BlueGreenAlga

I was looking around at the Christian Coalition website (know your enemy) and I came across this under the "Action Alerts." I don't know how old it is. Does anyone have any input?

Help Restore the First Amendment Rights of Churches: Two bills have been introduced in the U.S. Congress that are designed to restore the First Amendment right of churches at election time and year-round to campaign on behalf of a candidate. Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL) has introduced H.R. 2931, the "Bright-Line Act of 2001." Every year at election time questions surface as to
what a church may or may not do with respect to a political campaign and still
keep its tax-exempt status. Can the church allow a candidate to speak before
the congregation? Can the church conduct a candidate's forum? These questions
abound because religious organizations are currently prohibited from engaging in
"any political campaign on behalf of - or in opposition to - any candidate for
public office." Under the Crane bill, the Bright-Line Act, a religious organization
would be able to campaign on behalf of (or in opposition) to a candidate in an
amount up to 5% of the organization's yearly gross revenues. By drawing this
bright-line at 5%, much of the confusion that currently exists at election time
would be eliminated. A second bill has been introduced by Rep. Walter Jones
(R-NC). This bill is H.R. 2357, the "Houses of Worship Political Speech
Protection Act." It would allow churches and other houses of worship to engage
in campaign activity for or against a candidate as long as it is an "insubstantial"
amount of the church's activities.
ACTION ITEM: Please call your Congressman and urge him or her to "please
cosponsor both H.R. 2931 and H.R. 2357 to restore the First Amendment rights of churches at election time."

When were the First Amendment rights taken away from the churches?

Toto

Yes, you should be concerned. See this recent thread on <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000342" target="_blank">really bad legislation</a>.

First Amendment rights have never been taken away from churches. (You know that the Christian Coalition lies, don't you.) Churches have to choose between being a qualified tax-exampt charity or a political club. If they want to play in politics, they can't be tax exempt. These bills would allow the churches to use their tax exempt status to build a political machine.

The legislation is so new that there is not much of a campaign against it yet, but check the sources in the earlier thread, and keep a lookout.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

BlueGreenAlga

Thanks, Toto. I was not sure if this was something old. I feel like an idiot that I believed the CC website when they said they wanted their First Amendment Rights "restored."

I will be on the lookout.

theyeti

The irony, of course, is that the CC lost its tax-exempt status a few years ago for violating the law. But don't expect them to actually take responsibility for their actions. No, it was they who were the victims here.

The sick part about this bill, and ultimately why it won't pass Constitutional muster, is that it gives the churches special treatment in exclusion to all other non-profits. What really gets my goat is that the bill sponsors know it's unconstitutional, yet they proceed anyway. And when the bill gets shot-down, will they take responsibility for having proposed bad legislation? No -- they too will play the vicitm.

Aside from the Constitutional issues, this legislation opens the door for a myriad of abuses. If churches are given tax-exempt status for political endorsements, they will become a "laundering facility" for PACs and individual contributors. Every political organization on both sides of the spectrum will begin funneling money through church organizations in order to avoid taxes. And any number of churches will probably be set up for the explicit purpose of cleaning political money. So the net effect will probably result in all political organizations using a "church" desigation for tax-exemption.

The whole reason that non-profits are given tax-exempt status in the first place is that these organizations typically do charitable work that benefits society as a whole. So in a way, it's as if the government subsidizes them to allow them to operate more cheaply. Now whether or not churches deserve such a designation in the first place is a debatable issue in and of itself, but there is little issue with the fact that political organizations (at least those who endorse parties, candidates, or legislation) certainly don't deserve government subsidy. Such a situation would result in our tax dollars (by way of tax-exemption) being used to support postitions that are antithetical to our own beliefs. So there's a 1st ammendment issue here other than the Establishment clause. There is also the violation of free speech.

[/rant]

theyeti

Toto

One month after Pat Robertson resigned from the Christian Coalition, he decided to start pushing for this legislation. See this <a href="http://www.au.org/press/pr010702.htm" target="_blank">Americans United press release</a>

Dark Jedi

Hmm.. The possibilities of corruption and graft are endless. Good thing the churches are above that, or this could get out of hand!