Posted on 09/14/2006 5:43:33 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Was I just now seeing right? I was watching Don Imus on MSNBC and they ran a Harold Ford for Senate campaign commercial in which it looked like he was making a political pitch from inside a church. Was I seeing right or was he inside another building? It sure looked like the inside of a church.
What happened to the separation of church and politics that the Democrats are always sqawking about? Can anybody confirm if that was a church interior that Ford was making his political pitch from?
Except they rarely vote against their leadership anymore, so they aren't really a separate group.
They used to be counted on to bring some sanity to the table, eeking out concessions from the majority in exchange for their votes.
Now, when the republicans give them concessions, they still vote against the bills. Occasionally, if necessary, they will give the republicans just enough votes to squeak by, but not enough to call a bill "bipartisan".
This is because the house democratic leadership has cracked down on wayward democrats, threatening committee positions, yanking election support, cutting them out of caucuses, etc.
If he paid fair-market value RENT to the church, I think it's OK, a church can rent out their facilities, although they would have to allow Corker the same access.
If the church let him use the facility for free, then it's an "in-kind" campaign donation, and the church could lose it's tax-exempt status. And if Ford didn't REPORT the value as a campaign contribution from the church, he could be fined by the FEC in about 2 years.
The key is for Corker to respond forcefully, pointing out that Ford is hiding behind his religion to shield him from responsibility for his bad acts.
a 3rd-party group could run an Ad decrying Ford's position that people would be better off if they were forced to go to church. The athiest republicans would be a good place for this. What could be more dangerous than a U.S. Senator who thinks your children would be better off if they had some good old-time religion forced down their throats, if not in church maybe in the public school system?
Harold Ford is still just a Democrat, who votes with his party , as need be, and supports the efforts to put in a Democrat for President..Democrats like John Kerry.
What Church is it, anyway?
"...What happened to the Democrats sqawking about not mixing religion and politics?..."
They are showing what hypocrites they realy are.
Harold Ford on Civil Rights
Democratic Representative (TN-9)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent.
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance
Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration.
Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC.
Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions http://www.issues2000.org/House/Harold_Ford_Civil_Rights.htm
That must be the "unmitigated gall" flavor of savvy.
Amen to that. A brief Ford history lesson. His daddy, Harold, Sr., held a racially exclusive event to annoint Willie Herenton mayor of Memphis. SR held the event in a publicly owned arena which meant that the event had to be open to ALL. That rule was violated. On election night in 1991, SR left a party held at the Peabody Hotel to go down to try and browbeat O.C. Pleasants, then the head of the election commision, into showing SR the ballots. O.C. held his ground. Herenton won by 142 votes that should have been contested. Due to pressure and death threats to the outgoing mayor Dick Hackett, Herenton assumed the crown and we've had King willie ever since. Harold SR has since moved to Miami and became a lobbyist. Even he doesn't want to live in the mess he created. A few years after King Willie was crowned, Harold Sr was running for office and during his victory speech, he said he knew where all of the "East Memphis devils" lived. He had his goon sqaud out looking for anti Ford signs and taking down the addresses "for later use".
Sandwiched in between that and the time he left politices, he was involved in the House Banking Scandal. Even though he was in the top 5 in total number of bad checks written, he was #1 in total amount of money taken on those bad checks. When Harold, JR came in, I was willing to give him the benifit of the doubt. No more. He is a slick Ford and the ones that are in politics are as crooked as Lombard Street in San Francisco. There is no way I'd EVER vote for any of them. I've had a front row seat to the Ford political machine my entire life. And I don't like the show.
Precisely what I was thinking of.
Also aided by the fact that no media personality would dare call him on it.
"If the church let him use the facility for free, then it's an "in-kind" campaign donation, and the church could lose it's tax-exempt status."
I don't think that is true. That would only be the case were they to allow Ford to use their facilities for free but deny Corker the same, no?
Check out Little Harold's ACLU rating on it's website. Not only does the ACLU rate Harold Ford Jr. as the most dependable liberal in the Tennessee delegation, but his lifetime ACLU voting record is MORE liberal than Albert Gore Jr. or Jim Sasser......by 20 points !!!!
Little Harold can pretend to be a "moderate" all he wants, but the ACLU loves him, and their congressional ratings prove it.
I thought about it, and I guess if they let ANYBODY use their building for free to do commercials for any reason, then maybe they could argue that there was no "value" to their building.
But given the circumstances, the FEC has always been pretty particular about "in-kind" contributions of space, requiring it be reported at fair market rates.
When companies offer office space for phone banks, for example, they have to report that as a contribution (I don't know if a publicly traded company could even do this under the rules, we have some privately-owned businesses in our area that open their spaces for phone banks and they report the contributions).
Good points....
I think you'd have a hard time finding any legal fault, though, unless you asked to use the church for a competing ad. I doubt they would require the church to put out a formal invitation to use it for free - just that they allow free use if asked.
But I'm not an expert in FEC law... :)
I certainly don't see it as objectionable as giving a campaign speech from the pulpit during sunday sermons or as the church I was at once that straight told the people that it was their "duty" as christians to vote for W and republicans.
I think candidates giving speeches in a church is wrong.
I DON'T think a pastor telling his congregation who to vote for should be regulated. I think it is wrong spiritually, but I don't think the government should be able to dictate what spiritual message is delivered in church, even if that message is "vote for candidate A".
After all, could not God himself talk to a minister of His word, and tell him who the congregation must vote for? I don't believe that is how God works, but I don't want government denying that God could do so.
My church wouldn't touch that kind of message. We don't do voter guides either in church, church is for the worship of God. We do have sermons about spiritual matters that touch real-life events and policies, mostly about abortion. But nothing about who to vote for, even though several of us are very active in local republican politics.
I don't even like people putting literature in cars parked at church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.