Kamala Harris video urging churchgoers to vote for McAuliffe may be illegal
By: Tyler O'Neil (MSN)
![](https://thenewstalkers.com/image/img/module/ntArticle/quote.png?skin=ntNewsTalkers3&v=1701664066)
WHOOOOPS
![](https://thenewstalkers.com/image/img/module/ntArticle/quote.png?skin=ntNewsTalkers3&v=1701664066)
In the final weeks before Election Day, more than 300 Black churches across Virginia have agreed to play a video in which Vice President Kamala Harris urges churchgoers to vote after the services for VirginiaDemocratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe — a move that some experts claim violates the law.
Load Error
Some lawyers suggest that the video violates Internal Revenue Service rules for churches that are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)3 of the IRS code. It is not clear whether any churches have played it yet.
"I believe that my friend Terry McAuliffe is the leader Virginia needs at this moment," Harris says in the video. "Early voting has already started, and this is the first year that you can vote on Sunday, so please vote after today's service, and if you cannot vote today, make a plan to go vote."
JONATHAN TURLEY: VP HARRIS' MCAULIFFE ENDORSEMENT VIDEO MAY VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW
Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, cited the statute, which extends tax-exemption to entities that do "not participate in, or intervene in [including the publishing or distributing of statements], any political campaign on behalf of [or in opposition to] any candidate for public office."
He cited the Johnson Amendment, which states that tax-exempt groups "are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of [or in opposition to] any candidate for elective public office."
The statute further adds that "contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position [verbal or written] made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes."
Jean Baran, a partner at Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC, suggested that the statute may not apply to the video in question.
"This assumes the church is speaking. Are the pastors making the statements or Harris?" Baran told Fox News.
© REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein President Biden participates in a campaign event with candidate for Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe, at Lubber Run Park in Arlington, Virginia, July 23, 2021. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Turley rejected this suggestion.
"The actual rule … does not simply limit the prohibition to 'intervention,'" he told Fox News in an email statement. "It includes participating and specifically references publishing or distributing statements. Moreover, the church speaks by featuring the video, particularly knowing in advance [as here] that the video will be calling the faithful to vote for McAuliffe. It is actively seeking to distribute that message to the faithful."
An election lawyer who spoke with Fox News on condition of anonymity suggested that the video likely does violate the Johnson Amendment.
"If Kamala Harris actually is specifically endorsing a candidate, and churches are showing this in their churches, that seems like it would be a pretty clear violation of the Johnson Amendment," the lawyer said. "I think them showing the video would make it their speech, basically."
But even if the video broke the law, that may not result in penalties for the churches involved.
The IRS "has not gone after churches for these types of violations before," taking a more generous view regarding political speech," the election lawyer noted. The agency will often consider a pastor's remarks about an election to be that pastor's personal speech, rather than the church's words, the lawyer explained.
The lawyer also noted that the Biden administration is unlikely to apply the law to sanction Harris or the McAuliffe campaign, which President Biden has endorsed.
"How bad does that look for the Biden administration to start cracking down on Black churches?" the lawyer said.
Baran also noted that the IRS does not typically apply the statute this way.
"I don't believe the IRS has applied the statute in the way advocated by Turley," Baran told Fox News. "I am unaware of any church, including an evangelical church, in which a candidate has spoken being subject to revocation of tax-exempt status. Turley does not cite an example."
The McAuliffe campaign did not respond to Fox News' request for comment. The vice president's office referred Fox News to the McAuliffe campaign.
Continue ReadingShow full articles without "Continue Reading" button for {0} hours. Microsoft and partners may be compensated if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.
![](https://thenewstalkers.com/image/img/module/ntArticle/fetch.png?skin=ntNewsTalkers3&v=1701664066)
Tags
Who is online
46 visitors
Just another "slip of the tongue" right? This one won't get her another higher job though.
Trump's off topic. There is enough of that shit elsewhere. Thank you.
... and you thought the article on Oklahoma + CRT was a waste of time?
Where did I say that? The lawsuit will be a waste of time cuz according to one of the local geniuses, CRT isn't being taught so why the law and why the lawsuit to stop it?
Of course churches are in violation here. But it's highly unlikely they would incur any penalties.
But they were OK with preachers telling their parishioners to vote for Trump and play his wacky MAGA videos.
Apparently so.
Maybe we'll get lucky and, like the pedophile priests, they'll move them out of the country.
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths some revisionists will go to in an attempt to revise the original meaning of separation of church and state.
It simply meant that the state shall not arbitrarily set limitations on the establishment of and/or the free practice of religion. That is very well established. Atheists and others just love to fuck with that concept and are constantly trying to redefine it’s true meaning.
And that is weak sauce, very weak sauce.
That said, I could care less what what someone like our VP sez about to vote for or why so IMO have at it Harris but you don’t get to have your cake and eat it to.
Deal with it hypocrites.
That works both ways. Religion cannot do the same with the state. And there is a limit on the free practice of religion too.
Clearly you do not understand the true meaning.
What works both ways? Explain what you mean by that please.
Religion can’t do what the same with state? Explain what you mean please.
Nah, as I stated. The true meaning is very well established. It’s just revisionist nonsense to say that it isn’t
Yeah, that’s what I thought .....