IRS Begins Inquiry of UCC Regarding Obama Speech (Updated)

The IRS has notified the United Church of Christ (UCC) that it believes the UCC may have jeopardized its tax-exempt status when it invited Senator Barack Obama, a member of a UCC church, to speak to at its national meeting last June.  Here's a snippet from Rachel Zoll's story:

In a letter the [UCC] received Monday, the IRS said “reasonable belief exists” that the circumstances surrounding the speech violated restrictions on political activity for tax-exempt organizations. The denomination has denied any wrongdoing.

Obama, a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, spoke about faith and public life at the denomination’s June 2007 General Synod in Hartford, Conn.

The IRS said in the letter that it was concerned about articles posted on the church’s Web site and on other sites stating that Obama had addressed nearly 10,000 people at the event. The agency also said Obama volunteers had staffed campaign tables “outside the center to promote his campaign.”

The Rev. J. Bennett Guess, a spokesman for the Cleveland-based denomination, said a group of Obama volunteers was outside the Hartford Civic Center, where the event took place, but that they were told they could not enter the meeting.

The UCC had invited Obama to speak a year before he announced he was running for president because of his involvement in the denomination, Guess said.

Church leaders consulted with lawyers before the event on following IRS rules. Before Obama spoke, a top church official told the crowd that the senator’s talk was not a campaign-related event and that no leaflets or other signs of political support would be allowed.

Nonprofits are barred from endorsing candidates or providing support for campaigns, although groups are allowed to invite candidates to address them and many do so. Guess said no other presidential candidates were invited because Obama was the only one active in the UCC. . . .

Amy Brundage, an Obama spokeswoman, insisted the speech was not a campaign event. In the address, Obama spoke about his personal spiritual journey and had said that faith had been misused in the past to divide Americans, partly because of the Christian right.

The letter from the IRS is posted here.  There are links to the video and text of Obama's June speech to the UCC here.   Here's an excerpt from the IRS letter to the UCC:

Our concerns are based on articles posted on several websites including the church's which state that United States Presidential Candidate Senator Barack Obama addressed nearly 10,000 church members gathered at the United Church of Christ's biennial General Synod at the Hartford Civic Center, on June 23, 2007.  In addition, 40 Obama volunteers staffed campaign tables outside the center to promote his campaign. . . .

The prohibition against political campaign activity does not prevent candidates from being invited to speak at an event of an organization described in section 501(c)(3).  If a candidate is invited to speak in his or her capacity as a candidate, then other candidates running for the same office must also be invited to speak and there should be no indication of support for, or opposition to, any candidate by the organization.  Also, the prohibition does not prevent an organization's officials from being involved in a political campaign, so long as those officials do not in any way utilize the organization's financial resources, facilities, or personnel and clearly indicate that the actions taken or the statements made are those of the individuals and not of the organization.

Given the context, it's a bit strange that the IRS letter does not mention the ability of a 501(c)(3) to invite a political candidate to address the group in his or her "non-candidate capacity."  I'll address that rule in more detail a bit later in this post. 

According to a press release issued by the UCC,  "[t]he Rev. John H. Thomas, the UCC's general minister and president, [has] called the investigation 'disturbing' but said the investigation would reveal that the church did nothing improper or illegal." Here's more from that release:

Thomas said the IRS's investigation implies that Obama, a UCC member, is not free to speak openly to fellow UCC members about his faith.

"The very fact of an IRS investigation, however, is disturbing," Thomas said. "When the invitation to an elected public official to speak to the national meeting of his own church family is called into question, it has a chilling effect on every religious community that seeks to encourage politicians and church members to thoughtfully relate their personal faith to their public responsibilities."

Don Clark, a Chicago attorney who serves as the UCC's national special counsel, said the IRS investigation will afford the UCC the opportunity to correct "inaccuracies and misperceptions."

"This inquiry will provide an opportunity for the United Church of Christ to correct any factual inaccuracies and misperceptions that may have prompted the underlying concern, and to reaffirm the importance of the constitutional rights of free speech and association that have been implicated," Clark said.

The UCC statement also offers a few more details regarding the warning that the UCC crowd received before Obama's speech:

Before Obama spoke to the national gathering of 10,000 UCC members, Associate General Minister Edith A. Guffey, who serves as administrator of the biennial General Synod, admonished the crowd that Obama's appearance was not to be a campaign-related event and that electioneering would not be tolerated. No political leaflets, signs or placards were allowed, and activity by the Obama campaign was barred from inside the Hartford Civic Center venue.

The UCC invited Obama to speak to the group in what is known as his "non-candidate capacity."  Indeed, the UCC says the speaking invitation was issued well before Obama threw his hat in the presidential ring.  When a 501(c)(3) organization invites a candidate to speak in this capacity, it does not have to issue equal invitations to all other candidates in the race, but it must follow certain rules that are applicable to this specific situation.  Here's some of what the IRS has said on this score:

Candidates may . . . appear or speak at organization events in a non-candidate capacity.  For instance, a political candidate may be a public figure who is invited to speak because he or she: (a) currently holds, or formerly held, public office; (b) is considered an expert in a non political field; or (c) is a celebrity or has led a distinguished military, legal, or public service career.  A candidate may choose to attend an event that is open to the public, such as a lecture, concert or worship service.  The candidate’s presence at an organization-sponsored event does not, by itself, cause the organization to be engaged in political campaign intervention.  However, if the candidate is publicly recognized by the organization, or if the candidate is invited to speak, the organization must ensure that:

• The individual is chosen to speak solely for reasons other than candidacy for public office;
• The individual speaks only in a non-candidate capacity;
• Neither the individual nor any representative of the organization makes any mention of his or her candidacy or the election;
• No campaign activity occurs in connection with the candidate’s attendance; and
• The organization maintains a nonpartisan atmosphere on the premises or at the event where the candidate is present.

In addition, the organization should clearly indicate the capacity in which the candidate is appearing and should not mention the individual’s political candidacy or the upcoming election in the communications announcing the candidate’s attendance at the event.

I don't have all the relevant information in this case, so I cannot offer a full assessment of this matter right now.  But, based on the information I do have, here are a few initial observations.  I've organized my observations so that they track the list of factors quoted above -- the IRS factors are in bold and my brief analyis is in regular typeface below the relevant factor.  At the outset, I should note that the IRS usually says it considers "all the facts and circumstances" in these cases.  In other words, it does not spell out the weight it assigns to various factors, and it leaves itself room to consider issues beyond the enumerated factors.  So we know the enumerated factors are important, but there is no formula and no guarantee that some other factors would not also be relevant to the IRS analysis. 

Anyway, here we go with the enumerated IRS factors and analysis.  The IRS says that the 501(c)(3)organization "must ensure" that:

1.  "The individual is chosen to speak solely for reasons other than candidacy for public office"

The UCC says it invited Obama to speak "a year before he announced he was running for president because of his involvement in the [UCC] denomination."  Assuming this is true, the UCC clearly chose Obama as a speaker "solely for reasons other than candidacy for public office."

2.  "The individual speaks only in a non-candidate capacity" and "[n]either the individual nor any representative of the organization makes any mention of his or her candidacy or the election"

In his speech to the UCC, Obama did mention his candidacy, although just barely.  Here's what he said (the mention is in the first sentence; I include the rest of the paragraph only for context):

It's been several months now since I announced I was running for president. In that time, I've had the chance to talk with Americans all across this country. And I've found that no matter where I am, or who I'm talking to, there's a common theme that emerges. It's that folks are hungry for change – they're hungry for something new. They're ready to turn the page on the old politics and the old policies – whether it's the war in Iraq or the health care crisis we're in, or a school system that's leaving too many kids behind despite the slogans. 

Now the IRS rule says that the 501(c)(3) organization "must ensure" that the candidate "speaks only in a non-candidate capacity" and does not mention his candidacy.  Read literally, that is impossible, of course.  The 501(c)(3) does not control the candidate's words as he or she is speaking.  The organization can and should make it clear to the candidate in advance that the speech should not mention the speaker's candidacy.  But, having done that, the organization cannot edit the candidate while he or she is at the podium. 

If a candidate is given such a warning in advance and then nonetheless proceeds to make a speech that asks people to vote for him, for example, and explains why he is the better candidate than his opponents, then it seems to me that the 501(c)(3) organization would have to follow-up in some way to distance itself from those remarks.  In that situation, the organization should say that the candidate was not invited to speak about his candidacy or the election, the organization does not take any position on his candidacy or the election, and nothing the candidate said should be taken to mean anything to the contrary. 

But the only thing I see in the text of Obama's remarks about his candidacy is the passing reference noted above.  That is a significantly different situation than the hypothetical scenario I just described.  In a situation like the UCC faced, it would seem to go too far to require the organization to follow up this kind of passing reference with a disclaimer, particularly when the UCC appears to have told the audience shortly before Obama spoke that the event was not a campaign event.

Let me add here that some news organizations seem to be looking at other parts of Obama's speech in an effort to decide (or let readers decide) if the remarks sound "political" or not.  The IRS rules do say that a candidate should not discuss his or her candidacy in this context.  But I don't think any of the relevant rules should be read to say that the IRS should otherwise evaluate these speeches to see if they sound political.  Theological and moral issues often have political implications.  For example, encouraging people to follow the teachings of Jesus by feeding the poor, making peace, comforting the sick, and welcoming the stranger are certainly religious messages, but they also have policy implications, at least in the eyes of some.  The IRS should not be in the business of trying to parse these things.  I've not seen an indication that the IRS reads its rules this way; in any case, it shouldn't.   So, yes, the organization should do its best to ensure that these speeches do not include things like discussions of the campaign, requests for votes, and characterizations of opponents.  But beyond those sorts of things, the 501(c)(3) organization should not have any obligation to tell the candidate not to sound too "political."   

Finally, let me address the aspect of the rule that prohibits the organization from discussing the candidate's candidacy.  If the 501(c)(3) is simply citing a person's candidacy to say that the person is not speaking as a candidate in the election, then that seems like a reasonable thing to do and should not be construed as a violation of the rules.  It's simply noting the obvious for the audience (i.e., that the person is a candidate) in the course of explaining that is not why the person was asked to speak to the group.  Indeed, it may be difficult to get this point across without making some reference to the person's candidacy.  (I would add that the IRS takes an analogous approach in some other situations.  For example, it says that, when leaders of 501(c)(3) organizations endorse political candidates in their individual capacities, those leaders may cite their connection to (c)(3) organizations in the course of their explanations that the endorsements are offered only in their individual capacities rather than in their capacities as leaders of 501(c)(3) organizations. )

3.  "No campaign activity occurs in connection with the candidate’s attendance"

A reasonable construction of this rule, it seems to me, is that the 501(c)(3) organization does what is within its control to ensure that campaign activity does not occur as part of its activities.  The organization should control its own events and publications.  It should control its own property.  But some things are beyond its control. 

Again, I don't know all the facts here.  But, assuming the information presented by the UCC is true, it took a variety of steps to manage the event in order to keep campaign activity out of it.  Just to recap, the UCC says it took all of the following precautions: it told the campaign staff they could not enter the meeting; it made an announcement at the event that it was not a campaign event and that electioneering wouldn't be tolerated; and it barred the use of signs, leaflets, and other campaign activity from the event. 

The IRS letter says that Obama campaign workers set up tables somewhere outside the Hartford Civic Center.  The UCC seems to confirm that, but it also emphasizes that it kept these workers out of the event.  Can it be said that a 501(c)(3) organization is responsible for what happens outside its meetings?  In some cases, it would be clear that such an organization would be responsible for things that happen outside its meetings.  Consider the following example.  Say a church invites a candidate to speak at a worship service in his or her "non-candidate capacity" and prevents campaign workers from passing out materials within the sanctuary.  But then assume that the church invites or allows the campaign workers to set up tables outside the sanctuary in the church foyer or on the church's front lawn.  Then it could be fairly said that the church was responsible for that campaign activity.  The church clearly has a duty to control its own property. 

But the UCC situation appears to be very different.  Again, the claim seems to be that campaign workers set up tables outside a city's "civic center" where the UCC was meeting.  Isn't it the usual case that those who rent part or even all of a city's civic center would have no authority over what goes on outside of it? Again, the focus for the IRS should be on what was reasonably within the UCC's control.

4.  "The organization maintains a nonpartisan atmosphere on the premises or at the event where the candidate is present"

I've mostly addressed these issues in questions above.  Assuming that a UCC official did indeed make an announcement at the event that it was not a campaign event and that electioneering wouldn't be tolerated, and that UCC officials barred the use of signs, leaflets, and other campaign activity from the event, those things demonstrate real commitment to doing what was within the UCC's control to meet the relevant requirements.

*****

So what happens next?  In its letter, the IRS says it sent the UCC a "list of specific questions about [its] operations/activities . . . ."  The IRS asks for answers and says that, "[i]f your response resolves our concerns about your exempt status and tax liability, it will not be necessary to pursue this matter further."  We'll have to wait and see.

Let me conclude what is perhaps the longest post known to mankind with a more general note.  The IRS should endeavor to strike the right balance between enforcing the prohibition on electioneering by 501(c)(3)s and allowing 501(c)(3)s to play non-partisan roles in campaigns.  If that balance gets out of whack, then we will either flout the rules or deprive 501(c)(3) organizations of their right to play active but non-partisan roles in politics. 

To maintain this balance, the IRS needs to enforce its rules in ways that are sensible and even-handed.  Among other things, it should read the relevant rules in ways that reflect reasonable notions about what  is within the control of a 501(c)(3) organization and what is not.  Because if it effectively makes such organizations responsible for things that are, under any realistic analysis, simply beyond their control, then the end result will be that these organizations will feel constrained to stay on the sidelines.  They will not want to risk being put in a situation where they are responsible for things that are realistically beyond their control.  That would effectively deprive them of their ability to participate in politics in non-partisan ways, and that would be a great loss for all of us.   So, in this case and all others, I would encourage the IRS to read the rules sensibly and apply them in ways that respect and honor the important interests on all sides.

UPDATE:  I've revised the post so that the factors that were originally listed as numbers 2 and 3 in the analsysis are now combined in one category, number 2 above.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Grupetti notes that Obama made one other reference to his candidacy in his speech.  Here it is:

Our conscience cannot rest so long as nearly 45 million Americans don't have health insurance and the millions more who do are going bankrupt trying to pay for it. I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year. That's not simply a matter of policy or ideology – it's a moral commitment. 

My apologies for not catching this the first time around.  Thanks, Grupetti.

Comments

[Grupetti]

There's one additional candidacy reference:
"I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year. That's not simply a matter of policy or ideology – it's a moral commitment."

I suppose one could say he's talking about his presidency, not candidacy. :^)

Regarding the tables, I wonder if they had to get some sort of permit, and whether that would have been obtained independently. The UCC might not be legally responsible, but I would find it difficult to believe the Obama supporters would have refused to leave if asked by UCC officials.

His speech was also an example of what is legal, but often not recognized as such-mostly as a component of partisan sniping. He made frequent reference to legislation and issue advocacy. These can count towards "Substantial Lobbying Activity", but this specific incident would not likely put the UCC over the threshold. I mention this because I've seen several cases of people getting upset over single incidents of issue and legislative advocacy by churches with which they disagree.

[Jim Peck]

Thank you, Ms. Rogers, for your thoughtful and thorough analysis of this matter. I am a UCC minister and, because the IRS ruled nearly 50 years ago that the national tax-exemption provided an umbrella exemption for all UCC congregations, this case has some potentially widespread ramifications.

My personal opinion is that the UCC should have withdrawn the invitation to speak as soon as Mr. Obama declared his candidacy to avoid any misunderstanding. But it was not, so we have some questions to answer.

I am also curious about who filed the complaint or called the event to the attention of the IRS. Americans United has posted a statement saying it wasn't them, and that they do not think a violation occurred.

[Drew]

You should have actually read the complaint before commenting with such detail on something you know so little about. Read the complaint here:

http://www.ucctruths.com/irs.pdf

You can also get some commentary here:

http://www.ucctruths.com/

[Drew]

Melissa: why didn't you actually base this on the IRS guidelines on candidate speakers?????

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163397,00.html

Would that have ben more accurate than your generic 5013c response?

[Melissa Rogers]

I can write comments on my own blog now -- hurray! Since I wrote the post, a few more materials have come out that touch on the issue of electioneering by the Obama campaign outside the Hartford Civic Center. I thought I would add them to the mix.

As suggested above, I think the focus here should be on who owned and controlled access to and use of that property. If it was/is the government, not the UCC, then I would not ascribe to the UCC any duty to take action with respect to activities on the property.

NPR ran a story earlier this week that includes the following quote from a spokesperson for the UCC church: "Since [the gathering of campaign workers] took place on a public space, a public sidewalk, it was determined by the City of Hartford that the UCC did not have control over that space." (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=75035288)

I also would like to flag something the mayor of Hartford, Eddie Perez, said in a statement on this matter:

"[T]he idea that the IRS would object to individuals handing out political flyers on city sidewalks and other public areas is disturbing. As the Capital City of Connecticut, Hartford is a venue for many important debates and discussions about the issues facing our city, state and country. The idea that the IRS would attempt to use protected political speech as a basis for revoking a church's non-profit status is offensive."

(The statement is here: http://www.hartford.gov/news/PR022708.pdf)

I don't agree with all Mayor Perez said in this statement. But if he is characterizing the nature of the property and speech properly, then it seems to me he is correct to raise this issue.

One other initial reaction. If this is indeed government property, wouldn't it be strange (at least) if the IRS were to suggest that the UCC should have attempted to control access to and the use of such property? After all, in 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court said: "The Framers did not set up a system of government in which important, discretionary governmental powers would be delegated to or shared with religious institutions." (The case is here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=459&invol=116)

[Melissa Rogers]

Response to Drew: If you will follow the link, you will see that I copied and pasted the list of factors from the IRS guidance (Fact Sheet 2006-17) regarding candidates speaking in a "non-candidate capacity." These factors were slightly reworded (without substantive change) and then made part of Revenue Ruling 2007-41 (see here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rr2007-41.pdf). The guidance you cite in your comment is similar as far as it goes, but it does not list all the factors that are listed in these other two documents. Revenue rulings are the "official interpretation of the Internal Revenue laws, related statutes, tax treaties, and regulations . . . " (See Rev. Pro. 78-24; see also http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=490&invol=680 ) Thus, the longer list of factors -- the one that appears in the fact sheet and the revenue ruling -- is a more authoritative list than the one you cite. Further, the fact sheet that I quoted is also cited in the complaint that is now posted on the "ucctruths" website.

Regarding that complaint, it mentions only one other relevant allegation that is not mentioned in this post. That is, it alleges that the UCC mentioned Obama's candidacy on its website before Obama gave the speech. The links to this information appear to be broken, so I cannot verify them or see them in context. As I said in the post, I don't believe it would be problematic for a 501(c)(3) to mention the candidacy in the course of explaining why the candidate was not invited to speak in that capacity. If the organization mentions it in other contexts, then that would be inappropriate. But, even assuming that the UCC did that, it appears to have said a number of other times that Obama was not invited in his capacity as a candidate. And, of course, the UCC says that the invitation was actually extended to Obama before he became a candidate for president. Further, even assuming this particular allegation from the complaint is true, the IRS says it considers all the "facts and circumstances," and it appears that the UCC took a number of affirmative steps to prevent electioneering from happening (as described in the post).

I do not find the other things mentioned in the complaint (but not discussed in my post) to be relevant to the IRS analysis. For example, while the complaint suggests otherwise, the UCC cannot control how its events are covered by the media. Further, the reports mentioned in the complaint appear to be mostly general observations that the UCC meeting seemed "political" to some. Indeed, the complaint raised my eyebrows when it quoted just a part of a sentence from a media report (I am referring to the citation of the following media report in the complaint: http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=6700799&nav=menu29_2 ). Referring to the UCC meeting, the complaint cites this phrase from the media report: "At times it certainly had the feel of a political convention". Here's the full sentence from the media report: "At times it certainly had the feel of a political convention, especially following the church's pastoral letter condemning the war and urging the end." To be fair, the complaint should have at least quoted the full sentence. As a 501(c)(3), the UCC may not electioneer, but it has the right to speak out otherwise on political issues.

Another article cited in the complaint, the one from The Christian Century (http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3518), focuses not only on the Obama speech but also on other speakers and aspects of the meeting. (Indeed, the church says that there were 60 speakers total at the meeting http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2008/02/irs-threatens-c.html). It includes this quote from speaker Bill Moyers: "They say your church is dying," said Moyers on June 23. "And lame, and limp. But it is a small, committed community of people of conscience who can turn this country around." Again, I don't think the UCC can he held responsible for the tone of the meeting as it was perceived by some in the media, and even a "political" tone is not problematic; a 501(c)(3) meeting that involves electioneering is something much more specific, and that's where we should focus our analysis.

[Melissa Rogers]

FYI: Now that I've had a breakthrough with my ability to post comments, I've posted my response to Drew as a comment (see above) and removed it from the blog post.

[drew]

Melissa, at least you are transparent about your bias on this. You conveniently ignored this link, which is not broken, that makes it clear that the Obama campaign was using the speech to promote his candidacy:

http://www.ucc.org/news/aide-obamas-synod-speech.html

~~~
Joshua DuBois, the Obama campaign's director of religious affairs, said the senator's Synod speech on Saturday will be his first major address on faith and politics as a presidential candidate.

The address, DuBois said, will combine personal details about Obama's religious experiences with prescriptions for how religious Americans might put their faith into action.

It will also focus on "the growing movement of people of faith" from a variety of traditions, "coming together around our connections as a people and using those connections to address our common challenges," DuBois said.

Shaun Casey, an adviser to the Obama campaign and a professor of ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C., said he expects the address to be "as detailed an account of how a person's faith shapes his policies as I have seen from any presidential candidate."
~~~

Now, I suppose you will tap dance around this by claiming that this was the campaign's doing, not the church. However, as Barry Lynn and others have rightly claimed, even if the candidate breaks these rules, it is the church that is responsible.

One last point. You say "I don't believe it would be problematic for a 501(c)(3) to mention the candidacy in the course of explaining why the candidate was not invited to speak in that capacity."

This is not accurate and it's the single most important point in the complaint. The guidelines are pretty clear: "Neither the individual nor any representative of the church makes any mention of his or her candidacy or the election".

It would have been fine for the UCC to promote Obama as a Senator since that is his title but there was no need to advertise his candidacy. You may not like it and you may find it ridgid, but it is clear and specific.

[Melissa Rogers]

Drew, I could not get that link in the complaint to work earlier. I have made every effort to conduct this discussion in a way that assumes that you are operating in good faith. I ask you to do the same.

Here are a few responses to your comments.

* Now that I can see the item you reference, I would say that it was inappropriate for the UCC to post this RNS news story on its website. (And that simply applies the standard I noted in my earlier comment, by the way.) The UCC did not reference the Obama candidacy themselves in this story, but it appears that they did post the story and captioned it in a way that referenced Obama's candidacy. Unless I am missing something here, and I cannot imagine what it would be, then that was inappropriate. On the other hand, the IRS looks at all the "facts and circumstances," of which this is only one. I'm not going to rehash other facts and circumstances -- see the above post and comments. This should be put in context.

* Yes, this IRS factor is absolute on its face. It says, "Neither the individual nor any representative of the organization makes any mention of his or her candidacy or the election." I've simply argued that I don't think that factor should be read in such an absolutist fashion when a 501(c)(3) makes a quick reference to a speaker's candidacy in the context of noting that the invitation was not extended to the person in that capacity. It appears that no one at the UCC did this kind of thing in connection with this RNS story, so my suggested reading of this factor seems irrelevant in this circumstance.

* I never have and I never would suggest that an organization should not control its own website. It certainly should.

* It is the 501(c)(3) organization, not the candidate, that is responsible for a violation of the rules. That is why it is so important for 501(c)(3)s to pay attention to the rules and not let candidates tell them what the rules are. I have simply argued that the rules ought to be read in terms of what the 501(c)(3) can reasonably control. Again, see above for a discussion of this matter.

[Robert Campbell]

Our pastor atttended the conference in Hartford. He noted that in addition to Sen. Obama, speakers included Lynne Redgrave and Bill Moyers. He noted the Senator’s remarks did not concern politics.

He did state there were some campaign tables but they were well outside the conference facilities and were on public sidewalks.

This would all seem to be well outside the IRS scrutiny.

As tax time does draw near for many Americans, these controversies are also reminiscent of Christ's Tax Return itself as noted by that First Century CPA Saint Matthew, in The Gospel According to Saint Matthew 17:24-27 .

'... "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes - ”from their own sons or from others?"

"From others," Peter answered.'

Peter and Jesus had to go fishing for their tax money.

Maybe this time it is the IRS which has nothing to do but fish.

:-)

[Grupetti]

Robert,

I've read the transcript. If your pastor said it did not concern politics, I conclude that he must have dozed off. Politics and faith was pretty much the whole point. Maybe he ate too many cookies.