LDS Church reasserts it's Political Neutrality while incuraging activism.

The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently issued a letter . . . encouraged Latter-day Saints to attend their local precinct caucus meetings.

In doing so the Church has also reasserted it's stance on being politically neutral:

"The Church does not:

• Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
• Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
• Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
• Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.

The Church does:

• Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.
• Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.
• Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church.
• Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church."

On a somewhat related topic the LDS Church is also encouraging it's U.S. Members to "participate in the 2010 United States Census", sighting that "The Church also uses census data for planning purposes."

Freedom Wins in case over Campaigning - Citizens United v. FEC

Thanks to the McCain–Feingold Act (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002), the established corporate news media can do something you cannot. They can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to communicate about politicians, campaigns, and issues. This gives the media an advantage when it comes to informing the public as to what your choices are when it comes to Public elections. They rarely include real people who are considered underdogs, in favor of the very career politicians that create these kinds of freedom limiting laws.

To gain an even better understanding of these kinds of campaign finance laws please watch the following 4-minute video:

Most cases against the campaign finance laws have focused on the freedom of speech, but these challenges have always been denied by the courts, under the perverse reasoning that "money isn't speech." However, a 2003 case, Ron Paul v. FEC, argued that the freedom of the press is a right that must be protected for all Americans, not only for those who run media businesses. The claim was denied, but that was only the beginning . . .

A co-plaintiff in the 2003 case, Citizens United, renewed the fight last year. They challenged campaign finance provisions that prohibited them from broadcasting a movie they had made about Hillary Clinton, who was then running for President.

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee prohibits the Government from enforcing any financial restrictions limiting core political speech involving elections based on a speaker’s corporate identity. The Supreme Court restored some of your ability to join with others in order to better exercise your freedoms of association, of speech, and of the press.

However, there are still many more media lies that need to be corrected, more taxpayers need to be educated about the true causes of government corruption, and why campaign finance laws like McCain-Feingold are not a cure, but a cause. There are still many other incumbent protection laws that make it difficult to fire members of Congress, and limit your rights of association, of speech, and of the press.