Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxr.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxr!stanwyck From: stanwyck@ihuxr.UUCP (Don Stanwyck) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Summary of Christian Broadcasters Message-ID: <1030@ihuxr.UUCP> Date: Sat, 14-Apr-84 00:59:33 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxr.1030 Posted: Sat Apr 14 00:59:33 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 8-Apr-84 07:04:31 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 159 As promised, here is the summary of the replys on "Christian" broadcasters. It didn't ever become what I expected. I had hoped to put together a list of "Christian" stations around the coutry, and their tax-status. Instead, most people simply pointed out to me the (already well-known) fact that the tax-status of an organization is not a good basis for determining its legitimacy. I have edited the format of some of the replies, but (as far as I know) I have not changed to content of any. The replies are below. Contrary to the implication of many of the comments, I have found that the stations I have listened to and enjoyed have been non-profit, low-income, frequently no advertising (in one case very limited advertising), and have not paid even average saleries to their owners/employees. Particulary WMBI (Moody Bible Institue, Chicago), K... (Northwestern College, St.Paul, MN), KPDQ (Portland, OR), and KPDQ's Albany, OR affiliate have all been good stations over the years. Replies follow: ******************************************************************************** Your position on this seems a little disingenuous. Sure, the "Crystal Cathedral" was built with nonprofit funds, but it's still a lot of money! All that "nonprofit" means is that you can accumulate as much taxfree money as you want, just so you don't pay dividends to anyone. There are still plenty of fat salaries and lucrative contracts to go around. >>> Lew Mammel, Jr. ihuxr!lew ******************************************************************************** How about the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) which is on many cable franchises? They sell commercial time. Although, they do show shows which are not strictly Christian oriented (Doby Gillis, Burns & Allen, lots of other oldies, old movies, etc.) in addition to "700 Club" and other shows. I am sure that they turn a tidy profit. Don't get me wrong, though, I happen to like CBN quite a bit even though I am not a Christian. Where else can I see Doby Gillis? (I hadn't seen it since I was a child!) >>> Allen England ******************************************************************************** I believe what Dave was referring to was Christian "networks" such as the TPL (Texas Prayer League, I believe) and the 700 Club. And the point he was trying to make was that Christian groups like these DO spend mega-bucks on studios and equipment and property and saleries, and at the same time spend MUCH LESS on feeding the poor. In fact every time the gentleman on the 700 Club asked me for money he said it was "to further their ministery", and "to communicate their faith to others". On one show they were even asking for donation for a new transmitter in particular!!! As to the high saleries these guys make, don't fool your self by thinking that just because an organization manages to maintain a non-profit status that nobody working there gets anything much. The only organization where I have seen the figures is the famous United Way (or United Fund, or Crusade of Mercy) where the president of that organization gets over $250,000.00 a year in salery. And its the biggest non-profit organization there is. (By the way I don't mean to single out the 700 Club or the PTL. These are just the two BIG CHRISTIAN NETWORKS that come to mind. In this group I also include the likes Ted Armstong, both junior and senior, and of course our local Rex Humbard and his multi-million dollar "Cathedral of Tomarrow". In fact Rex has taken so much off the top, that he almost lost his non-profit status twice. In both cases he had to change the way he did BUSINESS. It seemed he had too much of the assets IN HIS OWN NAME!) Not that I'm against God, just those who use his name to make money for themselves. (Kind of taking His name in vain, wouldn't you say?) ...we13!ll1!cej Chuck Jones Cleveland, Ohio ******************************************************************************** I think you're confusing non-profit with "making no money". If I take in $100,000, buy myself a $40,000 DeLorean (for business use only, of course), give myself a $59,500 salary, and distribute $500 to the poor, that could be non- profit if I did it in a certain way (as defined by the IRS). It would also be non-profit if I took the same $100,000, gave myself $10,000 in salary, bought a $800 VW for business use, and distributed the remainder to the poor. The difference between these two scenarios is obvious...and where the controversy lies. >>> Don Davis JHU/APL ..decvax!harpo!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!ded ...rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!ded ******************************************************************************** Well, the Jim Bakker Show (formerly the PTL Club, until the joke about PTL standing for "Pass The Loot" became so popular) rakes in truly obscene amounts of money, thanks to Jim constantly assuring people that they should send money even if they can't afford it because God (apparently acting as Jim's accountant) will make it up to them. Last year, there was a major flap when his purchase of a $400,000 Florida condo saw light. Among the charming features of this little hideaway were gold-plated plumbing fixtures. You are, however, correct that most Christian TV shows are put on by sincere and honest preachers (well, actually, preachers tend to be a dishonest lot, but not in any way that really hurts anyone -- their dishonesty is usually in their refusal to admit it when they've made a mistake, as was so expertly demonstrated by the Rev. Jackson recently, and in claiming that things happened which never did [there IS a line between lies and parables, and it is not uncommon for preachers to cross it]). You are also correct that most are registered as non- profit. However, there are those who use their non-profit status as a way of getting around taxes, and their religion as a means of inspiring donations. Unpleasant to believers and nonbelievers alike, but true nonetheless. >>> Tim Maroney, mcnc!unc!tim <> ******************************************************************************** When I lived in the SF Bay area, there was a sunday morning show with some evangalistic fellow who made the wildest claims. I don't know too much about the show, my grandma used to watch it, but this guy and his organization built a cathedral that I have seen matched by no other building. He brought in an incredible sum of money. Too bad I can't remember his name. Maybe it was the Crystal Cathedral that he built, I'm not sure. I personally believe this guy lied through his teeth continuously, but how would I know? Anyway, one thing is for sure, he was raking in massive bucks. The good to which he used the money, I don't know, other than funding a Christian college, I doubt he could get away with keeping all that much of it. As I remember, his cause was to promote Christian ideology, and that's where the money went. ******************************************************************************** I didn't see the original news article you were responding to, so perhaps my response is inappropriate. I do not have the call letters of profitable religious stations at hand. However religious broadcasting is big business (I think 60 minutes had a segment on this, but it seems to me that this statement is obvious). Also, "non-profit" does not necessarily mean what you think it means. (I suppose these days that AT&T may be "non-profit", but you probably didn't have that in mind either.) The real question about a non-profit institution (from the viewpoint of a potential contributor) is: what will be done with the money I contribute? From the viewpoint of the IRS (this being my unauthoritative guess), an institution is non-profit based on two criteria: a. Is it involved in education, religious, or charitable work? (there may be some other categories here) b. Does it retain its profits, or spend them (there are no shareholders, so there's nobody to distribute them to). I believe non-profit organizations must spend essentially all their revenues. Of course, non-profit organizations have expenses. For instance, salaries and fees for services. You might find that some people involved with non-profit organizations make very generous salaries, possibly heavily tied in to the level of contributions received. <> ******************************************************************************** Many Christian radio stations sell air time - maybe a majority. Sell air time (or commercials): KFAX, San Francisco KFIA, Carmichael CA (near Sacramento) KGER, Long Beach CA KBRT, Los Angeles WRBS, Baltimore (mainly sells commercials; with strong merchant and church support, it is better able to pick and choose programs) WWBT, Cocoa-Merritt Island, FL WABS, Arlington VA Non-commercial (* indicates I may be wrong) The entire Family Radio network (all listener-supported): KEAR, San Francisco KVIP, Redding CA KEBR, Sacramento WFME, Newark NJ KECR, El Cajon (near San Diego) WFSI, Annapolis MD KFRN, Long Beach WKDN, Camden NJ KYFR, Shenandoah IA WYFR short-wave, Okeechobee FL [Note: WYFR is the world's largest non-government-supported short-wave facility in the world. Entirely listener-supported.] *WCDR, Cedarville OH (Affiliated with Cedarville College) *HCJB shortwave, Quito, Ecuador *Trans-World Radio shortwave KHOF, Los Angeles area Hope this helps (And when you've been accustomed to Family Radio, most commercial stations are a big come-down) Larry Bickford ******************************************************************************** -- ________ ( ) Don Stanwyck @( o o )@ 312-979-3062 ( || ) Cornet-367-3062 ( \__/ ) ihnp4!ihuxr!stanwyck (______) Bell Labs @ Naperville, IL