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
.
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
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
.
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
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
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
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
