Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

arizona - Jay Sekulow, maybe know your opposition better is the spirit behind this post .. "maybe" as
am guessing all of you know him well already .. also for more detail on the relevant law about your post .. :)

Christian crusaders cash in

Jay Sekulow of American Center for Law and Justice has won nine cases at the Supreme Court level.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67406258

========

American Center for Law & Justice

The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) is a conservative Christian,
pro-life group that was founded in 1990 by evangelical Pat Robertson.

History

It was conceived as a counterweight to the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization which
Robertson maintains is "hostile to traditional American values". .. more .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Center_for_Law_%26_Justice

========

A Legislative Fix is Needed
posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry, I am sympathetic with the frustration felt by many pastors who try to fully articulate their religious worldviews during the election season while having to censor themselves due to the IRS gag rule. As I have stated before, I believe that the best way to restore unfettered freedom of speech for pastors is to call on Congress to repeal the IRS restrictions on pastors’ speech.

Our law firm does not counsel our church clients to violate the 501(c)(3) rules; we do not have our first contact with them until after they have already been threatened by an IRS letter or a letter from a liberal “watchdog” organization. We represent churches and religious institutions in proceedings initiated by the IRS and, in doing so, raise statutory and constitutional arguments in their defense.

Without getting into privileged attorney-client discussions from the Pierce Creek case, I can say that we thought the court of appeals’ decision provided a blueprint for churches to express their beliefs in a political context through the formation of a separate 501(c)(4) entity. And I can’t say how the Supreme Court would rule in a future case if one gets there (although I doubt one will); it’s always tough to predict, especially without seeing how the law is being applied to the facts of a particular case. The uncertainty of litigation is another reason why a legislative repeal of the IRS gag rule is needed.

In addition, the IRS rules for political speech are different for churches and other religious non-profit organizations than they are for some non-profit organizations, such as labor unions, whose leadership is free to endorse or oppose any political candidate in their official capacity. The rationale for the difference is that religious organizations are subsidized because the contributions they receive are tax-deductible by the donor. But by that explanation, labor unions are just as subsidized because union dues are deductible as an employee expense.

[ bold just because it looks a major legalistic point of theirs ]

Barry, this is not a conservative or liberal issue – all religious leaders should be able to speak freely about the intersection of faith and government if they desire to do so. Religious leaders of all faiths have a right to speak up for the unborn, the weak, the defenseless, and the unwanted, and they should be able to encourage their congregations to support candidates for office who do the same.

In addition, religious Americans have the same right to voice their opinions and support government actions that are consistent with their beliefs that is enjoyed by other Americans. It is simply offensive to imply that religious believers should just keep their ideas to themselves and let everyone else deal with elections and public policy. The next President and Congress will make countless important decisions on a broad range of issues that will affect every American, and religious leaders should be able to weigh in, if they so choose, on how various candidates will deal with those issues.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/lynnvsekulow/2008/09/a-legislative-fix-is-needed.html

======== .. here for more on the law, assuming Sekulow's American Center for Law & Justice has that about right ..

Political Speech & Non Profit Tax Issues

While discrimination against churches and religious organizations is on the rise, the ACLJ has been at the forefront in defending the First Amendment rights of churches and religious organizations. Whether it is in the context of restrictions on political speech during elections or nonprofit tax issues, the ACLJ is committed to protecting churches and religious organizations against unconstitutional discrimination.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a church’s right to speak out on the moral issues affecting society. In addition, while the Internal Revenue Code prohibits churches from assessing the qualifications of specific candidates for public office, it does not infringe upon a church’s inherent right to speak out on the morality of specific political issues.

The Supreme Court has unequivocally found that religious speech is at the apex of protected speech under the First Amendment. Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995). The Supreme Court stated that “in Anglo-American history, at least, government suppression of speech has so commonly been directed precisely at religious speech that a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince." Id.at761.

The Supreme Court also noted in upholding tax exemptions for churches:

~~~~~~~~
Indent:

Adherents of particular faiths and individual churches frequently take strong positions on public issues including, . . . vigorous advocacy of legal or constitutional positions. Of course, churches as much as secular bodies and private citizens have that right.
~~~~~~~~

Walz v. Tax Comm'n of N.Y., 397 U.S. 664, 670 (1969).

As a first principle, the government may not censor a church’s' speech on moral issues of the day without running afoul of the First Amendment. However, the Internal Revenue Code has circumscribed the rights of 501(c)(3) organizations to engage in political speech.

In exchange for the receipt of tax-exempt status, I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) absolutely prohibits churches and other tax-exempt organizations from campaigning for or against a candidate for public office. If a church participates or interferes, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign for or against any candidate for public office by publishing and distributing certain written material or making oral statements regarding the candidate, then a church can lose its tax-exempt status for violating the campaigning ban. I.R.C. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iii). Quite simply courts have interpreted 501(c)(3) to ban any degree of participation or intervention in a campaign for public office. Ass’n of the Bar of N.Y. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 858 F.2d 876, 879 (2d Cir. 1988).

While the ACLJ believes that this campaigning ban impermissibly infringes on the First Amendment rights of churches, it is nevertheless the current law. Consequently, churches desiring to keep their tax-exempt status must stringently adhere to it.

While some provisions within the Internal Revenue Code prohibit a church from engaging in certain political conduct, it also provides “an alternate means by which [a church could] communicate its sentiments about candidates for political office." Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 211 F.3d 137, 143 (D.C. Cir. 2000). In Rossotti, the court explained that a church that wishes to be more politically active can form a political action committee (“PAC”) within a church-created 501(c)(4) organization. Id. However, a church that wishes to do this must proceed carefully. The related 501(c)(4) organization must be separately incorporated from the church and it "is also subject to the ban on intervening in political campaigns." Id. However, to legally circumvent this ban, the church-created 501(c)(4) organization may form a PAC which “would be free to participate in political campaigns." Id.; see also 26 C.F.R. § 1.527-6(f), (g) (1999). It is the PAC formed within the 501(c)(4) organization that may engage in political activities, not the 501(c)(4) organization. Id. As long as churches follow this procedure, churches can indirectly support or oppose political campaigns or legislation.

Public charities and houses of worship may permit the use of auditoriums, meeting rooms and gymnasium facilities for civic or political events, such as polling places on Election Day, without violating the political intervention ban. The facilities of public charities and houses of worship may also be rented to third-parties, including candidates or political parties, as long as they are not provided free or at a reduced charge, they are made available on the same and equal basis to all candidates and political committees, and such events are not promoted or advertised by the charity or house of worship. See, IRS Publication 1828 (pp. 13-14)(2008); and Revenue Ruling 2007-41, 2007-25 I.R.B. 1421, 1425 (June 18, 2007).

In addition, churches may distribute voter guides without running afoul of the campaign ban. I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) organizations and churches may make available, or distribute, a voter guide which includes all viable candidates for an elective office, provided they follow certain guidelines. IRS Revenue Rulings 78-248, 80-282. Specifically, the material must be neutral and unbiased in its statement of candidates and must include candidates' positions on a broad range of issues. A voter guide cannot endorse candidates or direct individuals to vote for or against a candidate. Also, the voter guide must not contain editorial comments about any political party aimed at inducing voters in a particular way. This includes grading the candidate on his or her positions on the issues of the day. If church-distributed voting guides adhere to these restrictions, a church will not run afoul of the candidate campaigning ban. Of note, churches and § 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations may also engage in voter registration efforts, provided such efforts are neutral.

The IRS has also conditioned a church's tax-exempt status on the requirement that "no substantial part of the activities" of the organization may constitute "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation." I.R.C. § 501(c)(3). If a substantial part of the activities of an exempt organization, such as a church, consists of lobbying, the organization will not be tax-exempt under § 501(c)(3). However, certain tax-exempt organizations may elect to engage in limited lobbying activities under the objective expenditure allowances calculated under I.R.C. § 501(h). It is important to note that churches are ineligible to make this election. I.R.C. § 501(h)(3) & (4).

Organizations which cannot make the expenditure elections under § 501(h) are governed by the "substantial part of activities" test. In regard to determining what constitutes a “substantial part of the activities” of a tax-exempt organization, the issue of substantiality is essentially a question of fact and circumstance. Ky. Bar Found., Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 78 T.C. 921 (1982).

Based on relevant case law, it appears that as long as an organization expends only five percent (5%) or so of its overall expenditures on legislative activity such activity will be regarded as "insubstantial" and not result in a loss of exemption. Seasongood v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 227 F.2d 907, 912 (6th Cir. 1955) (establishing a five percent safe harbor rule); World Family Corp. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 81 T.C. 958 (1983) (finding that an exempt organization's lobbying activities which were less than ten percent (10%)--but more than 5%--of its total efforts being "insubstantial").

It should be noted, however, that in Christian Echoes Nat'l Ministry, Inc. v. U.S., 470 F.2d 849 (10th Cir. 1972), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the "substantiality" test when a radio ministry directly intervened in a political campaign and engaged in lobbying activities. Instead, the Christian Echoes court explained “substantiality" of the political activity should be assessed based on “whether a substantial part of [an organization’s] activities [not just expenditures] was to influence or attempt to influence legislation." Id. at 855.

In light of the vagueness of the substantiality test, Congress enacted I.R.C. § 501(h), the Expenditure Election, to define what amount of expenditures on lobbying is "substantial." Exempt organizations, other than churches and private foundations, may elect to be subject to definite limitations on the amount of permissible lobbying activities and expenditures. I.R.C. §§ 501(h) & 4911. In no event, however, regardless of the size of the charity, may the permitted total level of expenditures for lobbying exceed $1,000,000 for any one year. I.R.C. § 4911(c).

In sum, churches have clear First Amendment rights to speak out on the moral issues of the day, and to develop, prepare and distribute information on issues of public policy. These rights include the distribution of voter guides which are neutral and unbiased in the presentation of a candidate's position on a broad range of issues. Also, voter guides cannot endorse candidates, or urge individuals to vote for or against candidates. Churches also have the right to engage in a limited amount of lobbying activity, as long as such activity does not constitute a "substantial" part of the churches' total activities. Moreover, non-church exempt organizations may engage in lobbying activity so long as they do not exceed the expenditure limitations specified in § 501(h).

http://aclj.org/churches-organizations-/political-speech-non-profit-tax-issues

Over to you guys. LOL, i'm stuck with Diehard 4.0 :(
.. getting the italics in shoulda been easy, at least.

Please understand if any missed. Have a great day y'all .. :)

Ps: the truck was never going to tip was it. LOL. Good jump
off the disabled jet, John. Hasta be something better on.