The end of the first amendment
- Thread starter BombadEER
- Start date
Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."
https://www.irs.gov/uac/charities-churches-and-politics
It's not the law you posted that is incorrect, it is your comment from post #15 in this thread where you stated:
To prohibit pastors from endorsing or speaking out against candidates would be a violation of their First Amendment right. However, the loss of tax exempt status by doing so is correct, but they are two different things. I believe that is the contention.
A church cannot endorse a candidate but a pastor can and has, many times. A church can hand out voter guides describing the church's position on the issues.
The most frequent violators of this law are actually African American churches, where pastors routinely praise a single candidate from the pulpit.
Just learn to admit when you are wrong, it happens a lot, you will save yourself a lot of time.
My pastor speaks out on issues every now and then. He never mentions candidates, even though he could.
Whether an organization is participating or intervening, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of each case. For example, certain "voter education" activities, including preparation and distribution of certain voter guides, conducted in a non-partisan manner may not constitute prohibited political activities under section 501(c)(3) of the Code. Other so-called "voter education" activities may be proscribed by the statute. Rev. Rul. 78-248, 1978-1 C.B. 154, contrasts several situations illustrating when an organization that publishes a compilation of candidate positions or voting records has or has not engaged in prohibited political activities based on whether the questionnaire used to solicit candidate positions or the voters guide itself shows a bias or preference in content or structure with respect to the views of a particular candidate. See also Rev. Rul. 80-282, 1980-2 C.B. 178, amplifying Rev. Rul. 78-248 regarding the timing and distribution of voter education materials.
As stated, depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of each case. It would remain to be seen if petition instructions would stand the test of "voter education" or if there was a "bias or preference".
However, neither exempts any sermon from being subpoenaed as part of discovery to defend the lawsuit brought against the City of Houston. Just like the alternate discussion in this thread about First Amendment and tax exempt status, these are two different thing.
My jaw legit hit the floor. THE is quoting Weezer. Not just Weezer, but Kim Bauer's Weezer.
The code does not say directly or indirectly. That's an IRS interpretation inserted during the Obama administration.
Last edited:
You want it so bad you can taste it. [laughing] You just can't muster the intelligence to prove me wrong. [laughing]
I didn't have to prove you wrong, you did it to yourself. Everyone in this thread, conservative and liberal has told you that you were wrong. The only person in this thread who doesn't realize you were wrong is you. Look around sugartits, its just you.
You obviously weren't listening to Al Gore, Obama, or Hillary in Black Churches when they were pining for votes.
So what "Churches" do Rev. Al Sharpton or Rev. Jessie Jackson represent?
You have now posted a total of 8 times in this thread and every single post of yours in this thread is a response to one of my posts.
You are so obsessed with me that you took the time to go back and count that. Stop making stupid points and I won't respond to you sugartits, it really is that easy.You have now posted a total of 8 times in this thread and every single post of yours in this thread is a response to one of my posts.
You posted 9 times in this thread and all 9 times were a reply to my posts....and you think I am obsessed with you.
You are a creep. There is something seriously wrong with you.
This is a message board sugartits. You make posts and people respond to you, that is how it works. You can call me all the names you want but at the end of the day you were once again wrong and now you have resorted to personal attacks and name calling. All of this could have been avoided if you either a) chose to be right for once or b) just admit when you are wrong and correct yourself.
My points are multiples. First, my point is snoops as in accurately depicted the situation. The mayor was in the pastors and churches over the issue of Gay rights. Second, law code and the way the law code is set up to be politically interpreted by the IRS are two different things. Third, I am not speaking in theory. I have personal experience with The government using subpoena power to intimidate a church.
With regard to the Snopes article, here are two other sources, both cited in the Snopes article that support the facts; one is local from Houston the other the Washington Post, who takes a further look at the situation (Constitutional context).
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...bpoenas-sermons-in-ERO-court-case-5822800.php
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-of-ministers-sermons/?utm_term=.ae184890cc3d
It has been established that the IRS code only refers to tax exempt status and not to First Amendment rights or issues.
I don't now the particulars of your own situation, and it is none of my business, but unless it is regarding a First Amendment issue it is probably not relevant to the discussion.
I know the spin which you're callings facts. The 501(c)(3) code does abridge the First Amendment. It restricts political speech. Mayor Parker was trying to intimidate pastors and churches. Didn't work.