Free Speech Applies to All
Except If You're a Pastor
News Analysis by Jim Day
Currently, a house of worship
may not engage in any activity that might be regarded as participating or
intervening in a political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, a candidate
running for public office because of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations
regarding its tax-exempt status. As a result, a great many
|
|
church/ministry leaders are fearful and shy away from even mentioning
political or moral issues because they are afraid of violating the
law. They’re afraid that anything they say or do in the area of politics
or moral issues related to politics (i.e. abortion, homosexuality,
etc.) may be perceived as an endorsement or condemnation of a particular
candidate or political party. Many church leaders even prohibit allowing
voter education materials (voter guides, voting records, etc.) from
being distributed in their churches for fear that they might run afoul
of the law. How Did This Come About? On July 2nd of 1954, then Democratic
Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson (who went on to become President), proposed
an amendment to a bill revising the tax code which inserted language
prohibiting 501(c)(3) organizations from endorsing or opposing candidates. Johnson’s amendment was never debated, and in fact,
the Republican majority accepted his amendment through unanimous consent,
so there were no hearings, no debates, or Congressional Record entries. |
organizations that at the time were opposing Johnson’s re-election. Facts
Forum was founded by Texas millionaire H.L. Hunt; the Committee for Constitutional
Government was founded by publishing magnate Frank Gannett.
Also in the mix in 1954, Johnson was working to hold off McCarthyism both in Texas and Washington, but especially within the Texas Democratic Party. Then
|
Texas governor, Allan Shivers, was an ally of Senator Joseph McCarthy
and stood firmly against Johnson. If Johnson could put an end to Facts
Forum’s partisan support for McCarthy and Shivers, and stifle any involvement
in his own race for re-election, he could challenge political conservatives
on a national level, improve loyal Democrats’ chances in the Texas primary
and serve his own political interests all at the same time.
|
 Lyndon Baines Johnson |
political candidate. They cannot contribute money to a candidate nor endorse a political party. The IRS code very clearly defines these limits.
The results of Johnson’s law and the IRS’s expansion
of the definition of that law have effectively silenced the overwhelming majority
of churches in America and instilled fear in their leaders. And, of course,
organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State,
People for the America Way and the ACLU love it! They love it so much that
they’re actually sending spies into churches across the nation to make sure
they’re not saying or doing something that might smack of being political,
which is exactly what the Nazi’s did during Hitler’s rise to power.
The fact of the matter is, this legislation and the IRS codes violate the First
Amendment right of free speech of
every church leader in America who wishes to encourage his congregation to
support righteous candidates or stand against those who oppose God.
House Tries to Fix the Situation
On October 2, 2002, close to 60% of the United States House of Representatives voted to continue to restrict the free speech of our church leaders. House Bill 2357, The Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act (HB 2357), introduced by Representative Walter B. Jones, Jr. of North Carolina and
 Walter B. Jones |
co-sponsored by 133 Representatives from both parties, would have amended
the IRS Code of 1986 to “permit churches to participate or intervene
in political campaigns and still maintain their tax-exempt status.”
Unfortunately the bill was overwhelmingly defeated by a vote of 239
to 179 with 14 Representatives not even voting. A two-thirds majority
of the House was required to pass the measure on to the Senate for consideration. Had HB 2357 passed the House
and gone on to pass in the Senate, it would have freed our clergy from
the muzzle imposed by Congress and the IRS and removed a major stumbling
block placed before the Body of Christ in fulfilling its biblical responsibility
of choosing righteous people for positions of governmental leadership. The following is a list of the
Congressmen from Missouri and Illinois who voted for HB 2357 to free
our clergy and restore their constitutional right of free speech: Missouri: Todd Akin (R), Roy
Blunt (R), Jo Ann Emerson (R), Sam Graves (R), and Kenny Hulshof (R). Illinois: John Shimkus (R),
David Phelps (D), Ray Lahood (R), Donald Manzullo
(R), Jerry Weller (R), Phil Crane (R), Henry Hyde (R), and William O.
Lipinski (D). |
The following is a list of the
Congressmen who voted against HB 2357:
Missouri: Richard
Gephardt (D), Karen McCarthy (D), and Ike Skelton, (D). William L. Clay, Jr.(D) did not vote at all.
Illinois: Jerry Costello
(D), Lane Evans (D), Judy Biggert (R), Danny Davis (D), Luis Gutierrez (D),
Jesse Jackson Jr. (D), Timothy Johnson (R), Mark Kirk (R), Bobby Rush (D),
Janice Schakowsky (D), and Rod Blagojevich (D), who is now the Governor of
Illinois.
HB 2357 Re-introduced
During the 108th Congressional Session (our
present Congress) HB 2357 was re-introduced by Congressman Jones of North
Carolina as House Resolution 235 (HR 235) under the title, The Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act. So, once again,
our elected officials have an opportunity to liberate our clergy from the
muzzle imposed by the absolute ban on all speech that may be regarded as “political,”
and thereby enable them to speak out on the vital moral and political questions
of the day. HR 235, if passed by the House and Senate, will free houses of
worship from the fear and anxiety and uncertainty created by the threat that
the IRS will impose financial penalties or revoke their tax-exempt status
altogether. The following is how the resolution reads:
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 235
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect the religious free
exercise and free speech rights of churches and other houses of worship.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January
8, 2003
Mr. JONES of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. DELAY, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. HAYES,
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. HALL, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr.
KENNEDY of Minnesota, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. PENCE, Ms. HART, and Mr.
PITTS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
Ways and Means
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect the religious free
exercise and free speech rights of churches and other houses of worship. Be
it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
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 re-designating
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.
HR 235’s Present Status
As of the writing of this article, HR 235 had 165 co-sponsors and had
been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee for discussion. The
following is the list of Missouri and Illinois House members who have cosigned
the bill:
Missouri: Todd Akin (R), Jo Ann Emerson (R), Sam Graves
(R), and Roy Blunt (R).
Illinois: John Shimkus (R), Jerry Weller (R), Donald Manzullo (R), Ray LaHood
(R), Henry Hyde (R), and Philip Crane (R).
Those who had not signed on to the bill as of the writing of this
commentary from Missouri and Illinois include:
Missouri: William Lacy Clay (D), Richard Gephardt (D), Ike Skelton (D), Karen
McCarthy (D), and Kenny Hulshof (R).
Illinois: Jerry Costello (D), Lane Evans (D), Bobby Rush (D), Jesse Jackson Jr.
(D), William Lipinski (D), Luis Gutierrez (D), Raham
Emanuel (D), Danny Davis (D), Janice Schakowsky (D), Dennis Hastert (R),
Timothy Johnson (R), Mark Steven Kirk (R), and Judy Biggert (R).
Conclusion
In writing this commentary I
was not surprised to find many of the same Congressmen who voted against HB
2357 on the same list of Congressmen who had not cosigned to support HR 235.
There was one exception however that did surprise me -- Missouri Congressman
Kenny Hulshof (R) of the 9th Congressional District. I decided to call
Congressman Hulshof to obtain his reasoning for not being a cosigner. The
following was his answer which was forwarded to me by his Chief of Staff
Manning Feraci:
“The tax code should not be
used to stifle the free speech of people of faith. Unfortunately, there
have been reports of liberal leaning groups using the threat of sanctions under
the Internal Revenue Code to harass churches. The last time this issue
was considered by the U.S. House, I voted in favor of a bill that would have
removed this threat. Unfortunately, it failed to garner the votes needed
for passage.
“I serve on the Ways and Means
Committee in Congress, the committee that has jurisdiction over tax
issues. I am working with my colleagues to formulate a solution to this
problem that will allow people of faith to express their political
opinions. This fix must be carefully crafted. As we have seen from
the rash of unregulated, soft money ads by so-called ‘527 organizations,’
liberal organizations have been extremely aggressive in exploiting loopholes in
campaign finance laws. If a bill addressing the needs of churches is
drafted incorrectly, it could have the unintended consequence of giving groups
like MoveOn.org and others on the far left of the political spectrum yet
another loophole to exploit.
“That being said, I think we
can find a solution to this problem, and I plan to continue working to free
churches from threats and intimidation.”
I agree with Congressman
Hulshof that Congress should indeed proceed with caution to avoid violating the
law of unintended consequences. However,
just removing the restriction of not allowing church leaders to talk about a
political candidate or party shouldn’t be that complicated.
Amendment 1 to the U.S. Constitution seems quite clear to
me. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,….” Now what
part of “abridging the freedom of speech” isn’t clear?
Lyndon Johnson’s law was a
violation of the 1st Amendment to begin with, not to mention the IRS’s
compounding of the problem. And, on top
of that, there’s not enough room here to talk about the number of blatant
violations of this law by the liberal left which go un-prosecuted, so we can
talk about how unevenly these rules are applied.
The bottom line is that our
spiritual leaders must be free to address the moral issues of our day from a
political as well as a spiritual perspective. They must be allowed to encourage
their flocks to support men and women seeking office who stand on biblical
principles and against unrighteousness. Our clergy must be free to discuss any
issue from their pulpits and support any political party or candidate they feel
furthers the cause of Christ – without fear of reprisal from the government.
The present restrictions of free speech upon our church leaders are a mockery
of the very freedoms our Founding Fathers fought and died for. They’re an
insult to every American soldier who has ever served or given his or her life
in defense of our nation.
I encourage every reader of
the MetroVoice to call his or her Congressman and
tell them to make sure HR 235 puts an end to this injustice. If you have
friends, relatives, coworkers or acquaintances in other states, encourage them
to do the same.
For more information regarding
HR 235 or to sign up to support HR 235 and receive status reports, log on to
www.hr235.org.