volokh at mail.law.ucla.edu
Wed Nov 21 13:38:13 PST 2001
I share David Cruz's concern; HR 2357, reproduced, below, does seem to
provide a preference for religious speakers, and a very significant one at
that. How can this be constitutional, given Texas Monthly v. Bullock? Or
is the claim that preference for religious *speakers* is OK even when a
preference for religious *speech* (as in TM v. Bullock) is not?
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit churches and other
houses of worship to engage
in political campaigns.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Houses of Worship Political
Speech Protection Act'.
SEC. 2. HOUSES OF WORSHIP PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL
(a) IN GENERAL- Paragraph (3) of section 501(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
(1) by striking `and which does not' and
inserting `except in the case of an organization
described in section 508(c)(1)(A) (relating to
churches), which does not', and
(2) by inserting before the period `and, in the
case of an organization described in section
508(c)(1)(A), no substantial part of the
activities of which is participating in, or intervening in
(including the publishing or distributing of
statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or
in opposition to) any candidate for public
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall
apply to expenditures made
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Cruz [mailto:dcruz at LAW.USC.EDU]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 1:22 PM
> To: RELIGIONLAW at listserv.ucla.edu
> Subject: religious favoritism?
> This message uses a character set that is not supported by the Internet
> Service. To view the original message content, open the attached
> message. If the text doesn't display correctly, save the attachment to
> disk, and then open it using a viewer that can display the original
> character set. <<message.txt>>
More information about the Religionlaw