Or is it just a coincidence? The latest missive from the Washington Advocacy Office, a diatribe and call to arms against Judge Alito, includes this boilerplate at the bottom:
Please note that the UUA does not represent or claim to represent the views of individual Unitarian Universalists or individual congregations, but the Association as a whole, as defined by statements approved by the General Assembly. Also, lobbying related to a nomination is an IRS-sanctioned activity for non-profits.
Of course, now I'm left wondering how one can represent the Association as a whole if one doesn't even claim to represent the congregations or the individuals in those congregations... perhaps the staff themselves represent a quorum? I'm also gratified to note that the activity is government sanctioned, but for me it begs the question: just because it's legal to do a thing, does that make it worth doing?