Hawaii Right to Life

Guidelines for Political Activites by Churches and Pastors

James Madison Center for Free Speech
1 South Sixth Street
Terre Haute, IN
47807-3510
www.jamesmadisoncenter.org

As the 2004 elections approach, and various groups begin again their intimidation tactics in an effort to silence churches and pastors about the great social and moral issues of our time, churches and pastors need clear guidelines for permissible political activities. In response to that need, the James Madison Center for Free Speech and the Alliance Defense Fund are providing these guidelines and will respond free of charge to inquiries by churches, pastors, and priests on permissible political activities through informal e-mails, telephone advice and legal opinion letters. The Alliance Defense Fund has provided a grant to the James Madison Center for Free Speech for this purpose

Click the link below for the full document:
Guidelines for Churches and Pastors (requires Adobe Acrobat)

To request legal advice free of charge for churches, pastors, and priests, please contact us at madisoncenter@aol.com

Do's and Don'ts for Political Activities of Pastors

James Madison Center for Free Speech
1 South Sixth Street
Terre Haute, IN
47807-3510
www.jamesmadisoncenter.org

Pastors, as individuals, have the same rights as all other American citizens to involve themselves in political activity. Pastors thus have much greater latitude to involve themselves in political activities than does a church.

Click the link below for the full document:
Dos and Don'ts for Pastors (requires Adobe Acrobat)

To request legal advice free of charge for churches, pastors, and priests, please contact us at madisoncenter@aol.com

For Immediate Release

In the Wisconsin Right to Life’s McCain-Feingold Challenge, WRTL Files an Emergency Appeal to the D.C. Circuit Appeals Court

Contact: Barbara Lyons
Wisconsin Right to Life
August 20, 2004 877-855-5007
blyons@wrtl.org

James Bopp, Jr.
Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom
812-232-2434 (office)
812-243-0825 (cell)
jboppjr@aol.com

On August 20, Wisconsin Right to Life (“WRTL”) filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the case of Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC. The appeal seeks an immediate injunction to permit WRTL to run grass roots lobbying radio ads and expedited review of the trial court’s refusal to grant such an injunction.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction against applying the broadcast blackout periods in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to grass roots lobbying ads currently being run by Wisconsin Right to Life. The ads urge Senators Feingold and Kohl to oppose the filibusters of judicial nominees. Because Sen. Feingold is a candidate in the upcoming Wisconsin primary and general election, the broadcast ads cannot be run mentioning his name from August 15 through November 2.

James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for WRTL, observes that “Wisconsin Right to Life has been gagged for almost a week already, while the number of judicial nominees being filibustered has hit double digits and more filibusters are expected shortly.” He adds: “The right to petition a representative is guaranteed in the First Amendment and inherent in our system of representative government. Sen. Feingold is supposed to represent the people who are gagged by his own law – the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law -- from lobbying him. What kind of representation is that?!”

Of the trial court’s decision that the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC foreclosed all future challenges to the blackout periods as applied to specific facts, Bopp commented: “The federal courts used to consider themselves the guardians of the First Amendment. Now they view the people’s right to lobby their own Senator with suspicion. And according to the trial court, we don’t get the traditional ‘strict scrutiny’ of laws burdening First Amendment rights -- we get no scrutiny!”

The appellate motions and many other documents filed in the case are available online at Wisconsin Right to Life’s website, www.BeFair.org , along with current ads being run and other information about the law suit.

Press Release August 19, 2004

Second Circuit Refuses to Strike Campaign Spending Limit

Contact: James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel
Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685
madisoncenter@aol.com

In a decision likely to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting in New York, reversed a lower court decision that had struck down the state's limits on campaign spending by candidates for state and local government. However, the Second Circuit panel did stop short of declaring Vermont's limits constitutional, instead remanding the case for the district court to determine whether the state's interests could have been met by other means, and whether the spending limits were lower than necessary.

Although the Supreme Court has, beginning with its seminal decision in Buckley v. Valeo "routinely struck down limitations on independent expenditures by candidates, other individuals, and groups," FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 533 U.S. 431, 441 (2001), the panel nonetheless held that such spending limits could be upheld, and that Vermont had established compelling interests in "protecting the time of candidates and elected officials, and preventing the reality and appearance of corruption." These holdings directly contradict a decision by the Tenth Circuit earlier this year as well as an earlier decision by the Sixth Circuit holding similar spending limits to be unconstitutional as a matter of law, and specifically rejecting the time and corruption interests as inadequate to justify such limits. Homans v. City of Albuquerque, 366 F.3d 900, 914 (10th Cir. 2004); Kruse v. City of Cincinnati, 142 F.3d 907 (6th Cir. 1998).

According to James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel for the Vermont Republican State Committee and several other plaintiffs who had challenged the Vermont limits, "On the one hand, this is a shocking break from the Supreme Court decision in Buckley, as well as several federal courts of appeals that have struck down spending limits as a matter of law, in several cases rejecting the identical interests that the panel relied upon here. On the other hand, this decision ultimately shows what a daunting task the state faces because they still have to prove that there was no other way to accomplish their objectives, and that's almost impossible to do." Mr. Bopp also indicated that further appeals were likely, either to the entire Second Circuit en banc or to the Supreme Court.

The spending limits were enacted as part of a campaign finance scheme that also included some of the nation's lowest campaign contribution limits, limits on contributions from non-residents, public financing for some offices, and other restrictions on contributions and expenditures by political parties, committees, and other independent political speakers. Many of the provisions were challenged in three consolidated cases. The panel decision also upheld most contribution limits but struck down the limit on contributions from non-Vermont residents and remanded for further consideration limits on contributions to independent expenditure committees and on transfers of money to Vermont political parties from their national affiliates.

The case is Landell v. Sorrell, No. 00-9159 (2nd Cir. Aug. 18, 2004).

Click here for the Brief for Amici Curiae regarding Oregon v. Ashcroft.