I write to oppose a proposed IRS Regulation, #134417-13, entitled ; "Guidance for Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Organizations on Candidate-Related Political Activities" What it should be entitled is "Overturning Citizens United by Subterfuge". Or, better yet, "Regulation designed to prevent Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage and Pro-Religious Freedom organizations from full political participation in the 2014 and 2016 election.I have written for years of the necessity of forming alliances to engage the issues which are so critical to the true common good. The use of so called 501 c4 organizations is a powerful resource for those committed to restoring justice for the child in the womb, ensuring the preservation of the central role of marriage and the family, preserving the first freedom of religious freedom and contending for the truth that there is a moral basis to a truly free and just society.
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
1/18/2014 (1 year ago)
Published in Politics & Policy
Keywords: IRS, Citizens United, 501 c4, political participation, Freedom Federation, religious right, tea party, campaign finance, pro-life, pro-freedom, pro-family, Deacon Keith Fournier, Keith Fournier
WASHINGTON,DC (Catholic Online) - Anticipating the reaction of some who read this article, I place all of my cards on the table at the beginning. I write this opinion piece without my clerical title and as a private citizen. I write as a Catholic who is a Constitutional lawyer and has been a citizen activist for decades.
I do not purport to speak for the Catholic Church. I speak for myself. I speak because I believe there is a lot of confusion concerning the issues I address. Confusion which can lead to the suppression of the political participation of Catholics and other Christians - as well other people of faith and good will. That is, if we do not act.
I write to oppose and call attention to a proposed IRS Regulation, #134417-13, entitled ; Guidance for Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Organizations on Candidate-Related Political Activities. What it should be entitled is Overturning Citizens United by Subterfuge. Or, better yet, Regulation designed to prevent Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage and Pro-Religious Freedom organizations from full political participation in the 2014 and 2016 election.
I recently joined, through the Freedom Federation, with many other citizen activist leaders in signing a letter which has been sent to every elected representative. I signed on behalf of two organizations which I founded, Common Good Foundation and Common Good Alliance. I also signed as the Editor of Catholic Online. The letter begins with these words:
We, the undersigned, represent some of the largest multiracial, multiethnic, and multigenerational faith-based and policy organizations in the country, with approximately 40 million constituents combined. We write this letter to urge you to review IRS REG-134417-13, "Guidance for Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Organizations on Candidate-Related Political Activities," and do all you can to oppose the implementation of it.
The proposed regulation is perhaps the most brazen attempt by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to silence the speech of 501(c)(4) organizations before a crucial election. In numerous ways, if implemented, IRS REG-134417-13 would decimate a §501(c)(4) organization's ability to publicly speak to matters of public concern. In part, the proposed regulation....'
This regulation is a blatant effort to do an end run around the 2010 US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. I wrote favorably concerning that decision immediately after it was released. When I did, many of our readers in the United States disagreed with my analysis. Of course, they are free to do so. Such opinions utilize prudential judgment and good people can and do disagree on such matters.
I knew what was going to happen once the Citizens United opinion was released. First, there would be a concerted effort to spin the decision in a way that would attempt to persuade the public that it was simply a matter of protecting wealthy and well funded interest groups which seek to influence elections. That happened and still continues.
What we forget at our own risk is that our associations which seek to defend life and religious freedom as well as protect marriage and family - and the proper role of values in the public square and economic order - are also placed at risk when the use of associational entities such as 501 c4 organizations are suppressed by the Government.
Then, I knew there would be a wholesale effort to find a means of overturning the decision by the Obama Administration through political mischief. That is what this regulation is all about.
The decision in Citizens United v. FEC was handed down on Thursday, January 21, 2010, the day before millions of Americans commemorated Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision which eviscerated the Fundamental Right to Life of our youngest neighbors. The coincidence of the events is of interest. Next week, four years later, we gather once again to give a voice to our youngest neighbors who have none. Close to 56 million of our youngest neighbors have been killed in the first home of the whole human race since Roe and Doe.
The non-profit organization for which the case was named described itself this way: Citizens United is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. Through a combination of education, advocacy, and grass roots organization, Citizens United seeks to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security. Citizens United's goal is to restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens.
In January of 2008 Citizens United released a documentary on then Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton entitled Hillary, the Movie. It intended to release the production within thirty days of the primary election through Video on Demand. It also wanted to run advertisements on television to call attention to the message. Concerned that such an activity would be considered a violation of the campaign finance reform Citizens United sought what is called declaratory relief from the Court. Otherwise, it ran the risk of facing criminal charges.
The "FEC" (Federal Election Commission) had determined that Citizens United's desire to offer the documentary to cable stations for on-demand play violated the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The group determined that what was at stake was the right of the people to participate freely in the election process. So, they used the controversy as a vehicle to set up the course of events which led to the landmark decision handed down on Thursday, January 21, 2010.
This association asked the US Supreme Court to overrule itself and strike down the most significant restrictions imposed on what is called corporate free speech. Remember, Non-Profits, the vehicle used by many in our cause, are also corporations. Citizens United contended that the statutory scheme regulating political speech is a violation of the Free Speech clause contained within the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court used this case to rule on the constitutionality of restrictions imposed on political speech and expenditures by corporations, associations and organizations through campaign-finance laws. To the shock of some observers, the US Supreme Court reversed itself and overruled the central provisions of campaign finance reform. Within minutes of the decision the reactions and the posturing began. The Obama administration called for legislative action to undo the impact of the ruling.
Now, they are trying to use the IRS to achieve that same goal.
The well written majority opinion traced the confused labyrinth of cases and statutes which acted to restrict corporate/organizational speech and expenditures related to it. Many observers felt the Court would not overrule itself but use a narrow ground to somehow remedially approach the issue. The majority opinion states the standard for such a rare action as overruling past holdings, "Our precedent is to be respected unless the most convincing of reasons demonstrates that adherence to it puts us on a course that is sure error.."
The fact that the Court overruled its prior decisions is very significant to anyone who has set their sights on overturning Roe v Wade and engaging in the kind of massive political action such a result will require. We must persuade the Court to reverse Roe and Doe. This will take massive organizational development as well as effective and sustained political and legal activism. It will also take a lot of money. In addition, we must encourage candidates to run for office who recognize the fundamental human right to life, oppose those who do not and pressure those who waver.
The Anti-Life decisions of Roe and its companion case, Doe, reached into what the Court called the penumbra of the Constitution in order to manufacture an utterly indefensible and incomprehensible judicial holding. The result was far more egregious than the holding overruled by the Citizens United decision. By Judicial Fiat, the Roe Court refused to recognize the Natural Law Right to Life of millions of our fellow human persons and first neighbors. They then, in effect, placed the Police Power of the State behind protecting their killers.
Roe is grounded in faulty history, relied upon disproven junk science and rejected both the Natural Law and the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. Its flawed reasoning cries out for reversal. Even an increasing number of those who mistakenly support the so called Right to Choose - which essentially empowers those who are stronger to reach within the first home of the whole human race and kill in the name of freedom - increasingly admit that Roe has put the Court on a course which is sure error.
The decision handed down in Citizens United v. FEC was what they call in political and policy activism circles a "game changer." Here are some salient quotes from the majority opinion:
The First Amendment does not permit laws that force speakers to retain a campaign finance attorney, conduct demographic marketing research, or seek declaratory rulings before discussing the most salient political issues of our day.
Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints.. Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others. .. As instruments to censor, these categories are interrelated: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.
Quite apart from the purpose or effect of regulating content, moreover, the Government may commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker's voice. The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.
We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead us to this conclusion..If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. .
When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.
Rapid changes in technology-and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression-counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers. Today, 30-second television ads may be the most effective way to convey a political message..
Due consideration leads to this conclusion: Austin should be and now is overruled. We return to the principle established in Buckley and Bellotti that the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."
We must ensure that the Fundamental and inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are protected for all of our neighbors - including our young, our infirm, our poor and our elderly. I said in 2010 - and reaffirm today - the Citizens United opinion helped us along the path to such a noble cause. Our organizations engaging in citizen action are effective vehicles for political participation.
I wrote that we should be emboldened by this Supreme Court decision. We should also use it as a blueprint for our future political and legal activism. It is time to follow our President's example in at least one way, by becoming "community organizers.Wielding the language set forth in this opinion we need to build - and massively fund - the organizations, associations, and movements desperately needed in this urgent hour. It is time for boldness! A truly free nation must recognize the first freedom, the freedom to be born, or it will lose freedom itself. In the Wake of the March for Life, the Supreme Court Decision in "Citizens United' Empowers a New Citizen Action.
This letter from the Freedom Federation is an example of such citizen action. I have written for years of the necessity of forming alliances to engage the issues which are so critical to the true common good. The use of so called 501 c4 organizations is a powerful resource for those of us committed to restoring justice for the child in the womb, ensuring the preservation of the central role of marriage and the family, preserving the first freedom of religious freedom and contending for the truth that there is a moral basis to a truly free and just society.
Such organizations and associations are a vital resource in our own political participation, enabling us to build mediating associations which can leverage resources and encourage truly good candidates to run for office and effect real change.This onerous regulation proposed by the I.R.S. seeks to stifle free speech and free association. Some want to shut us up, prevent us from organizing to the fullest extent allowed under the Constitution and push us to the sidelines of political participation. It is political mischief. We should oppose this I.R.S. Regulation which seeks to prevent robust political participation.
By Matt Hadro, CNA/EWTN News
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an order protecting a group of Pennsylvania religious institutions from being required by the federal contraception mandate to violate their faith. Washington D.C. (CNA/EWTN News) - "Doesn't our government have something better to do ... continue reading
By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
Multi-billionaire, Republican candidate for President has always been known for his outspokenness. In a speech to announce that he was throwing his hat into the ring, Trump said Mexican immigrants are "bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. ... continue reading
By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
United States President Barack Obama's unchecked influx of unvaccinated child immigrants across the U.S. - Mexico border has an official with the centers for Disease Control denouncing him as a "Marxist" and "amateur." An email from the official called him the ... continue reading
By Hannah Marfil (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
In celebration of the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling, President Obama lit up the White House with rainbow colors, which garnered a response from Republican, former Arkansas governor and now presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Huckabee was noted as saying that ... continue reading
By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
Saying that the Supreme Court tried to "unwrite the laws of nature and the laws of nature's God" when it legalized gay marriage across the nation last week, GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee also pointed out the fact that President Barack Obama himself ... continue reading
By Abigail James (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
NBC has made the decision to cut ties with Donald Trump, over his political view and controversial statements regarding immigration made during his presidential announcement. Donald Trump and NBC have had a relationship, including Trump's produced Miss USA and Miss ... continue reading
By Talia Ramos (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
Financial advisers usually advice their clients to take Social Security benefits at the age of 70 for maximum growth. However, it is found that most people don't take that advice, as they are likely to withdraw what they have saved up as soon as they hit retirement. A ... continue reading
By Matt Hadro and Adelaide Mena, CNA/ETWN News
Friday's Supreme Court ruling against the traditional understanding of marriage may pose huge obstacles to the free exercise of religion and conscience across the U.S., the nation's bishops have said in response to the decision. Washington D.C.(CNA/EWTN News) - ... continue reading
By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
Six major cases, all of them affecting the American Way of Life are in front of the Supreme Court. Decisions regarding same-sex marriages, power plant emissions and execution methods will all be rendered by either Friday or early next week. LOS ANGELES, CA ... continue reading
By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
Does the apple truly fall far from the tree? Recently uncovered files show that Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to U.S. President Barack Obama and trusted confidant has family ties with those with communist leanings. These uncovered files prove that Jarrett's ... continue reading