The national United Church of Christ is under attack from the IRS, the AP reports, because the church invited one of its members, Barack Obama, to speak at the church's national conference last summer. The invitation came before Obama had decided to run for president. What's at stake here is not just religious freedom, but the freedom of speech of all nonprofit groups. The danger is that when nonprofit groups are silenced, corporate America will be able to dominate even more thoroughly the public debate.
The IRS letter to the United Church of Christ is particularly disturbing, threatening to revoke the church's tax-exempt status. The sole basis for the letter is that Obama gave a June 23, 2007 speech to the church's members (he was invited before he decided to run for president), and Obama campaign staffers had tables outside the building promoting him. Inside the building, the church actually banned all Obama signs and literature, and announced that it was not a campaign speech.
If this rule is taken literally, it might ban all politicians from speaking at any nonprofit location. The IRS rules would have required the church to give the same speaking opportunity to every single candidate for president. Since Obama spoke more than six months before anyone voted in the 2008 elections, this rule would put no time limit on a ban. So far, that campaign for presidency has included nine Democrats, 13 Republicans, four Constitution Party candidates, three Green Party candidates, eight Libertarian Party candidates, and a half-dozen smaller party candidates, plus any potential challengers to Obama's Senate seat. Altogether, a nonprofit organization would need to invite nearly 50 people to speak for an hour at any event if they wanted to hear a candidate speak. This kind of logic would effectively mean that every nonprofit organization in the country is now banned from having any politician speak at an event at any time. These groups cannot afford to provide an outlet for every nutcase candidate to speak, and they cannot risk the legal liability of failing to invite every possible speaker.
Such repressive IRS actions are already causing fearful reactions from nonprofit organizations. As I noted last month, the School of the Art Institute in Chicago banned its Gene Siskel Film Center from showing a documentary about Barack Obama out of an exaggerated fear that it might be seen as violating IRS rules. There is a serious danger that colleges and other nonprofit groups will seek to silence political speech out of a misguided fear of what an IRS controlled by the Bush Administration might do to them.
Nonprofit groups are, correctly, banned from aiding politicians. But this law should have a narrow application that protects the integrity of the political process, not a broad interpretation that censors speech fully protected by the First Amendment. Churches and other nonprofit groups should be prohibited from funneling money to a campaign, raising money for candidates, or making membership in the organization dependent upon support for or opposition to a candidate. Beyond that, however, churches should be free to invite any candidates to speak without charge, and members of churches should be equally free to endorse any candidates they wish. When nonprofit groups violate standards of fair conduct (such as the efforts by right-wing Catholic groups to have liberal Democrats banned from speaking at Catholic colleges), the proper response is condemnation, not attempts to banish their existence as non-profit organizations.
I am a strong advocate of preventing politicians from exploiting nonprofit groups. In my 1996 book, Newt Gingrich: Capital Crimes and Misdemeanors, I criticized the IRS' lenient treatment toward nonprofit organizations run by Newt to aid the Republican Party and his personal presidential ambitions. Newt's political organization GOPAC effectively ran a nonprofit group, the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation, as a money-laundering scheme for its big donors who wanted to avoid political contribution limits and receive a tax-deduction. Corporations and foundations, which are banned from donating to campaigns, could also funnel money to Gingrich using this method, and Gingrich personally thanked donors for their commitment "to GOPAC and to ALOF." Gingrich decided to start another nonprofit group, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, to promote his videotaped college lectures where he explicitly banned "liberal ideas" and then lied about it to the House Ethics Committee. Gingrich wasn't alone. Bob Dole started the nonprofit Better America Foundation in 1994 and spent millions on polls and TV commercials before the 1994 elections that featured Dole and Gingrich asking viewers to "help turn Congress around." But these fraudulent groups can be stopped without suppressing the political speech of legitimate churches and activist organizations.
Why is the IRS so anxious to go after a Democratic Senator's church at the same time it is letting wealthy tax cheats get away with their crimes? Under the Bush Administration, the IRS has dramatically increased audits of low-income taxpayers while largely ignoring massive fraud by the very rich. This latest attack on Obama's national church by the Bush Administration closely follows the right-wing attacks on the pastor of his church in Chicago.
It might be tempting for some liberals to want to use the IRS to go after all of the right-wing churches that are deeply involved in supporting Republican candidates. But there's a principle at stake here. We should have freedom of expression for everyone, whether it's conservative or liberal groups. We have nothing to fear from the right in the open debate of ideas, but we have plenty to fear when the IRS is trying to suppress political discussions.
Crossposted at ObamaPolitics.
Note: I'm the author of a new book, Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest, but I'm not part of the Obama Campaign.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I just hope that after democrats sweep both the presidency and the 2 houses that we would clean house at the IRS. There are a lot of SCUMBAGS that work there that are not doing their job but looking out for the Republican party.
Evangelical churches have been preaching politics from the pulpit for years. How do you think all of those evangelicals got their marching orders to go out and vote for Bush! This is another Rovian Republican tactic to ambush Senator Obama. Republicans continually use our government agencies and judicial system to persecute and prosecute any opposition and how we as American people continue to allow this is beyond me!
Can I hear an AMEN!!!
It's fine for the IRS to check up on Churches but it better bi partisan. Not like the Justice department 10-1 investigation of Democrats.
if the church did the right thing, what do they have to fear?
like the candidate obama, he cries wolf everytime and the media protects him. he parrots hillary during debates. just watch him. his 'present' votes in the IL. legislature means he can't think or worse he can't make a decision. if he can't make a decision then, do you think he can make the right decision when he is president? or is he going to say 'present?'
i am a democrat but will vote for mccain if obama is the democratic candidate.
DITTO! Apparently he was "present" in church making his campaign pitch. Regardless of whether he was running at the time or not , it was still a political speech.
tristanrose
You are NOT A DEM!
No matter who the Dem Nominee in November is, Dems will vote for the ticket.
Leave this site and go help McWar. He and the entire GOP are looking for volunteers
and money.
Gee, that is a wonderful idea.
Sorry. I will support whichever Democratic candidate wins.
I support Hillary, but you know, I support Obama too despite some reservations.
I have reservations about Hillary as well. I believe either of them would be good Presidents and have the opportunity to be great Presidents depending who they surround themselves with.
There are quite a few things that disturb me about Obaama, his surrogates and most of all his supporters that are in the Progressive blogosphere.
If I judged Obama by them I would not be able to support him at all.
If these are the people who are attracted to him then who is he or rather, what is it about him that attracts these kind of people who have more intrest in smearing their shit all over Hillary and perpetrating Hatred and malice toward her than actually living the message they purportedly support.
Lip service is not really rolling up your sleeves and working to change America.
As Obama says, Word's matter. The words they say tell a story in stark contrast to Obama,
There are more concerns about Senator Obama and some of his tactics that I have written about in many posts in my desire to promote some kind of fairness and objectivity on this site. (fat chance)
That being said I also have issues with Senator Clinton. Her campaign has been unraveling so I have to ask who has she surrounded herself with and who has she listened to.
That is really what I am most concerned about with her.
I supported Obama before but for the reasons I've outlined here and elsewhere I moved over to support Hillary. I fully investigated her from the early 1970's on. I know I won't agree with every decision she makes or support every thing she wants done. I'm a grown up. We have to be realistic.
Well anyway, the bottom line is if you vote for McCain you will be helping brink bring Hell back. We see what happens when people make a
protest vote. We have had 7 years so far and while I would love to have 3 parties, or more for that matter, we do not have that now. Voting for anyone but a democrat is madness.
We need to get over the divisiveness that the Obamatons have been perpetrating on the Progressive blogs.
We don't have to follow that lead. Rising above is the only way to go.
As I said when you read their comments you have to wonder about Obama. Its such a turnoff.
Why be like them, take the high road, suck it up and do what is best for the country.
Please.
Besides all that, Hillary is better looking than either McCain or the BO.
Meanwhile Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention operates as a de facto operative for the GOP.
I was there--and I am not an Obama staffer! I was one of those who manned tables on the public sidewalk outside the Hartford Civic Center last June when Sen. Obama spoke to the Synod of the United Church of Christ. Like the others at the tables, I was and still am a member of Connecticut Grass Roots for Obama, a volunteer organization that, like many other such groups across the country, sprang up out of the soil a year or so ago, when it became clear that Sen. Obama was considering a run for the presidency. In the days leading up to the Hartford event, our volunteer chairwoman gave us very clear instructions . We were told that the UCC's invitation to Sen. Obama to speak had been issued about a year in advance, well before there was any thought of his running for president. We were told that the event had been very carefully lawyered in advance to be sure that no laws or regulations were broken. We were told that, because it was a non-political event, no political literature could be distributed and no money solicited or accepted. None of us was allowed inside the Civic Center, as we were not registered to attend the event and none of those attendees inside the Civic Center was allowed to display any Obama signs or wear any Obama buttons or clothing. We were told that we could do only one thing at our tables on the street, take names and addresses of those people who expressed interested in Senator Obama's views "on matters of faith," and that's all we did. Those of us who wore Obama t-shirts or caps on the street had purchased them from the campaign at our own expense; they were not given to us by the campaign.
As one who lived through the Nixon era, I am saddened--to say the least--to learn that yet another Republican administration is using the IRS to go after its 'enemies list.'
Take note, Hillary fans: The Bush IRS has been put to work attacking Obama NOW, during the primaries, instead of holding off and waiting for the general election. REPUBLICANS DO NOT WANT TO FACE OBAMA; THEY WANT TO FACE HILLARY.
REPUBLICANS DO NOT WANT TO FACE HILLARY. THEY KNOW THEY WILL LOSE. HILLARY HAS NEVER LOST TO A REPUBLICAN. EVER.
REPUBLICANS WANT OBAMA SO BAD THEY CAN TASTE IT. I HAVE WORKED IN D C AND THEY KNOW VERY WELL THEY WILL EAT OBAMA ALIVE IN THE GENERAL. REPUBLICANS KNOW BY FAR OBAMA IS WEAKER THAN CLINTON.
THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR IN THE SENATE WHO VOTES FOR PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION. ( THAT ALONE WILL BRING THE CONSERVATIVES OUT IN MASS)
THINK OF THE COMMERCIALS THEY COULD RUN:
Obama, the most liberal senator in D C has no problem with partial birth abortion. He and his wife even hold fund raisers to kill innocent children whom have have taken their first breath. These innocent baby American citizens would live outside their mothers womb. That is if Obama didn't vote over and over and over and over against them.
Then the person in the commercial will speak over crying mothers and graves about what partial abortion is: ( it is a form of late-term abortion and infanticide. The term infanticide refers to the killing of a newborn infant: )
In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA (Born Alive Infants Protection Act) was sent, Obama prevented it from even getting a hearing. BAIPA stated that all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted. Obama killed the bill. In all, BAIPA had been introduced and failed four times in four years in Illinois, due in large part Obama.
THE REPUBLICAN COMMERCIAL WILL GO ON TO DESCRIBE WHAT HAPPENS TO A INNOCENT BABY DURING THE PROCEDURE THAT OBAMA VOTED FOR OVER AND OVER AND OVER OVER AGAIN. AND RAISED MONEY FOR:
The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb.
Obama will be crushed in the general. If you want a REP in the WH vote for Obama. He will get a REP in the WH for the DEMS like that.
There is nothig that gets REP faster to the polls than a liberal that votes for partial birth abortion. Nothing.
so are you saying that Obama is too liberal?
funny, because a Clinton supporter yesterday gave me her unsolicited opinion that he wasn't liberal enough, so I shouldn't vote for him, and that's why Republicans actually support him.
So which is it? Clinton supporters (if indeed you are one) can't seem to get their messages straight, and I'm tired of having them trying to tell me who to vote for.
I think we need to leave that Clinton vs. Obama mentality aside for a moment. That's petty. This is a politically motivated attack on Democrats, period. I recall several instances suring the past few years when Republican candidates clearly crossed the line by speaking at churches; I was outraged when no action was taken. Sounds like this Obama event was on the up-and-up and this attack is probably easily refuted. But the hypocrisy!
I'm betting they've opened Pandora's box that will hurt almost exclusively the right wing churches that have openly campaigned for the Republicans themselves.
Gee, I guess I've got to disagree. We need to go after every church who supports a right wing domestic policy and a millenialist foreign policy for Israel and invites various Republican troglodytes to speak therein. Why? 1) Because it's going to get us all killed unless it's suppressed and hobbled by legalism and officiousness from government agencies, if not by common sense 2)F*** the principle involved. The democrats must give back as good as they get and hold the republicans feet to whatever fire they can build to burn them. Because that's the only language the republicans understand. And they need to learn to fear us, as we have learned from them to fear.
It would be a wonderful world if when the nice people get a chance to govern, they just shake hands with everybody who was lately marching against them with a pitchfork pointed at their bellies. That way, there would be no more unpleasantness, no more partisan rancor, and we could all get back to the fiction of our unified purpose here in the USA, which incidentally can be boiled down past obfuscating rhetoric to 'screw the little guy'.
But we tried that. It's called Watergate. And Iran-Contra. And everybody who the democrats just left unprosecuted plotted and planned, and when they had the run of the White House this last time, mangled our constitution past recognition, eviscerated our republic and bankrupt both the treasury and our international standing. Prosecution for the guilty! The full weight of the law brought against the promoters and enablers!
How is it that Obama and the United Church of Christ is receiving this criticism when the Evangelical Right has been doing the same and worse for scores of years?
I would like to know the same thing ABailey? But we know the answer don't we. This is what this administration does - it sics the feds on its enemies.
let them look or are you afraid the church is tied to farrahkan?
HuffPost's Pick
I wouldn't think the IRS want to open this can of worms. Don't forget it's the Demacraes in charge of congress now, and if they will do stupid thing like go after base ball players during A war, terroriest,broken borders, an fighting along the arizona , mexico boarders and etc.----------They certainly can dig up a few church"s who back the republican canidates to. Man let's not even start on this one. congress has wasted enough of our time, money and energy on nonesense like this. Let thelm take it up during peace time, and by the way everyone knows it's a ploy to make a Demacrate look bad and for no other reason----------------------can't find nothing alse by all means attack his or hers religeon!
Loading comments…
Posted February 28, 2008 | 08:50 AM (EST)