The more of this story that I read, the more I laughed. This would be a far better country if this were the rule instead of the exception.
http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/texas-toast-el-paso-church-loses-legal-case-over-political-intervention
For the nanny wall impaired.
An El Paso church's brazen effort to remove the mayor and two members of the city council has been brought to a screeching halt.
The political drama in the west Texas town started last summer when Pastor Tom Brown of Word of Life Church issued a politically charged email to the community. Brown, who sent the email under the guise of his Tom Brown Ministries, attacked El Paso Mayor John Cook and El Paso City Council Members Steve Ortega and Susie Byrd because the three voted to extend health-care benefits to domestic partners.
Brown then joined forces with a group called El Pasoans for Traditional Family Values (EPFTFV) and announced he would recall Cook, Ortega and Byrd. His ministry's website posted an "Open Letter to City Council" that said in part, "If you are upset at this action and would like to sign and/or circulate a recall petition against Mayor John Cook and Representatives Susie Byrd and Steve Ortega, then fill out the form below. Share this page with your friends and get them to fill out the form. Thanks."
Brown's church and ministry essentially organized and coordinated the recall campaign, taking the lead role in circulating petitions. The church gathered enough signatures to put the matter on the ballot, but Brown overlooked one thing: Texas election laws prohibit corporations (which includes non-profit groups) from intervening in elections.
County Court Judge Javier Alvarez had earlier ruled that the church and EPFTFV had broken the law, but he refused to stop the election, arguing it would thwart the will of the people.
The Texas 8th Court of Appeals was not impressed with this curious logic. Ruling unanimously, the court slammed Alvarez and made it clear that the state's laws must be enforced.
"Despite having viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's order and indulging every reasonable inference in its favor, we find the trial court's order denying injunctive relief is so arbitrary as to exceed the bounds of reasonable discretion," wrote the judges.
The appeals court added, "It is essential to the independence of the judiciary and public confidence in the judicial process that a judge be faithful to the law and not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism. It is significant, we think, that the trial court lost sight of the fact that a proper application of the law to the facts in this case does not act to bar voters from properly exercising their right to seek a recall of elected office holders, provided that such right is exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Election Code."
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Religious Right legal organization founded by television and radio preachers in the early 1990s, jumped into the case on behalf of Brown's church. Joel Oster, the ADF attorney who handled the lawsuit, didn't comment after the ruling came down, and the two local attorneys who worked on it, Theresa Caballero and Stuart Leeds, hung up on an El Paso Times reporter who called asking for comment.
The bombastic Brown attacked the appeals court and is vowing to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, but Mark Walker, Cook's attorney, thinks it's unlikely that the state high court will hear the matter. Walker noted that the Texas Supreme Court usually hears cases only if the lower court was split or if lower courts have issued conflicting rulings on a legal question.
"My analysis is it can't be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court," Walker told the Times. He called the ruling "a victory for the rule of law."
Brown's troubles may not over. He could get slapped with a bill for Cook's legal fees, which have topped a quarter of a million dollars. Furthermore, violations of the Texas election law can result in criminal penalties. Jaime Esparza, the local district attorney, is investigating that aspect of things.
Finally, Americans United last year asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate Brown's partisan political activities and, if he is found in violation of the law, to revoke his ministry's tax-exempt status.
It sounds like Brown has stepped into quite a tar pit. Maybe all of this political intervention by a church might not have been a good idea after all.
If a church wants to get involved in politics it should pay taxes. Matter of fact that might be a good deterrent. Glad this guy got a slap in the face.
I hope he has to pay the legal fees and fines as well.
Definitely. There should be precedents in place for keeping religion and politics as separated as possible with real monetary penalties in place.
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 21, 2012, 05:48:07 PM
If a church wants to get involved in politics it should pay taxes. Matter of fact that might be a good deterrent. Glad this guy got a slap in the face.
Seconded. Very true statement.
I like this, but doesn't Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad (corporations are people so 14th amendment applies to corporations) mean that
Quote from: WolfShitneck on February 21, 2012, 05:23:02 PMTexas election laws prohibit corporations (which includes non-profit groups) from intervening in elections.
is unconstitutional?
Quote from: Oysters Rockefeller on February 21, 2012, 06:49:43 PM
Quote from: Twid, not Billy. on February 21, 2012, 05:48:07 PM
If a church wants to get involved in politics it should pay taxes. Matter of fact that might be a good deterrent. Glad this guy got a slap in the face.
Seconded. Very true statement.
Yes. I'd like to see the LDS taxed to hell for their bullshit regarding Prop 8.
Yes. The catholic church too. Its not like the vatican has a whole lot of wealth locked up in just timeless artwork alone.
Quote from: Precious Moments Zalgo on February 23, 2012, 12:45:15 PM
I like this, but doesn't Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad (corporations are people so 14th amendment applies to corporations) mean that
Quote from: WolfShitneck on February 21, 2012, 05:23:02 PMTexas election laws prohibit corporations (which includes non-profit groups) from intervening in elections.
is unconstitutional?
The finding in Santa Clara that the 14th applies to corporations is presented without any reasoning or argument, so that does leave some wriggle room. Pretty sure the Texas statute could easily get around that finding since PACs or other explicitly political corporations are not considered "corporations" under that law. Also, the restriction on participation of corporations (as defined in the statute) is limited to recalls and endorsement of candidates. Corporations may participate, through some finagling, in the same way as individuals when it comes to specific issues.
The Pastor could have used the ministry's resources (through a general purpose committee) to circulate a petition addressing the policy itself, just not the recall. Unless Constitutionality is to be taken to grant corporations full rights of personhood (including a vote, among other things) Santa Clara probably wouldn't hold here. It could be stated that the Texas law does allow equal protections to an extent that would be appropriate for a "legal person".
Even stepping to Citizen's United extremes, I doubt Brown's case would hold up intact. At best, the Texas law could be called illegal for not allowing donations for elections and recalls of candidates. There's nothing I have seen in Citizens United that would allow the ministry to participate
directly in the campaign. Since Brown didn't even bother to hide behind a "General Purpose Committee", he's kind of hosed on his face here.
EDIT: The Constitutionality of a corporation having to go through a PAC for electioneering communications was upheld in McConnell v Federal Election Commission (in fact that's about the only provision of McCain-Feingold that's still intact.)
I swear I heard on Colbert report that the "corporations are people" bit was an off the record remark made by a justice or attorney that was only retrospectively mixed in with the actual decision. Either way it seems ludicrous to me. Corporations aren't people until you can kick them in the genitals.
Quote from: moose on February 24, 2012, 07:25:54 PM
I swear I heard on Colbert report that the "corporations are people" bit was an off the record remark made by a justice or attorney that was only retrospectively mixed in with the actual decision. Either way it seems ludicrous to me. Corporations aren't people until you can kick them in the genitals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
QuoteIn a headnote—not part of the opinion—the reporter noted that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."
Quote from: moose on February 24, 2012, 07:25:54 PM
I swear I heard on Colbert report that the "corporations are people" bit was an off the record remark made by a justice or attorney that was only retrospectively mixed in with the actual decision. Either way it seems ludicrous to me. Corporations aren't people until you can kick them in the genitals.
The majority opinion in Citizen's United, alone, cited a dozen or more precedents that referred to the rights of corporate "persons". The Santa Clara decision said it straight out:
QuoteThe defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
"intent of the clause" meaning, of course, the moral of the story of the 14th amendment, as opposed to...you know...the fucking text of the thing.
Quote from: Nigel on February 24, 2012, 08:17:47 PM
QuoteIn a headnote—not part of the opinion—the reporter noted that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."
"Cause, DUH!" Pretty much irrefutable, that argument.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on February 25, 2012, 12:25:46 AM
QuoteThe defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
This is the exact "comment" that Nigel refers to, which is a part of the SUMMARY but no-where in the OPINION. (the Summary, btw, was written by a legal aid who had spent the past 20 years working for the rail-road corporations).
Quote from: Nigel on February 24, 2012, 08:17:47 PM
QuoteIn a headnote—not part of the opinion—the reporter noted that the Chief Justice began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."
This, at the time, was established law due to the specifics of the Corporate Charter. The 14th amendment applies to corporations not because they are "people", but because "the laws of one state must be read as valid and with full effect when you consider them from inside another jurisdiction" also stems from the 14th Ammendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Due_Process_Clause
Specifically, the Court Cases which clarified the Due Proccess Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, provided additional protections to private contracts (and a Corporate Charter is a contract between private persons and the "state sovereign"). This also applied the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution to the States. This is the principle which makes your Driver's License valid in another state while you drive through it, and it makes a Corporation's State Charter valid when that corporation acts in another state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause
The "Personhood" language was purely the legal aid's invention, when he wrote the "header/summary" for the case. But previous to this, if one state said (in a Contract) that a certain entity would be "legally treated as a person for certain economic and legal purposes", then the other states would have to honor that (but only in the specific circumstances outlines in the state corporate Charter).
Thanks for expanding on that and clarifying, Telarus.