What do the letters JBL and MSJ have in common?
TruGOP
June 13, 2006
Turn them around and they form the initials of the two people most responsible
for the erosion of your right to free speech, Lyndon Baines Johnson and
now, 50 years later, John Sidney McCain.
Prior to 1954, religious groups and other nonprofits could oppose or
support political candidates without risking their nonprofit status. In
1954, the IRS tax code was being revised in Congress and then Texas Senator
Lyndon B. Johnson attached at provision to the law prohibiting nonprofits
(501(c)(3)s) from engaging in political activity. LBJ did not do this
to constrain religious groups. He did this because he was angry at two
nonprofits in Texas that were campaigning against his re-election. Political
activity for this purpose is defined as supporting or opposing candidates
running for public office.
For 350 years before that, churches were free to join in political debate.
If a candidate's morality or character or his positions on issues of the
day came up short the clergy was free to inform the congregation from
the pulpit. And they did so with zeal and gusto until Lyndon found a couple
of them offensive.
So he found
a way, and without discussion, without a vote, he shut 'em up.
Republican Congressman Walter Jones, NC is the latest statesman to take
this issue on. He has sponsored a house
Bill, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act (H.R.
235) which originally said this:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration
Act'.
SEC. 2. HOUSES OF WORSHIP PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN RELIGIOUS FREE
EXERCISE AND FREE SPEECH ACTIVITIES, ETC.
Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
redesignating subsection (p) as subsection (q) and by inserting
after subsection (o) the following new subsection:
`(p) An organization described in section 508(c)(1)(A) (relating
to churches) shall not fail to be treated as organized and operated
exclusively for a religious purpose, or to have participated in,
or intervened in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition
to) any candidate for public office, for purposes of subsection
(c)(3), or section 170(c)(2) (relating to charitable contributions),
because of the content, preparation, or presentation of any homily,
sermon, teaching, dialectic, or other presentation made during religious
services or gatherings.'.
SEC. 3. CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS UNAFFECTED.
Nothing in section 2 permits any disbursements for electioneering
communications, or political expenditures, prohibited in the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971. |
The bill would have gone a long way toward restoring free speech to the
pulpit.
Evidently
that's not something John McCain had in mind.
He insisted on the addition of a poison pill, effectively gutting the
bill.
Passing it now would add further to the uncertainty and potential damage
that could be done to churches that fully exercise their rights to free
speech. Note Mr. McCain's additional language in the SEC. 3 portion.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration
Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. HOUSES OF WORSHIP PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN RELIGIOUS FREE
EXERCISE AND FREE SPEECH ACTIVITIES, ETC.
(a) In General- Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
is amended by redesignating subsection (q) as subsection (r) and
by inserting after subsection (p) the following new subsection:
`(q) An organization described in section 170(b)(1)(a)(1) or section
508(c)(1)(A) shall not fail to be treated as organized and operated
exclusively for a religious purpose, nor shall it be deemed to have
participated in, or intervened in any political campaign on behalf
of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, for purposes
of subsection (c)(3) or section 170(c)(2), 2055, 2106, 2522, or
4955 because of the content, preparation, or presentation of any
homily, sermon, teaching, dialectic, or other presentation made
during religious services or gatherings.'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
apply to taxable years ending after the date of enactment of this
Act.
SEC. 3. CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS UNAFFECTED.
No member or leader of an organization described
in section 501(q) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added
by section 2) shall be prohibited from expressing personal views
on political matters or elections for public office during regular
religious services, so long as these views are not disseminated
beyond the members and guests assembled together at the service.
For purposes of the preceding sentence, dissemination beyond the
members and guests assembled together at a service includes a mailing
that results in more than an incremental cost to the organization
and any electioneering communication under section 304(f) of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(f)). Nothing
in the amendment made by section 2 shall be construed to permit
any disbursements for electioneering communications or political
expenditures prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971.
|
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission has
pulled its support for a bill it says no longer protects the free speech
rights of churches... “Under the new bill, the government would
permit churches to endorse a candidate but then would allow government
investigators to come in and determine when the church has exceeded
the government’s narrow parameters of permission,” he said.
Full story here.
Since Lyndon Johnson put up his original barrier against
the First Amendment Congress and the Supreme Court have been busy building
it higher. John McCain and Russ Feingold added several courses of
bricks with their cynically named "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
of 2002", more aptly named McCain/Feingold.
They walled up the flow of free speech for about 30 seconds
until discovery of the "527" loophole. Now John McCain is working
like an undocumented alien sheetrock hanger spackling up that crack in
his part of the wall.
The idea of clergy being allowed to express opinions
on politics has the Left in a sweat as you might expect. Unfortunately,
a lot of folks on the Right and in the clergy are also worried primarily
because, with political speech so restricted by McCain/Feingold, if the
churches alone recover their right to free speech, they fear drowning
in the ensuing torrent.
Mr. McCain, instead of walling off the First Amendment with a thousand
bricks, and patching cracks until your wall looks like the Internal Revenue
Code, why not let the speech flow freely and insist on instant, and open
disclosure? You can continue spackling cracks, just as now, by applying
your efforts to the phony, meaningless names like "Citizens for an
American Tomorrow" that will undoubtedly appear in the financial
disclosures.
Sir, do your country a favor... Mr. McCain, tear down this wall!
(Posted and paid for by your compatriot conservative
precinct committeemen in your home District 11, Phoenix, Arizona)
|