Posted on 03/04/2005 6:54:29 AM PST by Crackingham
Sorry, but IMO it is not. We can agree to disagree there without the personal attacks.
I have a better idea: revoke ALL tax-exemptions for ALL organizations.
I agree
Only after they abolish the Internal Revenue Service and put the collection of taxes back where it belongs.
WITH THE CONGRESS!
Then those whiney weasling SOB's can face the ire of their own constituants and be voted out of office handily.
Yes, it could easily be viewed as exactly that.
So then the Sierra Club could start their own Church of Gaia and use that for all the political speech they would want then, eh?
I am doing no such thing. I asked you a rhetorical question - if churches can be tax-exempt and still politic from the pulpit, what is to stop any secular group from forming their own church and doing the same in order to circumvent tax laws regarding campaign contributions?
So then this law should be broadened to include all tax-exempt groups, not just churches?
So do you think campaign contributions should be tax-exempt, then? You need to get a better understanding of what constitutes censorship - there are plenty of people, for example, who wail about what they perceive to be censorship on FR. However, FR is a VOLUNTARY association, and JimRob has the right to restrict that association, and it is not censorship to limit what someone can say on FR. Now, if the government tries to limit what you can post on the internet, with only a few restrictions similar to shouting "FIRE" in a moviehose, then that would amount to censorship.
Likewise, a church can choose to become a tax-exempt organization - under the terms and limitations for such. If they find those terms too onerous, they can refuse the tax exemption. Thousands of groups make that consideration every year. McCain-Feingold is censorship because it is forced with little recourse. Limitations on political speech for tax-exempt organizations do not cross that threshhold, as there is recourse and the status is voluntary.
You are entirely wrong. The IRS regs affect all 501(c)(3) organizations, not just churches.
The restriction is not unconstitutional because incorporating as a 501(c)(3) is voluntary. (Or, in a church's case, it can opt out).
Churches & other non-profits are free to electioneer all they want if they incorporate differently, set themselves up as a PAC, renounce their 501(c)(3) status, etc. Because they have these options, no court would ever rule the IRS regs are unconstitutional.
Why do you think the ACLJ, etc hasn't sued yet? Answer: Because they know they'd lose.
Exactly. McCain-Feingold IMO is unconstitutional because it is not voluntary, gives little recourse to its restrictions and also fails equal-protection tests by granting an exemption to the news media. One can debate as to whether churches should be allowed to politic from the pulpit and still get tax-exempt status for their charitable activities - and, like you said, many organizations separate those out. But there is nothing in the First Amendment that discusses tax exemptions.
But it is an indirect subsidy of the speech, and thereby in infringement on any speech not subsidized. For churches, it is a clear case of Congress making law "respecting an establishment of religion." Specifically those religions that accept such recognition.
I also disagree with the proposal, pretty much for the same reasons you do.
Just in case anyone doesn't know......
The B in Lyndon B. Johnson means B*llSh*t!
(I hate to have to admit that LBJ was from Texas. He was a sorry excuse for a Texan)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.