Copied from today's New York Times FYI Eric Grace ________________________________________
Copied from today's New York Times FYI
Eric Grace
______________________________________________________________________
copyright NYT
By RICHARD L. BERKE
WASHINGTON -- The bipartisan Federal Election
Commission sued the Christian Coalition on
Tuesday, asserting that the nation's largest group of
religious conservatives had acted illegally to promote several
Republican candidates, including former President George Bush,
Speaker Newt Gingrich, Sen. Jesse Helms and Oliver North.
In a civil suit filed in U.S. District Court here, the election
commission argued that the coalition's nonpartisan posture was a
sham and that it had used voter guides, mailings and telephone
banks to press for the election of particular Republican
candidates
in 1990, 1992 and 1994. The money the coalition channeled into
these activities amounted to illegal donations, the commission
said, and that should have been reported as independent
expenditures or as in-kind contributions to those campaigns.
In a statement, the Christian Coalition, founded by the evangelist
Pat Robertson after his unsuccessful bid for the Republican
presidential nomination in 1988, called the suit "totally
baseless"
and "frivolous."
"We are absolutely and totally confident that we will be fully
vindicated," said Ralph Reed, the group's executive director,
"and the courts will affirm that people of faith have every
right to
be involved as citizens and voters."
But it may be difficult for the coalition to dismiss the suit as
politically driven because two Republicans joined two Democrats
in voting on May 7 to sue. The Republicans were Lee Ann
Elliott, the FEC chairwoman, and Joan D. Aikens. The
six-member panel had one Republican vacancy, and one of its
three Democrats was absent.
"There was a majority of the commission that felt they had gone
too far," Mrs. Elliott said in an interview, speaking of the
coalition. "And we'll have to let the courts decide that now." She
said the case "has some big issues in it" and predicted that it
would eventually reach the Supreme Court.
The suit is significant, not only because it involves the most
influential organization of religious conservatives -- it
reports 1.7
million members -- but also because of its timing, coming on the
eve of the Republican National Convention, which opens Aug.
12 in San Diego. The coalition is expected to have a visible role
at the gathering.
The suit takes aim at the Christian Coalition's most effective
organizing tool: the millions of voter guides it distributes
before
elections and lists candidates' records on a variety of
issues. The
coalition has long contended that the guides were carefully
written to avoid any partisan tone. But with this action pending,
churches may fear that they would risk their tax-exempt status by
allowing the coalition to distribute the guides on church
property.
The dispute may also provide an important test in federal election
law over the significance of an organization's coordination with a
party or a candidate.
The suit asserts that the voter guides do not have to advocate
expressly the election or defeat of a candidate to be a problem;
instead, it contends that the legal questions arise because the
coalition coordinated the content and distribution of its voter
guides so as to favor one candidate over another.
The ultimate resolution of that matter could affect the
relationships between candidates and other issue-advocacy
groups of all political stripes, like the AFL-CIO, Sierra Club and
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The suit complicates the questions involving the Christian
Coalition, which had already been under scrutiny by the Internal
Revenue Service over whether its 1989 bid for tax-exempt status
should be granted. The IRS could be influenced by the election
commission. Both agencies have in the past eyed each other
closely when dealing with overlapping cases.
Other nonprofit organizations establish political action
committees that take part in political activities. Those
committees
are required to make their spending public and to abide by federal
spending and contribution limits. But the Christian Coalition
argues that its activities are educational and not political,
and it
therefore does not follow the restrictions required of PACs.
In its
suit, the commission does not address the issue of whether the
coalition's principal purpose is to engage in political
activity, a
matter that touches upon both tax law and election law.
The suit asks the court to impose fines against the coalition that
could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars, to force the
coalition to stop using its own money to promote candidates and
to report related spending to help candidates.
Mike Russell, the Christian Coalition's communications director,
said Tuesday, "This is a completely baseless and legally
threadbare attempt by a feckless federal agency to silence people
of faith and deny them their First Amendment rights."
But the suit was hailed by groups that promote the separation of
church and state. "The Christian Coalition from day one has been
a hardball political operation cloaked in religiosity," said Barry
W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation
of Church and State, a nonpartisan group. "The FEC action
today rips aside that cloak."
Carole Shields, president of People for the American Way, a
liberal advocacy group, said: "The FEC is recognizing the
obvious: the Christian Coalition's deceptive voter guides and
aggressive campaigns are designed to help elect right-wing
Republicans to public office."
To support its charge that the coalition was backing candidates,
not just educating its followers, the commission cited a mailed
package entitled "Reclaim America" that the coalition distributed
to voters in the 1994 campaign, saying it had included a
scorecard rating congressional candidates.
The suit says: "The cover letter, signed by Pat Robertson,
asserted that the enclosed scorecard would be an important tool
for affecting the outcome of the upcoming elections. It stated:
'This SCORECARD will give America's Christian voters the
facts they will need to distinguish between GOOD and
MISGUIDED congressmen."'
The suit also contends that the Christian Coalition, in
"coordination, cooperation and/or consultation" with Bush's
re-election campaign in 1992, spent money on identifying voters
and getting them to the polls, as well as for the preparation and
distribution of 28 million voter guides.
In 1990, the commission asserts, the coalition coordinated with
the re-election campaign of Helms, R-N.C., to distribute
750,000 voter guides in the state and make about 29,800
telephone calls in a get-out-the-vote effort.
That same year, the suit said, the coalition coordinated with the
National Republican Senatorial Committee to produce and
distribute 5 million to 10 million voter guides to help Republican
Senate candidates in seven states.
The commission said that the Christian Coalition, based in
Virginia Beach, Va., had made similar efforts to help North --
producing and distributing about 1.7 million voter guides -- in
his unsuccessful drive in 1994 to defeat Sen. Charles Robb of
Virginia.
In addition, the suit says, the coalition made such efforts on
behalf of Gingrich in his 1994 campaign in Georgia, for Rep.
J.D. Hayworth of Arizona in his 1994 campaign and for Rep.
Bob Inglis of South Carolina in 1994.
The suit cited Reed for appearing at a two-day conference in
January 1992 at which he "expressly advocated the defeat" of
Rep. Pat Williams, D-Mont., and failing to report the cost of the
meeting as an independent expenditure against Williams.
The commission's suit stemmed from a four-year investigation
that was prompted by two complaints accusing the Christian
Coalition of violating federal election laws. The first was
filed in
February 1992 by the Virginia Democratic Party; the second was
filed by the Democratic National Committee in October 1992.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank