In Honor of Kanye: Historian Kevin Kruse Explains the History of Political Parties and Civil Rights

Princeton University history professor Kevin M. Kruse is a Twitter Ninja Warrior. He can slice and dice and bring the facts with a devastating wit.

Kevin M. Kruse – From Twitter page

In this Twitter thread he educates and illuminates a topic which has been muddied by Christian nationalist history writers such as Dinesh D’Souza and David Barton: The history of political parties and civil rights advocacy.
This thread is a wealth of information all in one spot and as such I highly recommend it. About the only thing I would add is a link to information on Lily White Republicans which he implied but didn’t name when he wrote:

That said, both parties in this period had their share of racists in their ranks.
When the second KKK rose to power in the 1920s, it had a strong Democratic ties in some states; strong GOP ones elsewhere.

As Kruse documents, the story of the evolution of the Democrats from Jim Crow to Civil Rights is one of the major stories of American political history. Thanks to Kevin for this thread.

PA's 18th Congressional District Special Election Candidates Conor Lamb and Rick Saccone Square Off in Debate

Conor Lamb (from Conorlamb.com)

Earlier today, Democrat Conor Lamb and Republican Rick Saccone met for a debate moderated by KDKA Pittsburgh. The candidates tackled gun control, abortion, Russian interference, tax cuts and their own qualifications.
Saccone has been endorsed by David Barton and is an unabashed supporter of President Trump. Lamb is a moderate Democrat who is new to elective politics. The latest polls have them within 3 points.
In the debate, there was common ground. Both men felt existing gun laws should be enforced. Both men agree that due process is important in allegations of misconduct.
The candidates disagreed about many other matters including medical marijuana – Saccone voted against legalizing medical marijuana in PA. Lamb sides with medical opinion which favors the use of marijuana. Lamb asserted his concern for the deficit while Saccone touted the GOP tax bill.

Saccone’s Record on Draining the Swamp

When asked why voters should support the candidates, Saccone answered:

“I have never been part of the swamp. I have always been there cleaning up the swamp in Harrisburg. Most of my bills have passed unanimously or nearly unanimously,” Saccone said. “I have a record of doing what I say and my opponent has no record. A candidate can say anything he wants. How many times have you been disappointed by people who say they are going to do something, get into office and don’t do it. I’ve actually done what I said and I have the record to prove it.”

The facts don’t fully support this claim. When Saccone ran for U.S. Senate, he portrayed himself as a swamp cleaner. However, according to a report in the Allentown Morning Call, Saccone didn’t miss many opportunities to cash in on his status as a legislator.
As a state rep, Saccone sponsored a bill which prohibits public officials from accepting anything of value including “hospitality” as a gift from someone who wants to do business with the government. However, he does it all the time. According to the Morning Call, he also brings along his wife for the free meals.
Saccone has also billed PA taxpayers for office space owned by a campaign donor. Over his seven years in office, he has spent over $400,000 of tax dollars on expense accounts according to an Intercept report. In contrast to his claim, he has been involved in filling the swamp.
 

Trump Administration Halts Contracted Work on NREPP and Shifts Evidence-Based Focus to SAMHSA's Policy Lab (UPDATED)

UPDATE (1/8/2018) – This morning, I received this statement from a SAMHSA spokesman:

Although the current NREPP contract has been discontinued, SAMHSA is very focused on the development and implementation of evidence-based programs in communities across the nation.  SAMHSA’s Policy Lab will lead the effort to reconfigure its approach to identifying and disseminating evidence-based practice and programs.

The Policy Lab is referred to on SAMHSA’s website and is led by Christopher Jones. The Policy Lab was created by the 21st Century Cures Act and is an evolution of SAMHSA’s Office of Policy, Planning and Innovation. Clearly, the issue with the change from NREPP isn’t with the term “evidence-based” since the above statement uses the term and the Cures Act requires evidence-based interventions. For the exact language of the Cures statute, scroll to the end of this post.
——————-
(original post starts here)
Yesterday (Jan 4, 2018), a contractor for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration alerted program participants that funding for work onnrepp the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs & Practices had been terminated “for the convenience of the government.” According to a source with the contractor, the work was not terminated due to any problems with their work but because the administration did not want to continue it. According to my source, this action follows a freeze in the work which had been in effect since September, 2017.
The NREPP is an effort to alert the public and professional community about evidence-based practices in mental health treatment and prevention. According to SAMHSA’s 2018 budget justification, NREPP helps meet the requirements of the 21st Century Cures Act which requires the government to provide accurate information about what works in the treatment of mental illness and drug/alcohol addiction. SAMHSA is responsible to post this information on an agency website. SAMHSA requested $2.8-million in FY 2018 for NREPP.
According to an email I obtained which was later posted on Twitter by someone else, Development Services Group alerted their constituents that their contract to manage the NREPP’s contents and website had been terminated on December 28, 2017.
The email stated:

It is with great regret that we write to inform you that on December 28, 2017, we received notification from SAMHSA that the NREPP contract is being terminated for the convenience of the government.
This cancellation means that we can no longer make any updates to your program profile. We thank you for the help and cooperation you gave so that we could complete your review.
We are deeply saddened by the government’s sudden decision to end the NREPP contract, under which we have been able to provide and strengthen science-based information about mental health and substance use treatment and prevention programs, both nationally and internationally.
All comments and concerns should be directed to NREPP@SAMHSA.hhs.gov

According to DSG, it isn’t clear what will become of NREPP. The reason the process of evaluating programs was given to a contractor was because SAMHSA did not have a sufficient number of staff to do the job. The website may remain but at present no additional guidance has come from SAMHSA. According to DSG, all materials are being returned to the government and not sent to another contractor.
My calls and emails to SAMHSA have not been returned.
It isn’t clear how SAMHSA will meet the mandates of the Cures Act without a functioning evidence-based program. Another open question is why the program was halted in the middle of the fiscal year without cause (“for the convenience of the government”).
(Updates will be added to this posts through the day)
——————
The entire text of the 21st Century Cures Act is here. For the section relevant to the Policy Laboratory and the work on evidence based practices and programs, see below.

SEC. 7001. ENCOURAGING INNOVATION AND EVIDENCE-BASED PROGRAMS.
    Title V of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa et seq.)
is amended by inserting after section 501 (42 U.S.C. 290aa) the
following:
``SEC. 501A. <<NOTE: 42 USC 290aa-0.>>  NATIONAL MENTAL HEALTH AND
                          SUBSTANCE USE POLICY LABORATORY.
    ``(a) In General.--There shall be established within the
Administration a National Mental Health and Substance Use Policy
Laboratory (referred to in this section as the `Laboratory').
    ``(b) Responsibilities.--The Laboratory shall--
            ``(1) continue to carry out the authorities and activities
        that were in effect for the Office of Policy, Planning, and
        Innovation as such Office existed prior to the date of enactment
        of the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Reform Act of
        2016;
            ``(2) identify, coordinate, and facilitate the
        implementation of policy changes likely to have a significant
        effect on mental health, mental illness, recovery supports, and
        the prevention and treatment of substance use disorder services;
            ``(3) work with the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics
        and Quality to collect, as appropriate, information from
        grantees under programs operated by the Administration in order
        to evaluate and disseminate information on evidence-based
        practices, including culturally and linguistically appropriate
        services, as appropriate, and service delivery models;
            ``(4) provide leadership in identifying and coordinating
        policies and programs, including evidence-based programs,
        related to mental and substance use disorders;
            ``(5) periodically review programs and activities operated
        by the Administration relating to the diagnosis or prevention
        of, treatment for, and recovery from, mental and substance use
        disorders to--
                    ``(A) identify any such programs or activities that
                are duplicative;
                    ``(B) identify any such programs or activities that
                are not evidence-based, effective, or efficient; and
                    ``(C) formulate recommendations for coordinating,
                eliminating, or improving programs or activities
                identified
[[Page 130 STAT. 1221]]
                under subparagraph (A) or (B) and merging such programs
                or activities into other successful programs or
                activities; and
            ``(6) carry out other activities as deemed necessary to
        continue to encourage innovation and disseminate evidence-based
        programs and practices.
    ``(c) Evidence-Based Practices and Service Delivery Models.--
            ``(1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (b)(3), the
        Laboratory--
                    ``(A) may give preference to models that improve--
                          ``(i) the coordination between mental health
                      and physical health providers;
                          ``(ii) the coordination among such providers
                      and the justice and corrections system; and
                          ``(iii) the cost effectiveness, quality,
                      effectiveness, and efficiency of health care
                      services furnished to adults with a serious mental
                      illness, children with a serious emotional
                      disturbance, or individuals in a mental health
                      crisis; and
                    ``(B) may include clinical protocols and practices
                that address the needs of individuals with early serious
                mental illness.
            ``(2) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the
        Laboratory shall consult with--
                    ``(A) the Chief Medical Officer appointed under
                section 501(g);
                    ``(B) representatives of the National Institute of
                Mental Health, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and
                the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,
                on an ongoing basis;
                    ``(C) other appropriate Federal agencies;
                    ``(D) clinical and analytical experts with expertise
                in psychiatric medical care and clinical psychological
                care, health care management, education, corrections
                health care, and mental health court systems, as
                appropriate; and
                    ``(E) other individuals and agencies as determined
                appropriate by the Assistant Secretary.
    ``(d) Deadline for Beginning Implementation.--The Laboratory shall
begin implementation of this section not later than January 1, 2018.
    ``(e) Promoting Innovation.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary, in coordination
        with the Laboratory, may award grants to States, local
        governments, Indian tribes or tribal organizations (as such
        terms are defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination
        and Education Assistance Act), educational institutions, and
        nonprofit organizations to develop evidence-based interventions,
        including culturally and linguistically appropriate services, as
        appropriate, for--
                    ``(A) evaluating a model that has been
                scientifically demonstrated to show promise, but would
                benefit from further applied development, for--
[[Page 130 STAT. 1222]]
                          ``(i) enhancing the prevention, diagnosis,
                      intervention, and treatment of, and recovery from,
                      mental illness, serious emotional disturbances,
                      substance use disorders, and co-occurring illness
                      or disorders; or
                          ``(ii) integrating or coordinating physical
                      health services and mental and substance use
                      disorders services; and
                    ``(B) expanding, replicating, or scaling evidence-
                based programs across a wider area to enhance effective
                screening, early diagnosis, intervention, and treatment
                with respect to mental illness, serious mental illness,
                serious emotional disturbances, and substance use
                disorders, primarily by--
                          ``(i) applying such evidence-based programs to
                      the delivery of care, including by training staff
                      in effective evidence-based treatments; or
                          ``(ii) integrating such evidence-based
                      programs into models of care across specialties
                      and jurisdictions.

Just How Divided Is the Republican Party?

Everybody knows how divided the GOP is but these two tweets within inches of each other in my Twitter feed depict the situation.
First, Sen. Jeff Flake:


Then, as if on cue to illustrate Flake’s assertion, enter Dinesh D’Souza:


These are two people who would agree about many things related to policy but are worlds apart on character. All that goes with Trumpism has served to split the GOP in ways the Dems could only hope to do. The witches brew of Christian nationalism and nativism is a political religion which has led so many people to call evil good and good evil. The destruction has come from within.
For GOP readers on the fence due to life issues and tax cuts, let me point you to the reality that the current administration is supporting pro-death policies in Yemen, and the middle class tax cuts become tax hikes after a few years. Big families will be negatively effected more than smaller families (pro-family?). The tax cuts benefit wealthier Americans with minimal relief for most middle class people. About 10% of middle class taxpayers will never see a tax cut due to the way the legislation is structured. Many Trump voters who supported him because he promised relief for the middle class will actually pay more while he gets a big tax cut.
D’Souza wants to stick it to media. At the end of the day, what’s the good of that? He may feel better somehow, but how does that help ordinary working people? Here’s hoping some principled people rise up in positions of power who seek the common good, not just for their tribe.

David Barton Backed Candidate for MI Governor Stripped of State Senate Committee Assignments

David Barton
David Barton

In the war between the alt-right/Christian nationalist and establishment factions of the GOP, battles are being waged in state races around the country. Even Ted Cruz may face a primary challenge in TX. In MI, David Barton and now Sean Hannity have endorsed Patrick Colbeck for governor. Can Steve Bannon be far behind?
Colbeck’s opposition in MI isn’t just the Democrats. On October 10, the MI Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof stripped him of all of his Senate committee assignments. Although Meekhof has not provided a specific reason for the unusual move, it may be an expression of the GOP war between the establishment and alt-right/Christian nationalist factions of the party. According to a Detroit News report, Colbeck is a favorite of the tea party in MI.
Colbeck believes he is being punished for attempting to “drain the swamp.”


Colbeck posted to his campaign Twitter account the extraordinary letter from Meekhof.

Ordinarily, this would be the kiss of death for a GOP candidate. However, Colbeck’s race will be one to watch in order to assess the strength of theMI logo growing coalition between white identity alt-right nationalists and Christian nationalists. Although Trump and Bannon aren’t being mentioned by name as yet, the endorsement of Hannity puts Colbeck in play as an anti-establishment candidate.
Other notes:
Apparently, Sen. Colbeck didn’t like my post on Tuesday about David Barton’s endorsement. He blocked me from viewing his account on Twitter.
 
To follow the blog on Facebook, click here.
To follow me on Twitter, click here.
 

Now Michigan Republicans Know Who to Avoid in the Race for Governor

David Barton
David Barton (screen cap You Tube)

Patrick Colbeck is a Michigan State Senator who wants to be governor. He is polling at about 4% compared to the front runner Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette’s 42%. While it is understandable that Colbeck would be excited about an endorsement, the one he just announced may provide many people a reason not to vote for him. On his Facebook page, Colbeck just announced that he has received the endorsement of David Barton.
To be sure, Barton’s endorsement is sought by many GOP candidates. The value of the endorsement for those who oppose Barton’s Christian nationalism is that it clearly designates the Christian nationalist candidate. In other words, now Michigan Republican voters who are skeptical about Christian nationalism may consider the other candidates. Nationally, the Republican party is in Civil War with nativists and Christian nationalists at war with the party establishment. As I noted earlier today, even the Christian right in Texas has found a way to splinter within the splinter.
I don’t assume that Colbeck knows about Barton’s record or his penchant for embellishing his bio. However, some conservatives are getting the message. I was pleasantly surprised to see an expose‘ on Barton at Pulpit and Pen, a far right theology website.  The author Seth Dunn covered the fake PhD and the NCAA Oral Roberts basketball story. From Dunn’s point of view, Barton isn’t good for soul winning.

The intellectual dishonesty of David Barton should not be the image put into the minds of lost people.  Christians should be leading the way in the realm of open, honest, forthcoming scholarship.  If the souls of the lost are to be won, it is not by the political operations of a faux-historian who seems to have only Americans pastors and TBN-viewers fooled about his complete lack of qualification.  The visible church should be policing itself.  Rather, it is put to open shame when non-believers and leftists must take the lead in exposing false claims of David Barton and his ilk.

Mr. Dunn, some politicians have been fooled too.
I once lived in the geographic Middle of the Mitten and know that area to be quite conservative. Perhaps, the endorsement will pick up some votes there. However, if Mr. Dunn’s op-ed is any indication, even some on the religious right may start to look elsewhere.

Question for Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration: What Does Indigenous Mean?

President Trump’s immigration policies have split the evangelical world. Many called on Trump to save the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program while others applauded the president for rescinding it.  Now that the matter is in the hands of Congress, lobbying for both sides is fierce. Some evangelical groups have promised an intense lobbying campaign to pass legislation favorable to illegal immigrants while others, such as Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration, promote a more exclusionary approach.
The EBI group recently wrote a letter to President Trump, Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urging them to put Americans first. The view of the world espoused by EBI sounds similar to positions espoused by segregationists during the era leading up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Historian Paul Matzko illustrated this connection by citing a 1960 sermon by segregationist Rev. Bob Jones. Jones said, “[The Apostle] Paul said that God ‘. . . hath made of one blood all nations of men . . . .’ But He also fixed the bounds of their habitation. When nations break out of their boundaries and begin to do things contrary to the purpose of God and the directive will of God, they have trouble.”
To further illustrate, let’s compare the EBI letter to Caroline County Circuit Judge Leon Bazile’s 1959 rationale for Virginia’s law against biracial marriage in a case which involved Richard and Mildred Loving. That situation ultimately led to the Supreme Court’s 1967 landmark decision in Loving v. Virginia which struck down those prohibitions. First, the EBI letter’s statements about people and nations:

While some faith groups use selective Bible words for open borders and amnesty, we consider the whole counsel of Scripture. We find that the Bible does not teach open borders, but wise welcome. We are to welcome the lawful foreigner, who, like a convert, comes as a blessing (eg.s Ruth and Rahab). We also find Nehemiah building walls to protect citizens from harm. In Isaiah 1, we see God condemning the destruction of borders and indigenous culture.
All lives matter. The lives of North, Central and South Americans matter. The lives of Africans, Asians, Europeans and people from the Middle East matter. In Scripture, we learn that God placed us each in a family, a land, an epic story of creation, the fall and redemption. The Bible envisions a world of beautiful and unique nations, not a stateless ‘open society’ run by global oligarchs. Each of us is called to be a blessing where God has placed us in the world. (emphasis in the original)

Now read Judge Bazile’s rationale for keeping the races separate.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

The EBI letter is not as nakedly segregationist as Bazile’s claim but contains similar reasoning. According to the Judge and the EBI letter writers, God made the borders and put the people in them. Our job is to smile, stay put, and deal with it.

What Does Indigenous Mean?

Without apparent awareness of our own history, the EBI writers say God condemns “the destruction of borders and indigenous culture.” If that is always true, then God must condemn America. The Europeans who came here obviously didn’t stay where God placed them.  Instead they came to this land and destroyed the indigenous culture. Not only did the white European take this land from the native people, the “settlers” forced the native people to leave their lands time and time again, most notably between 1830 and 1840 in what became known as the Trail of Tears. Not only were borders destroyed, but thousands of native men, women, and children died during the march from the Southeast to Oklahoma.

Indian school, Carlisle PA. Public domain
Indian school, Carlisle PA. Public domain

They were punished for using their native language, wearing native dress and for any positive reference to their indigenous culture. If the EBI signers really believe that God condemns such destruction, then they should fall to their knees in repentance and fear.
The EBI letter is a confusing hodgepodge of nativist talking points baptized with references to the Bible used out of their historical context. It is understandable that the Breitbart alt-right crowd likes it.
There are practical reasons for limiting the number of people coming to the country, but I can see no reason, biblical or otherwise, to limit people by race, religion, or national origin. God as a prop for political xenophobia does not reflect his whole counsel, but rather reflects the worldly counsel of the writers.

Trump Contradicts Himself and VP Pence on FBI Director Comey Firing

Yesterday, VP Pence said Trump acted on the recommendation of Deputy Attorney General to fire FBI Director James Comey. Watch:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbyRCf6cJFk[/youtube]
First, Deputy AG Rosenstein didn’t directly recommend Comey’s firing and today, Trump says he had already planned to fire Comey without the recommendation, contradicting the White House statement and Pence.


The White House statement from yesterday:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 9, 2017
Statement from the Press Secretary
Today, President Donald J. Trump informed FBI Director James Comey that he has been terminated and removed from office. President Trump acted on the clear recommendations of both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
“The FBI is one of the Nation’s most cherished and respected institutions and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of law enforcement,” said President Trump.
A search for a new permanent FBI Director will begin immediately.
# # #

On May 3, Sean Spicer said Comey had Trump’s confidence.
We can only hope that the firing of Comey does not create a barrier to the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign and associates.

Despite Erroneous Material, Family Research Council Features David Barton at Event for Pastors

Once upon a time, Family Research Council promoted a video which featured a tour of the U.S. Capitol led by self-styled historian David Barton (see the original here). This Capitol tour video was filled with historical errors. Four years ago, 33 Christian historians and social scientists detailed those errors to FRC in a letter:

April 23, 2013
Dear Tony Perkins, Kenyn Cureton, & J.P. Duffy:
Knowing of your desire to offer truthful and accurate information to the public, we the undersigned Christian historians and social scientists request that you remove the video titled “U.S. Capitol Tour with David Barton” at this URL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E) from YouTube.
There are many factual errors on this video which we detail in the attached summary. Given that the video has been viewed over 4 million times, it seems that the errors have been compounded among Christians who trust FRC for accurate information. Furthermore, it is apparent that pastors who go on the tour are learning false and misleading information.
We can provide complete documentation for everything we present here. Given that these claims are highlighted in the video but easily disproved, we believe these errors are enough to warrant the removal of the video with appropriate explanation.
We would be happy to discuss this matter further and hope that we can count on you to represent historical facts accurately.

Since the video was actually posted to the account of FRC VP Kenyn Cureton, he replied by saying Barton had agreed to correct the errors with new content. While this was not ideal, we waited to see what would happen.
In May 2013, after a follow up request from the historians to remove the video, Rev. Cureton made the video private thus removing it from public view. He told our spokesman Michael Coulter that FRC decided to make the video private so that no one could see “the erroneous material.” However, FRC declined to inform the public or provide an explanation for the removal. Eventually, Barton posted an altered version on his YouTube account without comment. I say altered and not corrected because the video was only a partial correction, the video still contains factual errors. The alteration was done in such a way as to make it seem like the video was never changed.
In summary, FRC acknowledged that David Barton was aware of his historical fiction and tried to alter the video without public acknowledgement of the errors and effort at correction. FRC leaders were aware of the many errors and did not alert their constituents to the false information.

Family Research Council Has Invited David Barton to Do It Again

Despite this history, FRC will again feature Barton as a Capitol tour leader and speaker at their Watchmen on the Wall event in May.

WotW 2017
From FRC website

If anything, the situation has worsened since 2013. Since then, David Barton has falsely claimed to have an earned PhD, only to go silent about the claim when it was revealed that the degree in question came from diploma mill Life Christian University. Barton never attended the school and was simply given the degree in the way an honorary degree is given. In academia, falsely claiming an earned doctorate is considered fraud. When I asked FRC’s Cureton if he was aware of this fraudulent claim, he referred me to media relations. I have heard nothing back from that department.
In the Capitol tour video, pastors who attended the event commented on what they had heard. I will never forget a pastor who looked into the camera and said he was angry because: “We’ve been lied to.” Watch:

Sadly, that pastor was right. He had been lied to. What he didn’t know is that the falsehoods were coming from his hosts and their featured speaker. That pastor might still think Congress printed the first English Bible in America for the use of schools. He might still think 29 out of 56 signers of the Declaration had Bible school degrees or that Thomas Jefferson ordered the marine band to play for worship services in the Capitol. If ever he learns the truth, I wonder if he will be even more angry at those who misled him. FRC should think about this before they host more historical fiction for a new group of pastors.
 
 

Fix, Don't Repeal, the Johnson Amendment

photo-1467070607100-22fd5b4f38ac_optRecently, I appeared on the Up for Debate radio program hosted by Julie Roys to debate the status of the Johnson Amendment. The Johnson Amendment forbids non-profit organizations from electioneering. Some religious groups want to repeal the amendment in order to allow pastors to endorse candidates for office without putting church tax exempt status at risk. Erik Stanley of Alliance Defending Freedom argued for the repeal of the amendment.
While discussing the matter, I volunteered that I have no problem with pastors expressing their views about political candidates but I do have a problem with tax exempt churches using tithes and offerings for political purposes. Those funds are exempt from taxation and as such should not be funneled into support for specific candidates. In short order, churches would become political action committees with donors getting a tax exemption for money eventually going to fund partisan politicking.
In response, Erik Stanley mentioned the Free Speech Fairness Act (HR 781/S264). Stanley characterized the bill as a fix for the Johnson Amendment, not a complete repeal. The text of the bill is as follows:

115th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 781
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow charitable organizations to make statements relating to political campaigns if
such statements are made in the ordinary course of carrying out its tax exempt purpose. _______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 1, 2017
Mr. Scalise (for himself and Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow charitable organizations to make statements relating to political campaigns if
such statements are made in the ordinary course of carrying out its tax exempt purpose.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Free Speech Fairness Act”.
SEC. 2. ALLOWING 501(C)(3) ORGANIZATION TO MAKE STATEMENTS RELATING TO POLITICAL CAMPAIGN IN ORDINARY COURSE OF CARRYING OUT ITS TAX EXEMPT PURPOSE.
(a) In General.–Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
“(s) Special Rule Relating to Political Campaign Statements of Organization Described in Subsection (c)(3).–
“(1) In general.–For purposes of subsection (c)(3) and sections 170(c)(2), 2055, 2106, 2522, and 4955, an organization
shall not fail to be treated as organized and operated exclusively for a purpose described in subsection (c)(3), nor
shall it be deemed to have participated in, or intervened in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any
candidate for public office, solely because of the content of any statement which–
“(A) is made in the ordinary course of the organization’s regular and customary activities in carrying out its exempt purpose, and
“(B) results in the organization incurring not more than de minimis incremental expenses.”.
(b) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this
Act.

So if the speech is made in the course of carrying out tax exempt purposes and results in insignificant costs, the speech would be permitted. Given the restriction on spending, this is not a repeal but a fix.
But is it an adequate fix? I argue that it is not. I don’t think any loophole for churches to spend tithes on political purposes, even de minimis, should be allowed. What is de minimis to one church might not be considered de minimis to another. Furthermore, the point of fixing the free speech problem should be on speech, not money. In kind contributions should also be forbidden. As this is written, I don’t support it.
One of the co-sponsors is Jody Hice a Christian from Georgia who sounds dominionist tones. He talked about the “repeal” of the Johnson Amendment at a recent David Barton sponsored meeting.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIFDGe14M7E[/youtube]
As I have noted before, most pastors don’t want to endorse candidates from the pulpit which is as it should be in my opinion.