Ahhhh you mean like Clinton and black churches…
I assume you were outraged over that as well?
Yeah.
Well, the Bush team seems to me to be dancing around the fringes of the law. I suspect this is exactly what many congregations will do.
beagledave, sorry. I don’t see the parallel. He didn’t ask for lists or direct campaign support.
Welllllll I look at the title of this thread…Should Churches Who Campaign For Bush Lose Their Non-Profit Status?
I look at what the White House Office of Public Liaison did under the Clinton administration…and it sure seems that “reaching black voters directly through their ministers and churches”…(among the other things mentioned in the piece) qualifies as “campaigning for Clinton”.
And from here
“Still, Democrats as well have targeted church groups in organizing efforts, such as when President Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign targeted black churches.”
<snip>
"Democrats have made church organizing efforts as well.
In 1996, for instance, the Democratic National Committee spent $15 million to register and mobilize black voters and to get President Clinton’s re-election message into black churches."
and here and plenty of other examples of using black ministers and churches for direct partisan political support.
It would be easier to agree with folks being “outraged” over the co-mingling of political campaigns and churches…if that outrage was omnidirectional. Not surprisingly, it’s not.
Or is the “litmus test” for outrage apparently now “asking for lists”?
Welllllll, silly me. I was discussing the contents of the OP, not arguing from the title.
As I said. The Bush team is dancing along the edges of the law. Clinton, who was a master at twisting ethics just shy of the law, did a pretty good job at keeping the churches seperate from his campaign machine. Sure, he gave church leaders their own mastabutory glee by showering them with attention, but he didn’t push the limits.
Frankly, I don’t think either side should risk it, but targeting congregants that have no knowledge of the tax laws is a little different targeting church leaders.
It’s right there in your own link. They are directing what the congregants should do, not letting the leaders decide for themselves.
It’s at that point where it gets a bit tangled.
But I agree that this:
Is just as wrong.
So I’ll argue from the title, : Should Churches Who Campaign For Bush Lose Their Non-Profit Status. My contention is, if they campaign for him yes. If the title were : Should Churches Who Campaigned For Clinton Lose Their Non-Profit Status? my answer would be the same.
But I was actually reading the OP instead of arguing from the title. If you want to jump up and down with tu quoque arguments (well, with a 8 year time warp to meet the definition of a true tu quoque, since Kerry hasn’t waded into these murky waters) go right ahead.
again.
beagledave, sorry. I don’t see the parallel. He didn’t ask for lists or direct campaign support.
Gotta agree with NurseCarmen here. While I’d rather church and state be required by the Constitution to keep at least 500 feet between them at all times, the quoted activities by Clinton and his Office of Public Liason doesn’t strike me as particularly ethics-violating. I mean, if you replaced “powerful black ministers” with “prominent local businessmen,” you’d end up describing almost every photo op that every politician across the board has ever engaged in.
Or, in other words, visiting churches is one thing; getting churches to send you their directories is another.
Fair enough.
FTR, the example of Clinton in 1996 was not to suggest that there have not been other…even more recent examples.
Howzabout Al Gore in 2000?
Or hey…howzabout here?
Though this leaves a bad taste in my mouth, it isn’t the same as using the church’s resources, records, and personal for the benefit of a single campaign.
But I agree that the example is pretty crass, but pulpit endorsements, sadly in my opinion, still remain safe.
Is there any siginificant difference between blatant pulpit endorcements (that get widespread media coverage in their locale) and what the Church at Pierce Creek did by taking an ad out in USA Today? The Church at Pierce Creek lost their IRS tax-exempt status…and they DID NOT use “the church’s resources, records and personal (sic) for the benefit of a single campaign” (which appears to be your litmus test). I suppose one could argue that they used “resources” to pay for the ad…but I would argue that “somebody” is paying for those black preachers to fly/visit Clinton in the White House for his photo ops, and I imagine some “resources” are used to host Clinton. Gore when they visit churches.
It’s not just social conservatives crying foul here…it’s folks (like the above papers) who can see a double standard in attitudes and enforcement.
Are you intoning the IRS and the US District Court for the District of Columbia are tools of the liberal establishment? I figure they’re a bit better interpretting the laws than a couple editorial departments of a couple mid sized newspapers.
You’re grasping Dave.
Former Senator Dave Durenberger (MN) was censured for playing around with host and travel payments. Politicians play it pretty safe and make sure to pay their own hotel bills, otherwise it’s a gift, which get watched pretty closely. Some wealthy benefactor probably foot the bill for the preachers to fly out. Pretty slimy yes, but since it’s not a direct campaign gift it’s allowable under the law, and both sides take advantage of it.
I guess you could argue that additional personnel (got it right this time) would have to be on hand to host the events. But that hasn’t seemed to raise the ire of that liberal enforcement body known as the IRS.
From the article, and the quote
Think the second part of the sentence had anything to do with it?
Why yes…that’s EXACTLY what I said. :smack:
Wow…I hope you NEVER criticize a SCOTUS ruling, and reference other opinions (including “mid sized”…I guess that’s bad?..newspapers) in doing so.
I assume I can count on you to agree that the SCOTUS is better at “interpreting laws” when it comes to the Florida vote count in 2000, then “a couple editorial departments of a couple mid sized newspapers”? :dubious:
Hell…even the liberal Americans United For the Separation of Church and State disagreed with the IRS about the pulpit endorcement issue surrounding Pastor Floyd Flake (you know, in the link I provided earlier for you?)
You’re absolutely certain that no “church resources”…nothing from the collection plate (which is probably the sole source of those pastor’s income) …was used for travel expenses? I only referenced that because your earlier stated litmus test included use of “church resources” for partisan political purposes.
Again…I only referenced personnel because that was in YOUR litmus test (I have no idea what the litmus test for the IRS is) for church involvement.
I noticed that you didn’t even address my main point in the previous post:
Is there any siginificant difference between blatant pulpit endorcements (that get widespread media coverage in their locale) and what the Church at Pierce Creek did by taking an ad out in USA Today?
By YOUR litmus test…"using the church’s resources, records, and personal for the benefit of a single campaign. ", the Church at Pierce Creek issue was no worse than pulpit endorcements in terms of using “resources, records and personnel for the benefit of a single campaign”. So I guess you DO disagree with the IRS, since you appear to have a different litmus test then they do.
Funny, that.
Huh? Did you actually read my entire post? I wasn’t asking why the ad caught the attention of the IRS, I was comparing the actions of THAT church with NurseCarmen’s litmus test, as it applies to pulpit endorcements.
According to HIS litmus test, pulpit endorcements (and the actions of the Clinton administration with black church congregations) do not rise to the level of requiring the IRS to revoke tax exempt status for the churches. He was especially focusing on the use of “church records”, which were not used in the Church at Pierce Creek case.
Well, that makes me eager to discuss the topic.
Hate to burst your straw man, but I do agree.
I’m trying to figure out the point you’re trying to make here. Because a one liberal group disagrees, everyone should? I assume I can count on you to agree on everything every liberal group says 
Once it’s his income, he’s free to spend it as he wishes. But I suspect that church resources were probably ultimately used here, even if it was the use of a church paperclip to hold together the airline tickets. So they could be dragged in front of a judge, and by the letter of the law, lose their tax exempt status. Is this is the point you want me to concede here? Do I think an incedental expense compared to a newspaper ad would be judged the same by any reasonable person? No. Do I think a church should lose their their tax exempt status due to their blatent abuse of paper clips? No.
But I see your point. Where is the point that a reasonable person can say the line is crossed?
What straw man? You spoke as if a judicial ruling trumps all…that they are inherently superior to other opinions, when it comes to legal matters. Do you support all judicial rulings in all jurisdictions? Or do you just use the ole’ “Appeal to Authority” reasoning when it supports decisions you agree with?
You were suggesting (for Lord knows, what reason) that I believed that “… the IRS and the US District Court for the District of Columbia are tools of the liberal establishment?”
I of course made no such assertion, and offered up evidence that folks other than conservatives (like Barry Lynn, for example) disagreed with the court and IRS.
That’s not exactly honest of you, using a PAPER CLIP compared to an ad in USA Today. :dubious:
You’re just choosing to punt on more credible expenses like, oh say airline fare…lodging etc…or expenses assumed by a congregation during campaign visits. You proffered (with no proof, of course) that some wealthy benefactor must have actually paid for the airline flights and lodging.
How about an apples to apples comparison, then. Would you agree that if a congregation spent at least $500, directly or indirectly, on efforts linked with a partisan political campaign…that those funds should, under your litmus test, cause them to lose tax exempt status? I assume the $500 limit will protect you from worries about paper clip abuse?
If so…I find it hard to believe that reasonable folks could not agree that some of the congregations (primarily black, in this case) I’ve mentioned have used at least $500 of their money in actions associated with partisan political campaigns.
Go back and reread. The question was:
I do think the SCOTUS is better suited to it.
Lord knows what reason? This:
is the reason.
You of course did make such an assertion when you said there was a double standard in attitudes and enforcement.
If you’d like to learn more about these benefactors, read up on Paula Jones and Kathleen Wiley. It’s common and both sides do it. It doesn’t violate any laws. And it’s slimy. If the pastor himself bought the ticket, it’s his income, and he can do with it what he pleases. If the church bought the ticket, then they shouldn’t be tax exempt. I stated as much earlier when I said this:
Frankly, I’m not the best one to ask about that. I don’t think any churches should be tax exempt. But do I think that in the real world a church’s tax exempt status will be challenged for such an expenditure? No. It’s just not blatent enough to garner the IRS’s attention. If they did get hauled infront of a judge for it, I would cheer a judgement against them. If $500 were spent from the church’s coffers, it certainly would be use of a church resource, and I would agree with your premise. But they know the laws, and dance around them, which was exemplified by your earlier example of Flake. Pierce Creek knew the laws too, and got made an example of when they flaunted them. Indirectly spending $500 certainly falls into a grayer area. I’m certain that every church that any presidential prospect visits during the campaign season probably is faced with at least $500 worth of additional expenditures due to the visit. Did they spruce the place up? Paint? Decorate? It can’t really be quantified, so I can’t really respond to it.
Ultimately, this last half page boils down to a tu quoque that Clinton and Gore did it, so why is it wrong that Bush is doing it. My take is that if a church uses phone banks, congregation lists, paper clips, and personnel to further my push to become supreme commander of all I survey, then the church should lose it’s status. Same for Clinton. Same for Gore. Same for Bush. If a pastor shows up at a political event, or allows a candidate use of a pulpit, the only resource used is the cool air sucked in before it’s transformed into the hot air blown out. (save for the indirect costs mentioned earlier)
I’ll give you the last word, so people can have their nice thread back.
Couple of clarifications. The “double standard in attitudes” I referenced refers to the attitudes of folks here (not the IRS or district court), I didn’t make that clear in <u>that</u> statement (although I did reference attitudes of posters here in other statements).
There has only been the one case (that I mentioned) where the IRS has revoked tax exempt status of a church (that I’m aware of…I’d be glad for a correction here). So, I’m NOT saying that there the IRS (or DC court) is a “tool of the liberal establishment”, but that the law is arbitrarily (and rarely…it seems) enforced. Perhaps it’s because they felt that the ad in the paper “forced their hand” to re-act.
I know what benefactors are. I know that you threw out the idea that they bought the tickets…with no proof.
Of course by this standard, The Church at Pierce Creek should not lose their tax exempt status (no phone banks or congregation lists were used to take out that ad. I doubt that “personnel use” was more than what it takes to organize campaign visits) 
Fair enough, although I don’t think a discussion of how (or when) a particular law is applied is really a hijack in a thread about that law.