Comments for: “No Foul Here: Obama’s Appearance At Church Event Doesn’t Violate Federal Tax Law”

Truly unbelievable Barry.

From the IRS perspective, a political speaker at a religious event has one of two distinct roles: Either they are 1) speaking as a candidate for office or 2) speaking as a non-candidate.

Contrary to your claims, IRS code does not make a provision for speakers invited before they are candidates. Very simple.

If Obama was speaking as a non-candidate (since he was invited over a year ago before he declared) then his reference to campaign pledges if elected to office clearly violates IRS standard for separation.

According to the IRS, the church or religious organization must ensure that:

* the individual speaks only in a non-candidate capacity, (Obama spoke as a candidate complete with campaign pledges)

* neither the individual nor any representative of the church
makes any mention of his or her candidacy or the election, and (Obama clearly did in his speech)

* no campaign activity occurs in connection with the candidate’s attendance. In addition, the church or religious organization should clearly indicate the capacity in which the candidate is appearing and should not mention the individual’s political candidacy or the upcoming election in the communications announcing the candidate’s
attendance at the event.

(The tables were set up outside with the full knowledge of UCC staff and Obama (see pictures on UCCtruths.com). In addition, the UCC referenced his candidacy in news stories before General Synod -
http://www.ucc.org/news/aide-o.....peech.html).

This evidence is clear and plain.

If he was speaking as a candidate, IRS standards call for equal access by the other candidates for the same office… which didn’t appear to happen. In either case, his speeches before the Iowa Conference and the General Synod were a violation of IRS standards.

From the UCC perspective, there should be no confusion as they publicly advocate for the same rules on separation as AU. Furthermore, UCC leaders and conference ministers understood Obama’s status as a declared candidate for some time and, by virtue of their reporting on the Iowa speech a week earlier, also understood that Obama’s address would be a campaign speech. The UCC clearly and knowingly violated AU’s standard for separation.

On top of all of this, there is clear documentation and photographs that Obama organizers were recruiting supports just outide of the Civic Center since 8am that morning.

UCC leaders were aware of attempts to recruit supporters. They were also aware of the contents of Obama’s speech since they reported on the same exact speech a week earlier.

Your logic (that the date you invite a candidate to speak dictates whether it’s a campaign speech) is not referenced in case law or IRS code.

There is certainly more to this story than you are reporting and I hope you’ll reconsider your decision.

“The Code allows these kinds of appearances as long as the candidate and the religious group do not promote the candidacy.”

Ah, but in this case, both the candidate and group did! And your conclusion was…

“Obama’s appearance before the UCC gathering does not appear to run afoul of federal tax law.”

Sounds like you’re contradicting yourself, or at least ignoring your own interpretation of the law.

“Church leaders…reiterated…that he was invited to speak on a specific topic of interest, not to trumpet his candidacy.”

As previously noted, the IRS still has rules for this situation–rules that were not followed. Your failure to realize this is unfathomable.

You did an excellent job of talking all around the issue without addressing it. No one cares when he was invited (it is not germane to the pertinent tax law), nor that you think the “intent” of the event was not electioneering (also not germane). We care about what happened–and what you didn’t do here that you’ve done everywhere else.

There were violations of federal tax law–explicit violations not requiring legalistic interpretation–and yet the AU saw no “foul” here while they have in other cases. You made no mention, for example, of the UCC’s promotional materials which listed Obama’s candidacy–one example of an explicit tax law violation. By explicit, I mean the tax code says “do not do this,” and yet they did.

I’m intrigued by the fact that you admit Obama shouldn’t have mentioned his candidacy, but that you give him a pass–even though it is another explicit violation of IRS tax law. Funny that you didn’t give such leniency to other organizations recently.

It appears that this is actually Americans United for the Separation of Church and State…When It Suits Us or is Otherwise to Our Advantage (AUSCS-WISUOIOTOA). Or maybe its simpler than that — and its just partisan politics as usual.

IOKIYAD.

Mr. Lynn,

Were you consulted in any way by any person connected with the UCC General Synod regarding Candidate Obama’s speech prior to the actual delivery of the speech and/or after the delivery of the speech?

Also, I find it interesting how closely Obama’s speech mirrors the criteria mentioned in this AU press release regarding AU’s complaint against the Lakeview Assembly of God church:

“• Lakeview Assembly of God, Hot Springs, Ark.: The church hosted Republican gubernatorial candidate Asa Hutchinson on Oct. 15. It placed an ad in the local newspaper inviting people to hear Hutchinson speak, identifying him as the GOP candidate. Hutchinson’s Democratic opponent was not on the program.”see: http://www.au.org/site/News2?a....._ctrl=1952

Obama’s speech was advertised by the UCC and he was identified as a Presidential candidate by the UCC (one example of which is a news item recently featured in the ucc.org news website), many people were invited to hear him speak, and none of his opponents were on the program.

“It appears that this is actually Americans United for the Separation of Church and State…When It Suits Us or is Otherwise to Our Advantage (AUSCS-WISUOIOTOA). Or maybe its simpler than that — and its just partisan politics as usual.”

Replace Obama’s name with any of the Republican candidiates, and no doubt there wouldn’t be a peep out of you about this issue.

Sarah said: “Replace Obama’s name with any of the Republican candidiates, and no doubt there wouldn’t be a peep out of you about this issue.”

****

That’s a defense for being silent on this issue? It doesn’t matter if it’s a Republican or a Democratic candidate, churches cannot engage in this type of activity.

Rev. Lynn,

You state in your post that:

“The (IRS) Code allows these kinds of appearances as long as the candidate and the religious group do not promote the candidacy.”

And then you say:

“During his speech, Obama mentioned his presidential run. He shouldn’t have done so, and I am disappointed that he made the reference.”

So in fact, Obama broke the law. Plus, his campaign set up tables outside the facility recruiting support.

Doesn’t that obligate the AU to take action? Or, does expression of personal disappointment provide sufficient atonement?

Furthermore, Obama’s opening paragraph to the UCC—where he praises the denomination for switching venues because of unfair labor practices—is the veil behind why–according to AU principals–you should take action against the UCC and the State of Connecticut.

Here are the facts: It was due to the United Church of Christ’s religious conviction (that it would not hold its Synod in a facility involved in a labor dispute) and the UCC’s admitted financial inability to move its event (across town to the more expensive Civic Center) and the UCC’s promise to move its religious event out of state–that the governor worked out a $100,000 grant that kept the UCC’s meeting in Connecticut.

And according to the Hartford Courant, Associate General Minister Edith Guffey described the State’s aid as, “very generous assistance, and we’re very appreciative of it.”

Is that just bothersome, or does that require AU action?

If generosity is the AU’s attitude toward religious liberals and politicians, fine. Actually, I personally like it. Just apply the same generous standard to conservatives.

“During his speech, Obama mentioned his presidential run. He shouldn’t have done so, and I am disappointed that he made the reference.”

Oh for crying out loud, Mr. Lynn, it’s called “freedom of speech,” and the world will not end if people exercise it in tax-free forums where you wish they couldn’t.

“Oh for crying out loud, Mr. Lynn, it’s called “freedom of speech,” and the world will not end if people exercise it in tax-free forums where you wish they couldn’t.”

Heck, that’s barely even an opinion - it’s really just a prejudice. A little open-mindedness never hurts.

Rev. Lynn, it seems to me that you’ve been caught in quite the conumdrum. On one hand is your, contrary to what you say, knee-jerk reaction everytime a theologically conservative church invites a socially conservative politician to address the congregation on topics of mutual interest. Now that you beloved UCC has been caught crossing the line, folks are wondering where the AU is on this case. How much is the AU’s integrity worth Rev. Lynn? Are you willing to defend your beliefs even when it is your own ox being gored? I pity your predicament. On the one hand you’ve been the darling of all folks liberal for taking on the religious right when they so much as let a toe cross the line. But if you take on the UCC you could lose your good liberal standing. So, what’s it going to be Rev. Lynn: Politics or doing what is right?

There is no good reason why churches should be tax-exempt. Tax churches and the problem of disallowing political advocacy disappears.

Barry,

I’m sorry but I too believe that Obama crossed the line and the UCC should be reported to the IRS. That Obama was asked to speak on the “relationship between piety and politics” seems to me to be an invitation for trouble. And from your own blog it appears that Obama took the invitation to cross the line. And the UCC willingly allowed the violation to happen.

Do you really believe that the date of an invitation is relevant here? The UCC should have withdrawn the invitation once Obama announced his candidacy for president.

As a member of AU, I ask that you reconsider your position and have your legal staff prepare a complaint to IRS. The UCC needs to face the consequences of its bad decision to let Obama speak at its convention. And Obama needs a spanking too.

Obama is corrupting our political system (as is virtually every other candidate) with religion. If separation of church and state is to mean anything, we must get religion out of politics and politics out of religion. Do the right thing and file a complaint.

Bob Ritter
Founder,
Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty

“Why not take action you feel is justified instead of continuting to comment…? If you file a complaint with the IRS and if the agency rules that what the UCC has done is illegal, I’ll be the first person to admit that I made a mistake.”

For the record, I am not associated with any “UCC truth squad,” and the only information I have is that which is publicly available–to you as well.

The reason I won’t file a complaint is that I don’t care–Obama could have stood up and said “Vote for me!” for all I care. I would treat all situations equally–let them all happen.

This situation, though, has revealed that you selectively choose to oppose those situations that fit your political or other leanings. I’m not sure which you care about more, the fact that this was the UCC or that it was Obama, but something about this case you are choosing to implicitly support, which shows an inconsistent application of your fervor. These calls for you to file a complaint have been opportunities to vindicate yourself in front of your detractors. You have not done so.

You have revealed a crack in your “non-partisan” armor, and perhaps revealed a bias that may one day threaten your own 501(c)(3) status.

Barry:

At least I’m thankful that you spent a few minutes reviewing the evidence.

Despite news reports, photographs published on the internet and direct, specific, point-by-point explanation of the violations matched up to IRS guidelines, you remain obstinate. How can anyone help but feel that your work is about political opportunism than the very real concern about the separation of church and state?

When I met you in October in Columbus and we had the brief discussion about the Connecticut grant, I admit - I drank the punch. I thought your concern was genuine and that you wouldn’t let personal bias creep into your decision making process. While I don’t agree with your conclusion about the Connecticut grant, I do appreciate the ambiguous nature of “rebates” and how different interpretations could be made. In the case of this Obama speech, the violation is clear - point by point.

Your response added a new qualification to political speech that the IRS doesn’t mention once in their guidelines and you don’t even attempt to contrast the points the IRS guidelines do reference.

Ultimately, Americans United is hurt most by your response. You are setting an arbitrary precedence that will be used in the public and in the courtroom to refute even legitimate challenges AU makes on separation.

Integrity still counts for something, Barry.

Please, please, please. Somebody PLEASE do the legal work and have the UCC reported to the IRS. If there is any way I can help, I’d be glad to do so.

So, Barry, since you are a Christian preacher and all, what have you done to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Looks like AU is just another Leftist agitator wielding the brute force of the IRS when it suits the cause. Rev. Lynn’s “explanation” is a joke. Others here have pointed out many of the many of those things that make it a joke, so I will not waste time regurgitating.

Know this Barry. Your lack of action on this will haunt you in every public debate. Your attacks on churches and pastors are a crusade of your own making. That you let UCC go while committing the same “violations” as others you’ve attacked is duly noted, this insufficient “explanation” notwithstanding.

For Joe Jenkins: please, NO ONE do any legal work on this. Pastors and churches have more rights than Barry would have you believe. I’d rather this be used against him than against churches, who should be a leading force in the public debate. Going after UCC will be to use silencing tactics best left to people like Barry who want to suppress speech.

Well, if 98 percent of attempted violations of the Constitution come from the Right, one might indeed think that AU is “leftist.” It’s too bad that simple respect for the Constitution is nowadays being identified with the Left as if both were bad things.

I don’t remember the exact cases offhand, but there were times when AU warned churches overstepping into liberal politics. AU, if I remember correctly, even warned a public school in Southern California about overstepping its bounds and into teaching New Age beliefs.

If and when the Left starts attempting most of the Constitutional trangressions, then defending the Constitution might appear “rightist.”

But in the meantime, if you’re tiring of the perception, then the remedy is simple:

STOP trying to step on people’s Constitutional rights.

http://churchstatewall.typepad.....tate_wall/

I do have to say that the bald hypocrisy of the AU stance in this has made for some fascinating reading.

Yesterday, my own church’s monthly denominational magazine arrived in the mail, and this issue continues an editorial trend in the past year of encouraging politically liberal Christians to become more active. I see lots of signs of it elsewhere in evangelical circles too.While I have my own reservations about our church aligning with any political ideology, I do admit it will be fun to see AU deal (or not!) with a politically left-wing Christian movement.

Barry Lynn should resign.

I know one thing for sure - the hypocrites at Americans United will never ever get my support again. As a matter of fact I’m sorry I ever supported this organization in the first place. Oh well as they say - you live and learn.

Looks like Barry is a member of the “do as I say, not as I do” club. No matter how much you try to double-talk your way out this Barry, you are caught red-handed. Further, you have confirmed your status as a hypocrite.