October 18, 2021

"Did Kamala Harris Just Violate Federal Law To Boost Terry McAuliffe In Virginia?"

Asks Jonathan Turley, and I was inclined not to be too picky about this. I thought — what? — did she encourage black churchgoers to vote, and we just know that's done with the expectation that they'll vote Democratic? But then I watched the video: She explicitly campaigns for McAuliffe.

Turley writes: "If this is indeed played in churches (as opposed to simply posted on Internet sites), it does appear a premeditated and unambiguous violation of the federal law governing churches as non-for-profit institutions."

Turley doesn't explain how this means Harris has "violated" federal law. Isn't the only issue whether the churches should lose their tax-exempt status? 

103 comments:

wendybar said...

They SHOULD lose their tax exempt status if they played the video. If they were Conservative churches and Pence did this for Trump...what would the left do?? YOU know exactly what they would do...so they should do the same here.

The Drill SGT said...

Yes. On Purpose.

Knowing that Dem IRS will never punish churches. or at least Black churches

next question?

Sebastian said...

"Isn't the only issue whether the churches should lose their tax-exempt status?"

Isn't the only issue what Dems will say to avoid applying the law to black Dem churches?

rehajm said...

Kamala on the hook with The Hatch Act. Not like anything will come of it...

tim maguire said...

I can't comment on the law, but morally, philosophically, I don't see anything wrong with this. A Democratic politician is supporting other Democratic politicians. That much is normal and expected. Preachers talk politics from the pulpit as a legitimate form of moralizing and I see 1st Amendment problems with telling them they can't encourage parishioners to remember the church's issues when they walk into the voting booth. So if it is illegal, it shouldn't be.

The Drill SGT said...

On point?

Turley doesn't explain how this means Harris has "violated" federal law.

The churches are gonna bust the Johnson Amendment.

She likely ran afoul of the Hatch Act?

You think that set was in the studio of some PR firm? Or in Federal space?

Maynard said...

Black churches have always been exempt from those laws because of institutional racism.

Chuck said...

I agree with the question raised by this blog’s hostess in her main blog post.

But also, I don’t know why Turkey didn’t do more to question whether the production of the video constituted a Hatch Act violation. I suspect it is because competent Democratic campaign lawyers took the Veep off of Executive Branch property and used s campaign-funded production team.

It’s so quaint, to be having these nicely technical campaign finance discussions after four years of Trump, where these and other federal rules were steamrolled on a daily basis.

Hell; after s few more of these kinds of violations, the next thing you know, Biden and Harris will use the South Lawn of the White House for campaign events! Even a fucking political convention!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/photos-rnc-trump-white-house-acceptance-speech-5c0c04c1-d878-4af1-9561-78f84830725f.html

rcocean said...

I never understood why Christian churches accepted this "Tax law" which no one seems to take credit for, that bans political stands by Churches. Or why this isn't against the 1st Admendment. Since its telling religious bodies what they can and cannot do. But like Prayer in school or Roe v. Wade, the dumbo conservatives just play the Liberal/left rules. Even when they're obviously wrong.

I'm Not Sure said...

"Did Kamala Harris Just Violate Federal Law To Boost Terry McAuliffe In Virginia?"

You mean like Jen Psaki did?

"During a media briefing on Thursday, Psaki said: "We're going to do everything we can to help former Governor McAuliffe, and we believe in the agenda he's representing.""

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/15/biden-press-secretary-jen-psaki-may-have-violated-hatch-act-watchdog-says.html

They're Democrats- nothing will happen.

rcocean said...

Every time they could the Democrats and media screech that some Trump official was "violating" the hatch act or some obscure Federal law. Biden should be held to the same standard. I know Libtards don't care - its all politics - but some Independents might get the message.

mccullough said...

The Logan Act, the Hatch Act, and the No-Mixing-Partisan-Voting-Advocacy-in-Church Act are enforced less than the federal Marijuana Laws at this point despite the publicized violations.

Much like our Immigration Laws, non-enforcement or selective enforcement eviscerates the Rule of Law.

Owen said...

She is actually campaigning for Youngkin. Because any voter who is exposed to this smarmy condescending pitch by this unctuous hack, will rush to vote for “anyone but” her pick.

Chris Lopes said...

She's a willing participant in a conspiracy to violate the terms of the churches' tax exempt status. She is counting (and not without good reason) on the IRS ignoring the violations. Laws are for little people.

retail lawyer said...

What difference does it make? No action will be taken against the Churches or Harris (for encouraging the violation) for reasons to obvious to state.

cf said...

If it's only on the churches, would it be possible to get the Hoe for being an accessory to the "crime"?

(with a generously lowball estimation of 10 treasonous actions against the nation every day since "Inauguration", this would be Example #2,700 of why ....)

Joe & the Hoe have Got to Go.

Madison Mike said...

Losing tax exempt status would mean donations are not deductible on one's tax returns. I doubt that there are many people that itemized in the various black congregations. It could also mean that churches might be subject to local real estate taxes.

Drago said...

I await the inevitable article from the Bulwark-Dispatch-1/2 of National Review losers for "The Conservative Case For Why Everything Kamala Does Is Absolutely Dreamy, Almost As Dreamy As Obama, Who Of Course Was Magnificent And Will Remain So Forever And Ever".

Peglegged Picador said...

This one doesn't have legs. The people who are supposed to be fired up by it don't want churches to be penalized for getting involved in politics.

Mark said...

If I was those churches, I wouldn't worry.

I recall a few years back in Madison when Bishop Morlino had the priest read his letter at Sunday services ahead of the recall election, telling us it was our duty to re-elect Walker.

No one is going to touch their tax exempt status, just that electioneering from the pulpit was ignored.

Dave Begley said...

The Dems have been doing this forever. Nothing will happen.

Does anyone expect that the AG will do anything about this?

The Dems are immune from most laws. Just look back on the 2020 riots. Anyone prosecuted for throwing the statue of the Hans Heng into Lake Mendota?

We might as well let the Dems do anything they want.

hombre said...

Federal law doesn’t apply to Democrats. Remember?

Jeff Weimer said...

No, *she* didn't - although she could be considered an accessory with the churches that play it, yes? It does seem like a clear violation, as long as churches do it. It's almost like they're daring Youngkin to object. Are they fishing for a soundbite as effective as Terry's Kinsley Gaffe at the debate? Even if bait isn't taken, they're in a position to energize the black vote. They can't really lose here.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is an elaborate dirty trick that could succeed in many different levels and directions.

Peter Spieker said...

This clearly looks like a violation of the law, and of course, there should be equal enforcement of the law for everyone. Nothing will happen in this case. Would conservative tax exempt organizations be given the same leeway? Perhaps we should ask Lois Lerner for an expert opinion.

If this law is only going to be enforced on some people or some points of view, maybe the goal should be to repeal this provision of the law altogether.


Pookie Number 2 said...

Did Turley write the headline? His phrasing seemed more precise.

Jim said...

If Trump did this there would be calls for impeachment.

Iman said...

Getting away with it because they know they won’t be called on it by their lickspittle friends in media.

Democrats seldom pass up a chance to sneer at and break our laws, if it benefits them.

YoungHegelian said...

it does appear a premeditated and unambiguous violation of the federal law governing churches as non-for-profit institutions.

I doubt Jonathan Turley listens to "black" radio stations such as are found throughout the US, but, speaking for the ones in the DC area, I can tell you that it's routine to hear preachers directly endorse candidates come election-time.

One often hears lefties of an anti-faith bent decry the baleful influence of religion in politics. Such lefties will often claim that evangelical churches should lose their tax-exempt status because of the role they play in right-wing politics.

Such complaints are in many ways justified. What they overlook, however, is that no Democrat will touch this third rail because if they did, the spotlight would be shown on the role black churches play in organizing for the Democrats, and the Democrats simply can't allow that. Lose even a small fraction of the black vote & Democrats can't get elected dogcatcher. Black churches are simply too important for Democratic organizing to be ignored.

Wilbur said...

I feel safe in assuming that Turley was not responsible for that misleading, ill-considered headline.

The headline writer wasn't even close. Pretty sad.

Temujin said...

Are we truly going to play as if this does not go on every election year in many churches- black and white, but mostly in the black communities- throughout the country?

Am I wrong here? I mean, isn't this accepted practice? Accepted with a wink and a nod? Maybe not as formalized and as mass a scale as this one was, but smaller, done individually at single churches at a time. Nothing is said or done about it.

Either way, what are they going to do now? Find all of those 'infected' people and tell them to forget what they heard? That they cannot have heard a political pitch from the pulpit? Or a screen on the pulpit? The damage has been done.

All they need to do now is get those extra 10,000 ballots printed, signed, and harvested into the drop boxes and this will be a completed job. Not that I have zero trust in our elections, but as it turns out, I have very little trust in our elections.

PM said...

Kamala is a tremendously religious, tremendously influential individual, as we all know. Saying she's spent a lot of her life 'on her knees' is a vicious, intolerable smear.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Proof that the democrat progressive authoritarian left are the offical STATE RELIGION.

We wait quietly for the left to issue screams of "separation of church and state!" outrage.

tim in vermont said...

Don't be silly, the IRS is for bashing Republicans, we saw that when Lois Lerner took the fifth on that issue, then retired with a full pension. Remember when she dreamed of one day getting on the payroll of The Clinton Foundation, for services rendered, no doubt.

No, nothing will come of this, nor should it, because any laws or regulations violated were done to help a Democrat.

Mike Petrik said...

Agreed. The law applies to churches and 501(c)(3)s, not political candidates. But for candidates who’ve taken an oath to uphold the law to so flagrantly flout it is shameful.

Douglas B. Levene said...

I suppose either civil discovery and/or a grand jury would produce evidence as to any coordination between the Vice President's office and the black churches with respect to the playing of this video. Would such coordination violate the Hatch Act? I don't know. Maybe the only consequence of the churches playing politics would be the loss of their tax exempt status. That is, if we actually had an IRS dedicated to the non-partisan administration of the law.

Quaestor said...

Perhaps the church should bring a lawsuit against Harris for placing its tax-exempt status in jeopardy? However, VP Harris is immune from many legal complaints. So, is the church f'cked? Not likely, only white evangelical Protestants need feat the IRS.

Quaestor said...

Need fear, dammit.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Hmmm. I daresay you're right: Harris isn't violating Federal law, only the churches themselves are. But what an astonishing, disgusting display of partisanship! She tells them McAuliffe is the right candidate, and that polling places are open now on Sundays, so go right out and vote after the service, and that if you can't do that, here are other ways.

McAuliffe, I trust, does not need this sort of "support," which may well be counterproductive anyway. I don't need to imagine my own reaction were this sort of crass "infomercial" (for any candidate, NB) played during my own worship service.

Harris is the gift that keeps on giving, to the other side.

Douglas B. Levene said...

"Losing tax exempt status would mean donations are not deductible on one's tax returns."--It would also mean that the church would be treated as a taxable entity. That means all the donations it receives would be treated as revenues, and its expenses would for the most part not be deductible because they are not incurred for the purpose of making profits. That was precisely the harm that Lois Lerner's campaign hoped to visit on conservative tax-exempt 503(c)(4) groups.

Hey Booms said...

When did laws matter to Democrats?

Lem said...

Turley is going to get in trouble, if he's not careful. Testified against Trump's impeachment? If I recall.

chuck said...

Question unasked: is having Kamala campaign in black churches a plus or minus for the McAuliffe?

Drago said...

Its no wonder the lefties like LLR Chuck are out in force and defending Kamala and "Tater" Stelter of CNN: We may already be in the Biden Great Recession

"America has already slipped into a recession that could be as bad as the 2008 financial meltdown according to key consumer data, a Dartmouth College professor has warned.

David Blanchflower, of Dartmouth, and Alex Bryson, of University College London, say that every slump since the 1980s has been foreshadowed by 10-point drops in consumer indices from the Conference Board and University of Michigan.

The indices are drawn from questions put to ordinary Americans about their income expectations, employment conditions and what they expect for the US economy in the near future."


This is a direct result of the lefties/LLR-lefties attempts to completely shutter the American economy, reward the ChiComs/Russians/Iran, and throw our borders wide open as part of their now undeniable Cloward-Piven strategy and then leveraging/weaponizing COVID to create a permanent democratical majority.

They haven't even bothered to hide it for quite a long time now.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I doubt that there are many people that itemized in the various black congregations.

Where I'm at Churches with 503(c) status are exempt from paying sales taxes. That can add up to quite a sum. And then there are property taxes.

Mr. T. said...

Actually it violates the Hatch Act.

I'm somewhat surprised that a law professor needs this pointed out.

Howard said...

Executive privilege

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Can anyone stand to listen to her for 5 seconds? yikes.
Kamala is awful. If we could take her voice, her nervous cadence, and her chalk-board laugh and distill it into liquid - it could used to remove automotive paint.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Did Turley write the headline? His phrasing seemed more precise. …

I feel safe in assuming that Turley was not responsible for that misleading, ill-considered headline.


Funny to see people arguing that we shouldn't blame Jonathan Turley for what's written on his own blog, which is at JonathanTurley.org and says "JONATHAN TURLEY" in big bold letters at the top.

Rabel said...

1. It's a direct appeal to vote for a particular candidate, which is what is specifically prohibited by the Johnson amendment.

2. It was distributed broadly to 300 churches.

3. It's the Vice President doing it, not a local preacher.

The law, which would lead to loss of tax exempt status if enforced, has never been enforced. Actually, it's more a guideline than a rule.

But, "fuck the law, fuck the rules, fuck the guidelines, I'm Kamala Harris, Bitch," is how she rolls.

Wince said...

Is Harris even popular with the constituency she's targeting?

Ann Althouse said...

"Kamala on the hook with The Hatch Act...."

No, she's not. It doesn't cover the VP

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Generally Democrats don’t follow the rules but nitpick Republicans on any violations and only Republicans face consequences. The more at stake the less the rules mean to D party. Only low level operatives are expendable and sometimes pay token prices for outrageous lawbreaking.

Bilwick said...

At this point in the Klain regime, what difference does it make, really?

rehajm said...

“Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"Kamala on the hook with The Hatch Act...."

No, she's not. It doesn't cover the VP”

Of course. Besides nobody outside the beltway really cares…but your quote will come in handy later…

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

I’d be happy if the media would actually ask Kackling Kammy about it or even raised it with Psycho Psaki during her daily demurement but the WH pool has lost a lot of their energy without the badorangeman to attack en masse. Not surprised our resident troll has already attacked Trump for Kammy’s violations.

madAsHell said...

She has the same cadence, and delivery as Hillary. Do they teach that?

Omaha1 said...

Well now they will have a good legal reason to defenestrate the Kamala-bot. Next step, Hillary is appointed as VP, then poor ole Joe will have an unfortunate health crisis. Ta-da! Every American's dream come true.

Achilles said...

This is only still a law so the Democrats can selectively enforce it against their enemies.

See Chuck above essentially admit this truth.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Somewhere in the mists of prehistory a phrase was uttered. "The mere appearance of impropriety", broadly described in Torah/Old Testament.

Jake said...

She's not a good speaker. Even in that canned appearance she has a hard time sounding even remotely genuine.

Ann Althouse said...

"Perhaps the church should bring a lawsuit against Harris for placing its tax-exempt status in jeopardy?"

It says there's a plan to play the videos in church on November 2. Nothing forces the churches to do that. Maybe there is another video that is more limited in its message, just telling people it's very important to vote.

Mark said...

By agreeing with others to create the video and then doing so, our soon-to-be-next-president engaged in what the legal folks call conspiracy. A crime.

Chuck said...


Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"Kamala on the hook with The Hatch Act...."

No, she's not. It doesn't cover the VP


True. I regret that i needed that correction but I’m also glad to have gotten it.

Mark said...

I recall a few years back in Madison when Bishop Morlino had the priest read his letter at Sunday services ahead of the recall election, telling us it was our duty to re-elect Walker.

It's telling when people make these allegations and then don't bother to provide any links to back up what they claim. Meanwhile, perhaps Google intervened and erased all mention of Bishop Morlino making such remarks because nothing is to be found.

Mark said...

The more ominous and criminal part of the video is the suggestion that churches are passing out ballots after "the service" for people to fill out.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause is dead and buried. The government enforces the law differently based on distinctions between individuals. In this case we know black churches will not lose there tax exempt status for violating the rules about that status. But other tax exempts will and have.

TreeJoe said...

My observation is that the first real action I'm seeing from Kamala during the multiple crises across the southern border, Afghanistan, supply chain, etc. is that she's campaigning in a video intended to play in black churches.

If you follow the belief that when someone is faced with challenges they don't know how to overcome they withdraw to where they are comfortable, then Kamala has retreated to using her identity in scripted video as what she believes is top priority right now.

To me, that's both damning to Kamala and damning to Black churches who agree to show this.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Drago said...

I await the inevitable article from the Bulwark-Dispatch-1/2 of National Review losers for "The Conservative Case For Why Everything Kamala Does Is Absolutely Dreamy, Almost As Dreamy As Obama, Who Of Course Was Magnificent And Will Remain So Forever And Ever".

No, I think that bunch will do something more like; "Why I'd love it if Kamala Harris would bang my pool boy!".

TimK said...

Section 7323 of Title 5, U.S. Code provides: (a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), an employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not—
(1)use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.

This would seem pretty clearly applicable.

Biff said...

Owen said..."smarmy condescending pitch by this unctuous hack"

I don't know enough to comment on the legalities, but "smarmy" and "unctuous" were words that really did run through my mind while watching that clip.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

This made me laugh. Not the legalities, but the fact that Harris was tasked with the message. Who's being patronized harder here? Harris or the churches?

Mary Beth said...

Nothing forces the churches to play the video. Not overtly, anyway. I'll even believe that the pastors feel they are not forced to do it if a credible source tells me that a not-insignificant number of the ones asked to show it refused.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Kamala is a tremendously religious, tremendously influential individual, as we all know. Saying she's spent a lot of her life 'on her knees' is a vicious, intolerable smear.”

But true, never the less.

Will Cate said...

Harris was tasked with the message, I suppose, because she's a famous non-white person. They don't think very deeply about these things in the pander-verse.

So yeah, if a church showed this they might be breaking tax law, but Harris is very careful to go to edge by saying "I believe [TM] is the right person to lead Virginia" which no doubt was grammatically engineered just that way.

Truth be told, black preachers have been telling their flocks who to vote for, forever. Nothing new going on here. That's what the whole Sunday-voting thing is all about.

Bender said...

Sigh. If the Hatch act applied to elected officials, it would be illegal for them to campaign for re-election, wouldn't it?

No, it does not apply to elected officials.

And, by the way, elected officials like the vice president are not "employees." They are constitutional officers.

The Hatch Act does not apply to Harris or Brandon or Pelosi, et al.

rehajm said...

True. I regret that i needed that correction but I’m also glad to have gotten it.

When I read this post I recalled recent Althouse history when Trump stood in front of Air Force One and gave a campaign speech. The left list their shit. I went looking for Ann’s snippy correction of the left that Trump was not subject to the Hatch Act…

Still looking for it…but prepared for next time the left loses their shit…

Sally327 said...

If I remember correctly, McAuliffe pushed aside a couple of Democrat African-American women who were in line to run for governor and now the Jamaican-Indian-American Vice President has to put a video out for him, trying to drag him across the finish line. Women of color know your place!

Narayanan said...

what if Harris had winkwink-nudgenudge-idden with the churches?

Narayanan said...

"Kamala on the hook with The Hatch Act...."

No, she's not. It doesn't cover the VP
---------
is this the origin for the term Hatch-et man/woman/person?

Static Ping said...

I would think if she made the video specifically to violate the law, then she would be culpable. That said, Kamala is one of those special people whose only talent is self-promotion, so the argument that she does not know what she is doing is always applicable.

Skeptical Voter said...

Clueless ninny--incapable of forming intent of any sort. I'm not certain that the Hatch Act requires "intent" to violate--but if it does, she's clear of culpability.

walter said...

campaigning seems more common at Dem city black churches.
No one really wants to call foul on it.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The more ominous and criminal part of the video is the suggestion that churches are passing out ballots after "the service" for people to fill out.

Indeed. If you have time - fill out ten!

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

I just checked: Harris is a Baptist. I guess it was fellow Democratic Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard who was the only Hindu in the 2020 race. I confess that I have trouble seeing her as a Baptist (Jamaican/Indian, grew up mostly in Montreal . . . whaaaaat?), but she's entitled to her sincere faith.

Drago said...

rehajm: "When I read this post I recalled recent Althouse history when Trump stood in front of Air Force One and gave a campaign speech. The left list their shit."

A certain LLR-lefty at Althouse blog was one of them.

Bunkypotatohead said...

If McAuliffe loses he can blame it on Harris' "help".

PB said...

Yes, the churches will have violated the law and should lose their tax-exempt status, but they won't because they're democrats.

Mr. T. said...

Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"Kamala on the hook with The Hatch Act...."

No, she's not. It doesn't cover the VP


True. I regret that i needed that correction but I’m also glad to have gotten it.


Same here.

Iman said...

“ is this the origin for the term Hatch-et man/woman/person?”

No. That term originated with Ed Ames’s appearance on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson.

tim in vermont said...

"If McAuliffe loses he can blame it on Harris' 'help.'"

I always figured that Hillary would have lost Wisconsin by more, had she shown up there.

tim in vermont said...

"Kamala is a tremendously religious, tremendously influential individual, as we all know. "

She is an example to pretty girls everywhere that if you keep your head down and your heels up, you can go far in this country."

If Hillary had done a little more of that, the whole impeachment thing could have been avoided. We all know that Bill needed his "medicine"; it's a powerful gift.

Chuck said...

I liked this blog post.

I liked the subsequent comments by Ann Althouse, adding further to the main blog post.

Then, there are her other commenters. Not a lot of thought about campaign finance or tax-exempt status or First Amendments religious principles. Mostly low-grade gutter sniping at Vice President Harris and partisan whining. And the usual Trumpist victimology.

As a lifelong Republican with, uh, some principles, I always thought that better policing and regulation of the idealized ban on using tax-exempt churches for political campaigning would be good for Republicans, good for American politics in general, and most of all especially good for the churches themselves. Churches shouldn’t be involved in electoral politics.

But it isn’t just the black churches and Democrats who are playing games with the rules. Trump (and newly-Trumpist Republicans) wanted to do away with them altogether:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/religionunplugged.com/news/2020/9/22/trump-wants-to-allow-churches-to-endorse-political-candidates-heres-why-thats-a-legal-conundrum%3fformat=amp

The Trump moves were reflective of Trump-endorsing evangelicals doing just what Turley complained about in this blog post. Per this very nicely readable AP roundup of some examples:

https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-pandemic?utm_source=apnewsnav&utm_medium=featured

Here again, we see Trumpism as adopting more of the least desirable affects of the Democratic Left; victimhood, grievance politics, conspiracy theorizing... and now using churches as political tools.

Chuck said...

Bunkypotatohead said...
If McAuliffe loses he can blame it on Harris' "help".


McAuliffe is supposed to lose.

By that, I mean that the history of Virginia’s gubernatorial elections, always on the heels of presidential elections, routinely see the party that LOST the presidency WIN the Virginia governorship. If and when Terry McAuliffe wins, it will be a history-defying win in that sense. And a bad Republican defeat. Particularly since the often-unpopular incumbent, Ralph Northam, is a Democrat and it could be expected that a change of parties might be popular. And even more particularly, since this Virginia election has been so remarkably marked as a referendum on Trump. The leading Republican primary challengers competed to see who could be closest to Trump. Terry McAuliffe has gleefully made his campaign all about opposing Trumpism. The election will be in large part a Virginia referendum on Trump. And in elections all across the state since 2018, Democrats have been winning and Republicans have been losing. Since 2016, Trump has been successful in influencing primaries, and unsuccessful in winning general elections. Virginia has become more Democratic in the Trump era.

AMDG said...

Blogger Madison Mike said...
Losing tax exempt status would mean donations are not deductible on one's tax returns. I doubt that there are many people that itemized in the various black congregations. It could also mean that churches might be subject to local real estate taxes.

If they lose their tax exempt status their IRS filings would become significantly more complicated and they could be subject corporate income taxes. The compliance cost could be substantial.

Property taxes are no small matter either.

TheOne Who Is Not Obeyed said...

Thank you Chuck for that succinct restatement of Democrat talking points re: the VA governor's race. Straight from the Dems and their mainstream propaganda machine. Nicely done.

Drago said...

pro-marxist pro-CRT Biden voter LLR Chuck: "McAuliffe is supposed to lose."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

This election should be an absolute layup for McAuliffe.

Unfortunately for McAuliffe, he has been just a little too overconfident in his far left/demcratical/LLR-lefty positions...you know, your positions Chuck. Open Borders, hatred of parents who oppose radical marxism shoved down their kids throats, being completely okay with the massive Biden-flation that you claim doesn't even exist, using the federal government to create a ChiCom-like vaccinated/non-vaccinated 2-tier Social Credit society, etc.

There has been only 1 republican elected to the VA governorship since 2002 and that was McDonnell in 2009 after the dems had a bitter internal battle between the hapless State Senator Creigh Deeds and Terry McAuliffe. McAuliffe lost the nomination to Deeds after using big bucks to rough up the lowly State Senator but the Clinton taint was too much to overcome in that year. So a badly wounded Deeds limped into the general and lost in a current-day "1 off" election to McDonnell.

VA is a solid Dem state at the Governor level at this point. obama/LLR's were quite successful in growing government and the army of outer-burbs dems who work in DC and turn VA into a heavy dem state.

So congrats are in order for you and your lefty pals on that. Solid work.

Chuck, you should probably head on back to Media Matters or DailyKos or the Whitmer reelection headquarters now.

Chris Lopes said...

"
As a lifelong Republican with, uh, some principles, I always thought that better policing and regulation of the idealized ban on using tax-exempt churches for political campaigning would be good for Republicans, good for American politics in general, and most of all especially good for the churches themselves."

And you'd be right if we could count on such laws and regulations being applied fairly and across the board. History has taught us that they aren't and won't. Back during the Obama administration (in case you missed it, that's before Trump decided being president might be a fun hobby) the IRS (according to the IG report) used its regulatory powers to deny tax exempt status to those it felt opposed the administration. I'm sure that you, as a man of principle (beyond pathological hatred of Trump and his supporters) can see the problem with using the power of the state to suppress political opponents.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

tim maguire said...
So if it is illegal, it shouldn't be.

It is illegal, and Democrats make a big deal out of it when Republicans do far less.

So until Dems STFU about Republicans doing it, they're on the hook for doing it, esp. since they do it worse

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Chuck said...
It’s so quaint, to be having these nicely technical campaign finance discussions after four years of Trump, where these and other federal rules were steamrolled on a daily basis.

Oh, you mean like when the FBI illegally acted as an arm of the Clinton Campaign?

Oh, you mean like when the Mueller "Special Prosecutor" team acted as a government support arm for Democrat 2018 election campaigns? Dragging out their "investigation" past teh 2018 elections when they'ed established a year before the electiosnthat there was "no there there"?

"Hell; after s few more of these kinds of violations, the next thing you know, Biden and Harris will use the South Lawn of the White House for campaign events! Even a fucking political convention!"

Seriously? That's your "Trump's a criminal" support?

you need to update your anti-delusion meds, they're not working. Every single President makes campaign speeches from teh White house. You've never heard of the "Rose Garden" strategy?

Are you 12?

Chuck said...

Greg; except for FDR during wartime, no President ever used the White House for part of a national nominating convention. FDR’s use involved only a handful of (mostly military) guests.

Remember, Greg; ‘tis better to remain quiet and be thought to be a fool, than to post your comment and erase all doubt.

Drago said...

Pro-marxist pro-CRT Biden voter LLR Chuck: "Greg; except for FDR during wartime, no President ever used the White House for part of a national nominating convention. FDR’s use involved only a handful of (mostly military) guests."

So, to summarize, FDR used the White House for electoral reasons.

Thanks LLR Chuck! And given your strong democratical bona fides, and given FDR's record, I guess we'll just put this latest laughable Schiff-like comment from you to bed.

Remember everyone, our "reasonable" LLR Chuck wanted the entire White House Communications staff dragged before a Grand Jury and put under oath to answer questions regarding.........a Pecan Pie photo.

Looks like pro-marxist pro-CRT Biden voter LLR Chuck is going to remain at the bottom of the democratical "scandal" barrel working overtime to turn nothing into another felony.

It was just the other day pro-marxist pro-CRT Biden voter LLR Chuck was literally claiming Trump's non-declaration of a formal Presidential campaign effort was itself, the non-declaration, a crime that needed investigation!!

We should get Marc Elias and Sussman and McCabe and Mueller and Page and Strzok and Brennan and Clapper and Andrew Weissman on that STAT!

mikee said...

Harris violated federal law the same way Trump deserved impeachment, both times. The process is the punishment. Punish away, and heck, maybe let her be removed from office. Goodness knows the Dems in the Senate and House don't like her.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Chuck said...
Greg; except for FDR during wartime, no President ever used the White House for part of a national nominating convention. FDR’s use involved only a handful of (mostly military) guests.

Remember, Greg; ‘tis better to remain quiet and be thought to be a fool, than to post your comment and erase all doubt.


1: Now there's a rule you violate on a daily basis

2: Covid. Sorry, moron, but you can't scream "everything's changed because of Covid", completely rewrite election laws without any actual law making, and then bitch because Trump had a rally on the lawn (you know, outside, whereCovid isn't spread as well) "unlike everyone else since FDR".

Pick one, and stick to it. Oh, wait, that would involve having a principle, and that's something you would never do