Electioneering for me, but not for thee

Wish I'd said that!

[Reprinted from Issues & Views December 30, 2002]

Whichever side of the fence you're on when it comes to politicians using churches for electioneering, a law was passed last year that now forbids such political activity. Forbids it, at least, for white churches, while black churches continue with political business as usual. Theoretically, allowing a political candidate to promote himself and his politics in a church jeopardizes that church's non-profit status with the Internal Revenue Service. We learn from Rick Sellers of the Free Congress Foundation (12/10/02), however, that double standards prevail even in the religious sphere. Here are some of his observations on the recent electoral competition in Louisiana between Democrat Mary Landrieu (the winner) and Republican Suzie Terrell:

From the beginning of our country until 1954, churches had been active on a wide variety of issues from tariff debates to slavery abolition to the need for civil rights. Ministers could not only talk about the issues before Congress (which they can still do today), but church members could even be told the positions of officeholders and candidates (which is illegal today).

Since the 1970's, conservative groups have tried to compete with the liberal groups in organizing churches for Republican candidates, but this is mainly focused on begging ministers to hand out, or at least place at the entrance, voter guides that list all the candidates on the ballot for a particular office and their positions on the issues. This is allowed by current IRS regulations.

However, most ministers are intimidated not to allow even this legal action, because liberal groups like the Interfaith Alliance and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, send out threatening letters to ministers, opposing conservative issue handouts. . . .

In order to address this problem, Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) forced a vote in October 2002, in the House of Representatives, to allow churches to talk about candidates and the issues. With his hard work, he got the Republican leadership behind his legislation and gathered an impressive 178 votes. The legislation was defeated by untrue allegations made by the Congressional Black Caucus, such as claiming the legislation was not about free speech, but really expanding campaign finance loopholes. This smokescreen helped solidify the Democrats and a few Republicans against the bill.

[So, last year, thanks primarily to the Congressional Black Caucus, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, that would have restored the rights of all churches to engage in political speech, was defeated.]

The same Black Caucus members were in Louisiana helping Senator Mary Landrieu turn out the African American vote working primarily through churches. The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported in a front-page story on the day before the election December 6, 2002, that "Landrieu has been getting help from a coalition that claims 300 historically black churches in New Orleans." Other papers reported black church campaign activity all over Louisiana. . . .

A possible solution to this problem: What if 1,000 African American churches lose their charitable tax status going back 30 years, and are heavily fined for their illegal campaign activity? Then let us see how the Congressional Black Caucus and the Democratic leadership votes on Congressman Walter Jones' new church political communication freedom bill in 2003.

Copyright © 2008 Issues & Views