THIS PAGE
TO A FRIEND
What do the letters
LBJ and LSM have in common?Tuesday, June 13, 2006
By District 11 Phoenix Arizona
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.
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 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)NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
