphasis mine):

"While we disagree with the assertions in Angle’s “cease and desist” letter, we took the website down temporarily to make it more clear that the intent is solely to point out how far Sharron Angle is running from her own embarrassing record,” said Reid campaign manager Brandon Hall. “We are not attempting to deceive anyone. Unfortunately, that point was lost on Angle’s campaign as evidenced by the threat of legal action to get her own website taken down. We made minor changes to address her frivolous concerns and now hope the new Sharron Angle can now focus on explaining why the old Sharron Angle’s views are so unacceptable."

So if the Reid campaign launched and then re-launched the fake Angle website, and controls the content, why does the Disclaimer now claim no connection to the Reid campaign?

The answer almost certainly lies in the campaign finance laws, which limit how much money (or valuable goods or services) a state campaign committee can donate to or coordinate with a candidate's campaign.

By claiming the fake Angle website has no connection to or coordination with the Reid campaign, the Nevada State Democratic Party would not have to include such expenditures towards their limits, allowing it to spend more money to help the Reid campaign.

Here is how the Congressional Research Service summarizes the law (emphasis mine):

Federal campaign finance law provides political parties with three major options for providing financial support to House, Senate, and presidential candidates: (1) direct contributions, (2) coordinated expenditures, and (3) independent expenditures. With direct contributions, parties give money (or in the case of in-kind contributions, financially valuable services) to individual campaigns, but such contributions are subject to strict limits; most party committees are limited to direct contributions of $5,000 per candidate, per election....

Coordinated expenditures allow parties (notwithstanding other provisions in the law regulating contributions to campaigns) to buy goods or services on behalf of a campaign, and to discuss those expenditures with the campaign. Candidates may request that parties make coordinated expenditures, and may request specific purchases, but parties may not give this money directly to campaigns. Because parties are the spending agents, they (not candidates) report their coordinated expenditures to the FEC. Coordinated party expenditures are subject to limits based on office sought, state, and voting-age population (VAP). Exact amounts are determined by formula.

(Per the CRS, the Citizens United case has not changed the these expenditure limits.)

It is unclear how the Nevada State Democratic Party will report the costs associated with the fake Angle website.  The Disclaimer at the bottom of the fake Angle website indicates, however, that the Party plans on claiming that the expenditures are neither directly to nor coordinated with the Reid campaign, a clearly false factual assertion.

One has to wonder how many other activities by the Nevada State Democratic Party really are being controlled by the Reid campaign, and therefore should count towards the spending limits.  For example, the "Sharron Angle's Underground Bunker" website has the same disclaimer as the fake Angle website; is the
Reid campaign really behind that other website as well?

I have a strong suspicion that Kelly Steele, the person tasked by the Reid campaign to "vaporize" Reid's political opponents, is behind the "Sharron Angle's Underground Bunker" website. 

On June 23, after I posted a negative analysis of the Reid campaign strategy, the Twitter accounts of both Steele and Angle's Bunker signed up to follow me at precisely the same minute.  It would be an amazing coincidence if Steele and the person behing the other website acted at precisely the same minute.

If the Reid campaign wants to issue a denial that it has any connection to the Sharron Angle's Underground Bunker website, I would be happy to post that denial as an update.  If there is a connection, the Reid campaign should come clean.

What is clear is that by now claiming the fake Angle website has no connection to and is not coordinated with the Reid campaign, the Reid campaign is playing games with the federal campaign finance laws. 

The question is, what else is the Reid campaign secretly doing behind the scenes to "vaporize" Sharron Angle, and are those activities properly being accounted for in accordance with the federal campaign finance laws?

Cross-posted with updates at Legal Insurrection Blog

P.S.: Some of you readers are wondering why I'm posting this when I should be studying for the bar. I am. However, I think this is a newsworthy event of such significance that  I think  is relevant news for Mormons to hear about.

Making Another Run At The California Bar Exam: Will Be Back Again!

I am currently studying for the California Bar exam. Will be back in August!! 

Why LDS Missionaries Are Successful In Business

CNBC has a business report about how being an LDS missionary helps Mormons become successful in business.

The reporter makes a point about the apparent lack of successful Mormon business women who have served missions. I would disagree. There are a lot of successful LDS women in business.

If you're a LDS women and want to get connected with other successful Mormon business women, I suggest joining the LDS Business Women's Association (LDSBWA) on facebook.

For a lively discussion about women who have served a mission and become successful in the business field, Mormon Feminist Housewives has an blog on the same subject.

UPDATE (7.12.10): The Financial Times has a great article about the rising success of Latter Day Saints in politics, literature and business. Its an article worth reading. 

Poll: 41% of Americans Believe Jesus Will Return By 2050

The British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, is reporting the results of a joint poll from the Pew Research Center and Smithsonian magazine in which they asked Americans what they think will happen by 2050. One of the interesting findings was what Americans thought about the chances of the 2nd Coming occuring: 

 "41 per cent say Jesus Christ will return within the next 40 years while 46 per cent say this will definitely or probably not happen".

While there have been numerous attempts to predict the second coming of Jesus, no body really knows when it will occur. Even Joseph Smith himself didn't know when Jesus would come. Elder M. Russell Ballard makes this point clear in an Ensign article: 

"Can we use this scientific data to extrapolate that the Second Coming is likely to occur during the next few years, or the next decade, or the next century? Not really. I am called as one of the Apostles to be a special witness of Christ in these exciting, trying times, and I do not know when He is going to come again. As far as I know, none of my brethren in the Quorum of the Twelve or even in the First Presidency knows. And I would humbly suggest that if we do not know, then nobody knows, no matter how compelling their arguments or how reasonable their calculations. The Savior said that “of that day, and hour, no one knoweth; no, not the angels of God in heaven, but my Father only” (JST, Matt. 1:40).

I believe that when the Lord says “no one” knows, He really means that no one knows. We should be extremely wary of anyone who claims to be an exception to divine decree."

Although no one knows the exact second, minute, hour, day and year that Jesus comes, Jesus tells us that the faithful will get a general idea of when he will come just as people know that summer is near because the trees are sprouting their leaves. (see Luke 21:29-31) The scriptures are full of signs or indicators to watch for that have happened or will occur that will give us some idea of when we are upon the last days before His coming.

However, I would think that 2050 would be a good guess as to when Christ would come. 

What do you think?

A New Prop 8 Documentary & The Creative Deception It Tells About the LDS Church

There is a documentary that is being released soon to theaters nation wide called 8: The Mormon Proposition and just the trailer itself already is full of inaccuracies and deceptive editing to misinform the public about the LDS Church's role in proposition 8.

Based on the trailer alone, I can tell that this documentary is going to be about as honest as a Michael Moore film in that it employs the same deceptive editing techniques to imply a fact that isn't true. One of the easiest falsehood to catch in the trailer was the way they included clips of anti-gay protestors from other religious faiths to give the impression that they're people from the LDS Church.

I was tipped off immediately that this wasn't going to be an honest film, despite the fact that the  when I saw a well known anti-gay protester in the trailer. His name is Reuben Israel and is listed in the film's credits.

He's easy to reconize in the trailer as the big, fat bearded man in dark sunglasses screaming into the bullhorn "shame on the homosexual community!" His method of spreading his "Christian" message his by protesting and has done so in a variety of different places, including at an anti-war rally.

This isn't the only documentary that Reuben Israel has been in. He was also in another documentary called Article VI: Faith, Politics, America and can be briefly seen protesting against the LDS Church in that film's trailer. In the film itself, he openly discusses his feelings against the LDS Church.

Reuben Israel isn't a Mormon and would never be a Mormon.

He is a well known anti-Mormon who has frequently protested against the LDS Church and has even been filmed dragging the Book of Mormon on the ground. He is the California State Director for The Street Preachers' Fellowship, an organization that actively protests against the Mormon faith.

If the film is already being deceptive in the way it edits the trailer by using a well known anti-Mormon protester to give the impression that he's a Mormon protesting against gays, then I have no confidence that the rest of the film will be in any way as honest either.

This is a film that is going to make Michael Moore proud.

LDS Church Under Fire From Opponents Of AZ SB 1070

Once it was discovered that, Sen. Russell Pearce, was the legislator behind Arizona's immigration law was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Church has come under fire from the Hispanic community: 

Many Latinos who view the new law as unjust and discriminatory blame not only Pearce but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is making it hard for Mormons to proselytize to the state's 1.8 million Latinos, whom the church views as key to future growth.

When the LDS Church was contacted by the press about the Senator Pearce's endorsement of Arizona SB 1070, it gave a very surprising response:

Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the LDS headquarters in Salt Lake City, said in an e-mail that elected officials who are Mormons do not represent the position of the church. She said the church has also not taken a position on immigration, which is "clearly the province of government."

"However, Church leaders have urged compassion and careful reflection when addressing immigration issues affecting millions of people," she said in the e-mail.

It is odd that the Church has no official position on whether or not people ought to be allowed to have citizenship papers with them. Yet the Church does have an official position on illegal immigration.

Maybe Kim Farrah, the LDS spokeswoman, should read D&C 88: 3, 5-7, D&C 98:4-8, D&C 101:77 and the Twelfth Article of Faith if she is having trouble in figuring out what the official position of the LDS Church is on illegal immigration.

The fact that the Church doesn't have an "official" position on illegal immigration despite the fact that scriptures and modern Prophets have clearly stated that obedience to the laws of the land is necessary in being a good member of the Church is odd.

Furthermore, its strange that the LDS Church requires worthy members to carry and present their temple recommend as a requirement to enter into the Temple yet they have no official position with regards to state law that requires people to carry and present their legal papers as a condition to entering the United States?

I guess the Church really doesn't have a coherent or consistent official position on illegal immigration since the religion expects people to be obedient to the commandments as given in the House of The Lord yet many illegal immigrants are given temple recommends despite the fact that sneaking into America is a form of disobedience.

How the can the Church expect people to obey the commandments of God yet have no stance towards those who break the law of the land? This doesn't line up with D&C 58:21:

Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

One of the temple recommend questions is "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?" How can the Church expect people to be honest if they're handing out Temple recommends to Church members who violate the law by entering the country illegally?

Sneaking into America is not only a form of disobedience but a form of dishonesty.

Hopefully, the Church will figure out what its official position is on civil obedience is.