IRS to Investigate Falwell's Liberty U. for Endorsement of Huckabee!!!

[tomcat]

A friend of mine who lives in Lynchburg, VA and who works for the watchdog group Americans United forwarded me this press release:


December 4, 2007

Americans United Asks IRS To Investigate Falwell's Liberty University For Endorsement Of Mike Huckabee

Liberty Chancellor Used School Resources To Promote Presidential Candidate, Church-State Watchdog Group Says

Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr. violated federal tax law by using school resources to endorse Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, Americans United for Separation of Church and State told the Internal Revenue Service today.

In a complaint filed with the federal tax agency, Americans United noted that Falwell hosted the candidate at Liberty University and then sent an email message on Liberty University letterhead endorsing Huckabee.

In a “Liberty News Alert” dated Dec. 1, 2007, Falwell wrote, “Recently, Governor Mike Huckabee called to brief me on the progress of his campaign for the presidency. I invited the Governor to speak to the Liberty University students in Convocation on November 28. He graciously accepted. I was so impressed with the Governor’s sincerity and his positions on the issues that are important to conservative Christians that I personally endorsed Governor Huckabee before he left Lynchburg.”

Falwell goes on to say, “My father strongly supported Governor Huckabee when no one thought that he had any chance to succeed in the presidential race. I believe with all my heart that, if my father had witnessed Governor Huckabee’s surge in the polls and his ascension to first place in the Iowa polls, he would have endorsed Governor Huckabee without hesitation.”

The alert was accompanied by an article from a university-run online publication implying that Huckabee is God’s candidate.

Americans United sent a letter to IRS officials today, asking them to investigate the matter. The letter notes that on Nov. 19, the IRS issued a press statement reminding charities and churches about the ban on politicking and asks the tax agency to back that up with enforcement in this case.

“Falwell surely knows that these types of political endorsements are illegal,” remarked the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Tax-exempt religious institutions may not be used to support or oppose candidates for public office.”

Falwell seems to be following in the footsteps of his late father Jerry Falwell Sr. In 1993, Falwell Sr.'s Old Time Gospel Hour had its tax exemption retroactively revoked for the years 1986 and 1987 and the ministry was required to pay $50,000 because of involvement in partisan politics.

Pastors and heads of 501(c)(3) non-profit groups are free to endorse candidates as private individuals, but the Internal Revenue Code does not allow them to use institutional resources, such as official publications, Web sites and other forms of communication, to back or oppose candidates.

“Falwell seems determined to misuse tax-exempt resources, just like his father did,” said Lynn. “The IRS needs to step in and break this chain of flagrant disregard for the law.”

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

* * * *

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

[theodorelogan]

Why would we be cheering on someone being investigated by the IRS?

[uncloned21]

uh-oh

[Mort]

Nothing to celebrate really. But only because the IRS is involved.

[literatim]

Lame. The IRS needs to go, seriously.

[tomcat]

Sigh. You are not excited about this??? Stupids. In this instance the IRS is helping maintain the CONSTITUTIONALITY of our political process by keeping religion out of politics, specifically religious endorsements of "God's candidate" or what have you. Albeit it is being done by an unconstitutional organization, I think it is an important function nonetheless.

[BeFranklin]

Why would we be cheering on someone being investigated by the IRS?

Ditto. This is just free publicity for Huckabee fighting it.

[literatim]

Sigh. You are not excited about this??? Stupids. In this instance the IRS is helping maintain the CONSTITUTIONALITY of our political process by keeping religion out of politics, specifically religious endorsements of "God's candidate" or what have you. Albeit it is being done by an unconstitutional organization, I think it is an important function nonetheless.

There is no constitutionality of keeping religion out of politics.

[tomcat]

Oh, I see. So you would be fine with not enforcing the constitution if it would give someone extra buzz. Some patriot you are...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Why would we be cheering on someone being investigated by the IRS?

because it's bad for Huckledick

[tomcat]

There is no constitutionality of keeping religion out of politics.

This regulation is also designed to protect the integrity of the election process. Special types of organizations already exist to help political hopefuls win public office. Those groups, such as Political Action Committees, have a different tax status and are organized under a different set of rules than 501(c)(3) groups, rules designed to ensure that the nation's campaign-finance laws are followed. Blurring the distinction between these two types of organizations would harm both religion and politics.

Due to misinformation spread by advocates of church-based electioneering, some clergy are confused about federal tax law and how it impacts political activity in houses of worship. For example, some religious leaders might wonder what constitutes an endorsement of a candidate. Prohibited activities include letters of endorsement printed on the letterhead of the church, synagogue, temple or mosque. Distribution of campaign literature, pulpit endorsements of candidates, display of campaign signs on religiously owned property and other similar activities also clearly indicate partisan involvement in an election. (It should be noted, however, that clergy may endorse candidates as individuals in forums outside the church or work on behalf of candidates during their personal time.


The American people oppose politicization of our houses of worship. Survey results released in March 2002 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 70 percent of Americans said churches should not endorsecandidates.

Houses of worship shouldn't get special political privileges.

[murrayrothbard]

This regulation is also designed to protect the integrity of the election process. Special types of organizations already exist to help political hopefuls win public office. Those groups, such as Political Action Committees, have a different tax status and are organized under a different set of rules than 501(c)(3) groups, rules designed to ensure that the nation's campaign-finance laws are followed. Blurring the distinction between these two types of organizations would harm both religion and politics.

Due to misinformation spread by advocates of church-based electioneering, some clergy are confused about federal tax law and how it impacts political activity in houses of worship. For example, some religious leaders might wonder what constitutes an endorsement of a candidate. Prohibited activities include letters of endorsement printed on the letterhead of the church, synagogue, temple or mosque. Distribution of campaign literature, pulpit endorsements of candidates, display of campaign signs on religiously owned property and other similar activities also clearly indicate partisan involvement in an election. (It should be noted, however, that clergy may endorse candidates as individuals in forums outside the church or work on behalf of candidates during their personal time.



Houses of worship shouldn't get special political privileges.

Doesn't this whole setup pretty clearly show the state involved in regulating of religion? So the separation of church and state should be violated in order to maintain the separation of church and state??

[tomcat]

Doesn't this whole setup pretty clearly show the state involved in regulating of religion? So the separation of church and state should be violated in order to maintain the separation of church and state??

What good is a rule if it is not enforced?

[nbhadja]

Bottom line is that Hucko is deceiving people through religion. Go IRS!

[literatim]

There is no separation of church and state in the constitution--none.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

There is no separation of church and state in the constitution--none.

Well, where is god? Let him speak up, please.

[ggibson1]

There is no separation of church and state in the constitution--none.

Sure there is...

The Constitution says there can be no religious test for office...

In addition the phrase "seperation of church and state" comes from a Thomas Jefferson letter where he explains to someone why they made the Constitution the way they did...

Look it up. Google Thomas Jefferson and Seperation of Church and State

[murrayrothbard]

What good is a rule if it is not enforced?

Well it's not a good rule if it is impossible to enforce without breaking it.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Maybe god will come down and let his thoughts be known... *waiting*

[murrayrothbard]

Why in the world is this something to cheer about? Shouldn't any individual or group have the right to say what they want on their property?

[tomcat]

Why in the world is this something to cheer about? Shouldn't any individual or group have the right to say what they want on their property?


What I want to know is why you are not complaining about any of the other campaign-finance laws out there, such as that you are only able to contribute $2300 to your candidate of choice? Or that RP, for instance, cant publicly endorse the TeaParty?

http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.shtml

[DealzOnWheelz]

OK first off EVEN RON PAUL says there should be a seperation of church and state.

The main reason is CHurch is a very influential place and we don't want someone like the POPE influencing the presidents policy.


By becoming tax exempt as a non profit org. through signing the 501c3 the CHURCH RELINQUISHES THE RIGHT TO ENDORSE ANY POLITICAL POSITIONS. This is to protect the mindless followers of such church.

for example Pat Robertson personally endorsed Rudy but his church did not or else it would lose its tax exempt status.

Had Pat RObertsons CHURCH endorsed RUdy think of the consequences that could have, how many of his followers are following mindlessly we all know he is bought and paid for so if Church and state were not seperate Rudy could pay Pat Robertsons church (TAX FREE) to endorse him thus swayying alot of power to the people with money.


Seperation of church and state is to protect the people from a political/theocratical industrial complex

[murrayrothbard]

What I want to know is why you are not complaining about any of the other campaign-finance laws out there, such as that you are only able to contribute $2300 to your candidate of choice? Or that RP, for instance, cant publicly endorse the TeaParty?

http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.shtml

I don't support any campaign finance law.

[nbhadja]

'Seperation of church and state is to protect the people from a political/theocratical industrial complex"

Agreed. It's scary how stupid some people will be in politics just because their church leader endorsed a moron.

[murrayrothbard]

OK first off EVEN RON PAUL says there should be a seperation of church and state.

The main reason is CHurch is a very influential place and we don't want someone like the POPE influencing the presidents policy.


By becoming tax exempt as a non profit org. through signing the 501c3 the CHURCH RELINQUISHES THE RIGHT TO ENDORSE ANY POLITICAL POSITIONS. This is to protect the mindless followers of such church.

for example Pat Robertson personally endorsed Rudy but his church did not or else it would lose its tax exempt status.

Had Pat RObertsons CHURCH endorsed RUdy think of the consequences that could have, how many of his followers are following mindlessly we all know he is bought and paid for so if Church and state were not seperate Rudy could pay Pat Robertsons church (TAX FREE) to endorse him thus swayying alot of power to the people with money.


Seperation of church and state is to protect the people from a political/theocratical industrial complex

Except this being done via the TAX CODE, which RP wants to get rid of. Separation of church and state means the state cannot make an official religion or legislate against religion.

[DealzOnWheelz]

What I want to know is why you are not complaining about any of the other campaign-finance laws out there, such as that you are only able to contribute $2300 to your candidate of choice? Or that RP, for instance, cant publicly endorse the TeaParty?

http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.shtml

This protects the middle and lower class. If there was no limit to the $ you could donate then whover rich people wanted in office would get all the money they need.

And Ron Paul can't publicly endorse it so that we can get around the $2300 limit. If he mentions it then it is directly linked to the campaign as in the Campaign helped orchestrate it thus any money donated toward advertising it would count toward your 2300 limit.

[unklejman]

Just to clarify what the constitution actually says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof



This is only a restriction of passing legislation.

[tomcat]

Ugh, this is when I'm glad I live in a republic, not a democracy...

[allyinoh]

Isn't it freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion?

[LibertyEagle]

Why in the world is this something to cheer about? Shouldn't any individual or group have the right to say what they want on their property?

+1