A Department of Labor press release adds that “signatory states are Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Utah and Washington. Secretary Solis also announced agreements for the Wage and Hour Division to enter into memorandums of understanding with the state labor agencies of Hawaii, Illinois and Montana, as well as with New York’s attorney general.”

The Miami Herald reports that “the information will help Labor officials target businesses that improperly label workers as independent contractors or as non-employees to deprive workers of minimum wage and overtime pay. Misclassifying workers also lets companies avoid paying workers compensation, unemployment insurance and federal taxes.”

The Herald adds  that the Department of Labor “has focused on industries where so-called ‘wage theft’ is considered a problem, including the hotel, restaurant, janitorial, health care and day care industries,” adding that “last month, the agency began targeting large U.S. homebuilders to see if they failed to pay workers the minimum wage or overtime.”

The Florida Independent reported late last month that at least 50 construction workers who had worked 10 hours or more a day on a Broward County affordable housing project had not received their wages for anywhere from three weeks to two months. The general contractor and two companies involved in the project said it was not their responsibility to pay the workers.

Cynthia Hernandez, a research associate at the Research Institute on Social and Economic Policy at Florida International University, has extensively studied wage theft wrote in an email to the Independent that practices like those alleged by the Sunrise workers is “very common”:

Small contractors to even large corporations like Wal-Mart and Toys-R-Us have used this method to not pay employees. It happens a lot in construction because there are so many different levels of contractors and subs, which make it even harder for the worker to identify ultimately who is responsible for their pay. I have even heard of sub-contractors (employers) who have been stiffed out of their cut by contractors and as a result, have been late or unable to pay their employees. Until we can actually get some enforcement, this will continue to happen.

After workers reported the situation to the Independent and sought legal help, about 60 men, after weeks of being stiffed out of their wages, were paid with checks issued by Florida Shell Construction at the worksite.

On the week of the one-year anniversary of Arizona’s controversial anti-immigration bill — which has provoked copycats throughout the country — Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed controversial legislation concerning the political clout of religious institutions, among other issues.

Senate Bill 1282 will create a statue explicitly allowing any religious assembly or institution to speak out on political issues without having to register as a political action campaign, provided the organization “does not spend a substantial amount of time or assets, within the meaning of section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, on influencing any federal state or local legislation, referendum, initiative or constitutional amendment. ”

The content of the bill is pretty sparse, opening up a broad interpretation for “substantial amount.”

Regarding federal tax-exempt rules, the IRS states:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.  Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances.  For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

The Center for Arizona Policy, which helped craft the bill’s language along with Senate sponsor Steve Yarbrough, has posited this bill as free-speech legislation. In its fact sheet on the proposed law, the group lists the following talking points:

• The First Amendment protects the rights of churches and religious leaders to speak out on public issues. This bill simply clarifies that campaign finance laws do not apply to speech by churches on issues of public importance that are being considered as ballot measures.
• Churches have the right to speak about the critical issues of our time. This bill protects that right by bringing Arizona into compliance with the Ninth Circuit court ruling.
• This bill protects churches from government intrusion into their religious practices and message. Government officials should not be monitoring a pastor’s religious speech from the pulpit to determine whether it is “too political.” This is excessive entanglement of the government with religion and is not constitutionally permissible.

Brewer also signed the following bills Monday:

SB 1169 – Clarifies that the board of nursing cannot allow nurse practitioners to perform surgical abortions.

SB 1188 – Requires marital status “to be considered” in adoption placements — establishing a preference for children to be adopted by a married man and woman, “when all relevant factors are equal.”

Other CAP-supported bills waiting for Brewer’s signature include:

• SB 1030 – Clarifies that physician assistants cannot prescribe medication intended to induce abortion.
• SB 1472 & 1482 – Requires online publication a judge’s biography and rulings on constitutional issues in judicial-retention elections

The New Mexico chapter is listed as donating $132,506 in food, shelter, clothing, direct cash assistance and medical and dental care to indigent veterans and families in New Mexico, according to IRS records obtained by The Independent. However, no details are offered about where exactly the money and donations were spent, or what hospitals or health clinics were paid.

Korsmo, whose father is a Navy veteran, investigated the New Mexico chapter and found the chapter officials’ addresses listed in IRS filings do not actually exist.

IRS documents list Howard Bonifacio as head of the New Mexico chapter, and his address as 388 Boutz Road in Las Cruces. But that address is an empty field, the Attorney General’s Office found. AG officials could find no evidence in tax records or phone books that Bonifacio, or another New Mexico chapter official, Don Archer of 2698 Espina St., Las Cruces, really exist.

“We found nothing but some dirt and some mesquite,” Korsmo said. “And Howard Bonifacio is not in the White Pages of New Mexico; nor is he in the White Pages anywhere in the U.S. Until Mr. Bonifacio comes to talk to us, I’m going to assume he doesn’t exist.”

Korsmo wrote to the group’s Washington, D.C. headquarters on April 1, notifying them that they are not lawfully registered as a charity in New Mexico and are in violation of the state Charitable Solicitations Act.

“New Mexico is the first state to react to the news about the USNVA from a regulatory standpoint, so it is clear Ms. Korsmo and her staff take the responsibility of protecting New Mexico consumers seriously,” Times journalist Jeff Testerman, one of the authors of the investigative series, told The Independent. “If the names and/or addresses on the 990 (nonprofit IRS) tax forms are fictional, then the tax returns have been falsified, and the IRS should take an interest.”

The U.S. Navy Veterans Association, formed in Tampa, Florida in 2002, is registered in New Mexico and 40 other states, and has annual revenues of $22 million, according to a St. Petersburg Times.

The New Mexico chapter of the Navy Veterans said it raised $249,305 in 2008, the most current tax return available.

The Times reporters have been investigating the group’s activities in 41 states.

“In most cases, the USNVA simply listed state officers at rented mailboxes, so it was impossible to verify addresses,” Testerman told The Independent. “In most cases, the (Navy Veterans Association) simply listed state officers at rented mailboxes, so it was impossible to verify addresses. For some reason, the New Mexico chapter officers were listed on 990 tax forms at street addresses, which we now know turned out to be non-existent.”

The charity’s founder, Bobby Thompson, has is “now missing from his Tampa address,” Testerman added.

Birkey writes:

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State filed formal complaints with the IRS on Monday targeting six churches that violated an IRS rule stipulating that churches that take advantage of the IRS’ tax breaks need to refrain from partisan politics or else pay their share of taxes.

Americans United identified the six churches based on media reports.

The churches were in Minnesota, Georgia, California, Wisconsin and Oklahoma.

The New Mexico Independent wrote about the Pulpit Initiative last week and its author — the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund — which encouraged pastors to pointedly endorse political candidates this past Sunday. In turn, ADF promised to provide participating churches with attorneys who would defend all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court what ADF says is the pastors’ First Amendment right to “speak freely” from the pulpit.

The Independent attended churches on Sunday and heard no endorsements from the pulpit. But it did hear some political talk.

But after learning Wednesday that pastors around the nation may be committing an act of civil disobedience by endorsing candidates from the pulpit this Sunday, she decided she’d add a “happy face” symbol to the title to make sure the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) knows her candidacy is a joke.

“I was going to ask them to endorse me,” Robinson told the New Mexico Independent of her original plan for her congregation on Sunday. But what was initially a “wacky” premise is now “getting more and more serious.”

In writing her sermon Thursday morning, she added an introductory section that goes like this:

It is completely not OK for a tax-exempt organization like a church to support a candidate or participate in electoral politics. This church chooses to be tax exempt, which means that we can comment on and take sides on the issues of the day, but we can never support, reject, or endorse candidates for electoral office.

That introduction resulted from an NPR report Robinson heard Wednesday about the so-called “Pulpit Initiative,” an effort by the conservative Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), based in Arizona and founded by James Dobson and Focus on the Family in “defense of family values.” ADF is encouraging pastors to pointedly endorse political candidates this Sunday. In turn, ADF promises to provide participating churches with attorneys who will defend all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court what ADF says is the pastors’ First Amendment right to “speak freely” from the pulpit.

As ADF says on its Web site:

The sermons are intended to restore a pastor’s right to speak freely from his pulpit without fearing censorship or punishment by the government. By standing together and speaking with one voice, it is our hope to recapture the rightful place of pastors and churches in American life.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Alliance “contacted ‘hundreds’ of ministers, rabbis and priests, seeking a range of political views for Sunday’s action. But most of the churches it managed to recruit appear to be evangelical Protestant or Pentecostal congregations, whose pastors and members tend to be right-leaning.”

The handful of religious leaders contacted by the New Mexico Independent for this story either had not heard of the initiative or said they did not plan to participate.

“We strongly believe in First Amendment rights, just won’t be able to participate on the 28th as plans have already been made for the services,” Senior Pastor Wayne C. Barber of Hoffmantown Church wrote NMI in an e-mail.

Pastors at two southern New Mexico churches, Pastor Melvin Suttle at the First Assembly of God in Roswell and Pastor Jack Brock at Christ Community Church in Alamogordo, said they had not heard of the initiative.

Pastor Timothy B. Smith at the Sonoma Springs Presbyterian Church in Las Cruces told NMI he was “familiar with the Alliance Defense Fund’s Pulpit Initiative and I am generally supportive, which makes me a distinct minority among the churches in my denomination.”

But he added, “I have chosen not to preach on candidates for government office. I believe it would be incredibly divisive in my particular congregation.”

Smith said he would, however, “spend a few minutes this Sunday urging everyone eligible to register to vote before the deadline.” He said he also intends to devote five to 10 minutes the Sunday immediately before the election to “talking with my congregation about the importance of voting and participating.”

“I will at that time also talk about the moral values and world view central to the teaching of Scripture,” Smith said, “and I will urge them to consider those values and world view when casting their ballots.”

A number of other churches, including one of the state’s largest, Calvary of Albuquerque, did not respond to NMI’s inquiry for this story.

While Robinson told NMI she would not endorse the Pulpit Initiative, at the same time, she added, “I’m not really sorry they’re doing this. I’d like the law to be clarified.”

The “law” is the IRS tax code as it applies to churches, which are prohibited “from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.

Violation can result in revocation of tax-exempt status, which is where the ADF would step in.

A decidedly different view is offered by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which says on its Web site that some clergy are confused about federal tax law “due to misinformation spread by advocates of church-based electioneering.”

For example, some religious leaders might wonder what constitutes an endorsement of a candidate. Prohibited activities include letters of endorsement printed on the letterhead of the church, synagogue, temple or mosque. Distribution of campaign literature, pulpit endorsements of candidates, display of campaign signs on religiously owned property and other similar activities also clearly indicate partisan involvement in an election. (It should be noted, however, that clergy may endorse candidates as individuals in forums outside the church or work on behalf of candidates during their personal time.)

The site also says the regulation is “designed to protect the integrity of the election process. Special types of organizations already exist to help political hopefuls win public office. Those groups, such as Political Action Committees, have a different tax status and are organized under a different set of rules than 501(c)(3) groups, rules designed to ensure that the nation’s campaign-finance laws are followed. Blurring the distinction between these two types of organizations would harm both religion and politics.”

Americans United also says most Americans oppose politicization of houses of worship. “Survey results released in March 2002 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 70 percent of Americans said churches should not endorse candidates,” its site says.

Three former IRS attorneys have written the IRS alerting the agency to the initiative, questioning whether the nonprofit ADF is jeopardizing its own tax-exempt status by organizing an “inappropriate, unethical and illegal” series of political endorsements.

Robinson thinks the Pulpit Initiative is “pretty in-your-face” and that the preachers are likely to end up losing the battle. “I think they’re likely to lose — at least temporarily lose — their (tax-exempt) status.”

A Minnesota pastor who plans to endorse on Sunday told NPR it’s no big deal if his church loses its status as he will have it back the next day “because churches are automatically tax exempt.” (The pastor also told NPR electing “Godly people” is more important than money.)

In her remarks prepared for next Sunday, Robinson refers to that pastor as “clueless” about the seriousness of the initiative, and in that regard, says the initiative is fraught with danger for those who participate.

At the same time, however, she told NMI she thinks the IRS “is definitely out of line” in its enforcement of the tax code, targeting “small-time, poorly educated pastors” who don’t understand the subtle difference between actually endorsing and taking positions on issues. Many, she said, don’t realize they are breaking the law.

In a preview of her upcoming sermon provided to NMI, Robinson says:

Let me comment that the IRS has been both negligent and out of control on this subject, ignoring pastors who have flaunted the law and also harassing some pastors who have stayed on the right side of the ‘issues-not-candidates’ rule. To their credit, these pastors are trying to attract the attention of the IRS this week — they are not sneaking around. I admire people who are willing to challenge the law and take the consequences of doing so. That’s one way the law of this land is refined, after all.

However, I want to express my opinion as a preacher, that any preacher who can’t figure out a way to let his or her congregation know who to vote for without naming names isn’t a very clever preacher. It doesn’t take much perfectly legal preaching about issues to make it clear in this polarized world who you think should win an election.

In talking to NMI, she recalled the 2006 case in which the IRS “took a liberal Episcopalian church to court and scared everyone to death.” In that case, the IRS said the preacher was so obviously negative about the war that he was therefore against President Bush. A court ruled in favor of the church and against the IRS.

In her own church, she said it gets sticky when “our more politically involved members” pass out campaign materials or want to invite certain candidates to functions. It is difficult for a church to stay politically neutral, she said.

Which is why she’s having fun wistfully remembering the comic candidacy of Pat Paulsen, who could look presidential and with a straight face describe himself as “Just a common, ordinary, simple savior of America’s destiny.” Paulsen, by the way, is still “running” for president even though he died in 1997, and a story just this week in the Hartford Courant recalls another classic slogan: “I’ve upped my standards, so up yours!”

Here’s more of Robinson’s text from “Christine for President”:

So what’s the title of the sermon mean? Looks suspiciously like electoral politics from the pulpit, but it’s a joke, a device, a literary technique to get you excited about a sermon which is going to be about issues. … Since you are not able to vote for Christine on any ballot, the whole thing is a joke. OK?

And when Robinson takes off her clerical robe on Sunday and becomes a “candidate,” her congregation will hear the real sermon, the issues sermon which, from the way it starts out, makes it clear this “candidate” is serious about the issues.