RE: IRS clears Falwell
News of the weird is always welcome here. J Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Avenue Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0971 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 6:09 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: IRS clears Falwell Perhaps you'd be interested in this news story: The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that the Rev. Jerry Falwell violated no regulations by mentioning his support for the re-election of President George W. Bush in a Texas speech last yearThe Federal Elections Commission dismissed a similar complaint against Falwell earlier this month. http://www.newsadvance.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=LNA%2FMGArticle%2FLNA_BasicArticlec=MGArticlecid=1031784042920path=!news!archive Becky Dale (I read Virginia newspapers in the mornings and come across stories like this. Not sure whether you all are interested in news clipsas well as discussion.) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: IRS clears Falwell
Interesting decision. Does anyone have access to the IRS rulings in these cases so we can see the totality of what it says? I wonder if the result differs when the speaker is preaching a sermon rather than simply being an "invited speaker," or when the speaker is the pastor of her own congregation. It seems, to me, a rather easy distinction between the First Amendment rights of invited speakers at a pulpit that is open to a wide diversity of political views such as those shared in many mainstream Christian congregations (the Disciples of Christ can claim both Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan, for example), and the non-political requirements of a 501(c)(3) where it is an officer of the organization either urging or ordering members to act politically. Ed Darrell Dallas[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps you'd be interested in this news story: "The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that the Rev. Jerry Falwell violated no regulations by mentioning his support for the re-election of President George W. Bush in a Texas speech last yearThe Federal Elections Commission dismissed a similar complaint against Falwell earlier this month." http://www.newsadvance.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=LNA%2FMGArticle%2FLNA_BasicArticlec=MGArticlecid=1031784042920path=!news!archive Becky Dale (I read Virginia newspapers in the mornings and come across stories like this. Not sure whether you all are interested in news clipsas well as discussion.)___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: IRS clears Falwell
Sorry. Comment went to the wrong list. Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Ave. Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph: 205-345-0966 fx: 205-345-0971 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad M Pardee Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 1:05 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: IRS clears Falwell In regard to the story about the IRS and Jerry Falwell, Joel Sogol wrote: News of the weird is always welcome here. Just out of curiousity, what makes this fall under the heading of News of the weird? Brad ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: IRS clears Falwell
Ed Darrell wrote: Interesting decision. Does anyone have access to the IRS rulings in these cases so we can see the totality of what it says? I wonder if the result differs when the speaker is preaching a sermon rather than simply being an invited speaker, or when the speaker is the pastor of her own congregation. It seems, to me, a rather easy distinction between the First Amendment rights of invited speakers at a pulpit that is open to a wide diversity of political views such as those shared in many mainstream Christian congregations (the Disciples of Christ can claim both Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan, for example), and the non-political requirements of a 501(c)(3) where it is an officer of the organization either urging or ordering members to act politically. I haven't read this particular decision, but I have written a lot about similar decisions and I think the more obvious distinction is between what someone says as a minister and what someone says in one of his many other roles. In Falwell's case, he is not only a minister, he is also the owner of more than one media outlet (for profit) and a syndicated columnist. So if he were to write in a syndicated column that he endorses a candidate, would that violate the IRS rules against ministers endorsing candidates because he's also a minister? This is a very common situation, I might add. Every lobbyist knows how the game is played, you set up one non-profit to raise money and a PAC to engage in political advocacy. I've been on record as saying that the ban on endorsing candidates should just be done away with because A) it's so easy to get around (everyone knows that churches give de facto endorsements all the time through voter information guides and the like) and B) it's so prone to abuse. I'm just not comfortable with the government having to parse the wording of sermons to determine whether an endorsement crosses the line from de facto to de jure on some arbitrary scale. Ed Brayton -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.4/57 - Release Date: 7/22/05 ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: IRS clears Falwell
Ed Brayton wrote: I've been on record as saying that the ban on endorsing candidates should just be done away with because A) it's so easy to get around (everyone knows that churches give de facto endorsements all the time through voter information guides and the like) and B) it's so prone to abuse. I'm just not comfortable with the government having to parse the wording of sermons to determine whether an endorsement crosses the line from de facto to de jure on some arbitrary scale. Absolutely. If churches spend money for political purposes, as in buying ads or paying workers to get out the vote, they can run that through a 501(c)(4) or a PAC like everybody else. But when the pastor simply says something, about an issue or a candidate, there is no marginal cost in dollars and no possible way to run his speech through the political affiliate. The effect of an absolute ban on endorsements is simply to censor the speech of a class of citizens. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: IRS clears Falwell
Douglas Laycock wrote: ... But when the pastor simply says something, about an issue or a candidate, there is no marginal cost in dollars and no possible way to run his speech through the political affiliate. The effect of an absolute ban on endorsements is simply to censor the speech of a class of citizens. The fact that American United For Separation Of Church And State brought such a complaint in the first place is what makes religious conservatives like myself a bit nervous and cynical. Are they working to separate the church from the state, or to separate religious citizens from the rights of citizenship? Brad___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
