In a recent fundraising letter, Barr campaign manager Russ Verney boasts of Bob Barr’s willingness to sue a church over not inviting him to a privately organized event:
After weeks of negotiations and calls to Saddleback Church from leaders from every corner of the political spectrum supporting Bob Barr’s inclusion, we’ve been left out in the cold.
…
“Our only option left is to threaten to file an temporary injunction as our attorneys believe they are in violation of the law.”
Bob responded by saying, “No, don’t threaten to do that . . . Just do it.”
Verney complains that the church had the audacity to charge money for tickets and to invite only the candidates it wanted to invite:
The only people getting into the event are Obama, McCain and those who reportedly paid $500 to $2,000 to the church to sit in the audience.
Verney explains that the Barr campaign’s pursuit of an injunction against the church — for using its private property as it saw fit — was based on McCain-Fiengold campaign finance laws, normally detested by libertarians:
While we’re no fans of that legislation, we don’t write the rules, we’re just forced to play by them. In this case, we’re using McCain/Feingold to our advantage.
Earlier, IPR reported that Barr’s attempt to sue his way into the church failed.
UPDATE: Last Free Voice’s ElfNinosMom says:
The latest from Jay Bookman at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Bob Barr, the former Georgian congressman and now Libertarian candidate for president, filed suit to force Saddleback Church in California to include him in its presidential forum this evening with John McCain and Barack Obama.
The effort failed. But it is exceedingly strange to have a supposed Libertarian using the federal courts to try to force church doors to open to him.
How embarrassing, for the Libertarian Party nominee to be referred to as a “supposed Libertarian†even in his hometown newspaper.
Well we already knew that Barr has problems with Separating Church and State…
By the ridiculous logic of the Barr-supporting non-libertarians, the Saddleback Church needs to pay taxes in order to have freedom.
By Arthur DiBianca’s statist logic, the 13th amendment could have just made white people slaves, instead of abolishing slavery. After all, “equality” is what’s important!
No, egalitarianism = socialism. If one group is made to pay taxes and another not, then the libertarian thing to do is to fight for all groups not having to pay taxes — not for tying down exempt groups with the chains of the state.
Think about what these non-libertarians are saying: 1) Churches should be made to pay taxes so they’re like the rest of us, and 2) If they don’t pay taxes, they should be subject to government guns forcing them to do whatever the government rules.
This is NOT a libertarian position, but a hardcore statist/leftist position. There are a variety of socialist parties from which you can choose.
If the other guy achieved his favoritism by falsely agreeing not to get involved in political campaigns, I might start thinking of him as an enemy.
I don’t appreciate having to pick one single extra cotton boll because some other slave is a favored darling of the government.
I certainly empathize. But do try to keep in mind that that -other slave- is not your enemy. He’s a victim, too.
I totally disagree with the logic of G.E. and hogarth.
Reducing and eliminating taxes is very important; equal treatment under the law is also very important.
When an organization gains tax-exempt status, that does not result in a reduction of the overall tax burden — it only results in a SHIFTING of the overall tax burden. The church stops paying taxes, and everyone else pays slightly higher taxes to compensate.
It’s a dynamic system. Believe me, the government does not just shrug and say “We’ll accept losing all the revenue from 501(c)(3)s without raising anyone else’s taxes.”
In my opinion, there should be no magic tax-exempt status for anyone. Everyone should be treated the same, and the tax rates should be lowered accordingly.
I don’t appreciate having to pick one single extra cotton boll because some other slave is a favored darling of the government.
Bob Barr and any other candidate should have the means of suing any church that is a 501(c)3-status church. That includes every church that doesn’t pay property taxes and does not have to inform the public as to what they’re spending. … He’s suing a corporation that is a creature of our IRS. So technically, every church under the IRS’ fraudulent tax-exempt status is a subsidiary of the federal government.
The above resembles a common Leftist/socialist/statist argument.
Leftists argue that tax breaks “give money” to the recipient. Or that “we can’t afford” to give a tax break to this or that group.
A tax break, or tax exemption, is not a subsidy. It’s letting you keep your own money.
By Barr’s logic, anyone who walks on state built roads, or breathes air that is regulated in a “Air Pollution Control District” (we have such in California) is subsidized by the state, and hence, the state can justly control that person.
Barr should have used moral persuasion with the church. He should have asked politely to be let in, then maybe staged a protest, recognizing the right of the organizers to exclude him, but respectfully disagreeing and saying that the American people were the real losers by this decision.
Here we see the divide in the LP: between those who see elections as a “teaching opportunity” vs. those who want to “get votes at all costs.”
TO clarify, this refusing to have a status with the US gov’t would have to have been done 90 + years ago.
hogarth // Aug 18, 2008 at 10:21 am
Why? Why hobble your donors by depriving them of the chance to allow a greater percentage of their contributions to be controlled privately (or at least semi-privately)?
My point Susan, is that if a substantial number of people, companies, and yes “tax exempt” organizations had refused to “have a status” with the federal government, they would have “no” status with them (the system of collecting everyone and everything under the federal “umbrella” would likely not be in place.) How would that be worse than what we have now? How would that not keep money in the private sphere?
bengraves79762 // Aug 18, 2008 at 9:51 am
Steve, I would say that yes, every creature that obtains and has the federal government-issued “numbers†would be beholden to what those contract stipulations are and contain.
Except that a contract is invalid if entered into under duress.
I do agree however, that every person, organization company, etc should have refused to comply with the “registeringâ€with the government by applying for a tax status, or incorporation of the IRS tax “exempt†type.
Why? Why hobble your donors by depriving them of the chance to allow a greater percentage of their contributions to be controlled privately (or at least semi-privately)?
First of all, Rick Warren’s church is not a private organization, it is a creature of the IRS code.
Isn’t that a bit like saying that because a person claims exemptions on his income tax form he’s a ‘creature of the IRS code’?
501(c)3 filing is one way for organizations to encourage donors by allowing them to transfer some money from direct government control to private control. Instead of demanding that organizations then be accountable to the government, shouldn’t we be rejoicing that this money is at least in part escaping federal scrutiny?
So technically, every church under the IRS’ fraudulent tax-exempt status is a subsidiary of the federal government.
I always imagine that people who say things like this would have been the sort of slaves who railed against others slaves getting a lighter duty. ‘It’s not FAIR!’ they’d whine, instead of rejoicing in the improved fortune of their fellow sufferer. Only when the fellow slave picks up a whip does he become an enemy, and I -suppose- that’s the gist of the Barr argument – that in sponsoring this invitation-only forum and not inviting Barr, this church has done just that.
NOTE:
This is general discussion; quite separate from any strategic consideration, and undertaken without all the facts in this particular case (Barr vs Church). I don’t have enough info to feel comfortable making the sorts of wild pronouncements/denouncements/announcements that as so many people seem to be delivering.
State-controlled and state-approved churches are at the whims of the State. It’s just that simple.
I bet if Rick Warren were to have endorsed one of those two major party candidates, the IRS would have been called in (however, he’s so “mainstream” that they’d probably leave him alone.)
Steve, I would say that yes, every creature that obtains and has the federal government-issued “numbers” would be beholden to what those contract stipulations are and contain.
I do agree however, that every person, organization company, etc should have refused to comply with the “registering”with the government by applying for a tax status, or incorporation of the IRS tax “exempt” type. This does not, however, make any organization substantially a “subsidiary of the federal government” however.
bengraves79762 // Aug 17, 2008 at 11:10 pm
People are railing against Barr because he’s suing a so-called private church. No he’s not. He’s suing a corporation that is a creature of our IRS. So technically, every church under the IRS’ fraudulent tax-exempt status is a subsidiary of the federal government.
By this logic, every individual who gets a Social Security # is a creature of the Department of Treasury? Because individuals have a “tax status” of some sort, that makes them less than private individuals? It makes them a “subsidiary of the federal government”?
Tortured logic IMHO!
Lifted from a post that I found before both third party blogs picked up on it:
Texas Libertarian’s take on Barr’s Saddleback Church suit
The key thing to consider:
First of all, Rick Warren’s church is not a private organization, it is a creature of the IRS code.
So therefore, Bob Barr and any other candidate should have the means of suing any church that is a 501(c)3-status church. That includes every church that doesn’t pay property taxes and does not have to inform the public as to what they’re spending.
People are railing against Barr because he’s suing a so-called private church. No he’s not. He’s suing a corporation that is a creature of our IRS. So technically, every church under the IRS’ fraudulent tax-exempt status is a subsidiary of the federal government.
That’s just my take on it, at least.
Even though I’m solidly in the Constitution Party camp, I see the reasoning behind the Barr campaign suing.
You guys have the wrong argument. Your arguments are tainted by the sheer fact that you can’t stand Barr. That’s just from observation though.
I really wish I were dealing with a candidate I could trust. But since I don’t trust him ……
I got both the original email as well as today’s duplicate from Russ Verney at bobbarr2008. It may be an innocent mistake to resend the lawsuit fundraising message from two days ago. However, I have received corrections for Barr campaign emails from the campaign itself more than once, including one just a few days ago; and over five hours later, still no correction. It is therefore also possible that they’re just plain milking this for all it’s worth, and conveniently not telling potential donors that their lawsuit was shot down within hours, and the debate has already taken place. After all, neither email specified a date. It just said that the debate is “this Saturday”.
I think maybe it’s because the LP and Bob Barr campaign are both sending the same emails at different times. I am not sure ( I deleted them all), but a few times I have received an email from lp.org only later to get the same thing from bobbarr2008.
or maybe I’m getting 1 from Cory and the same thing again from verney.
The fundraiser was a resend of the one sent Friday. Why they’re sending out time-sensitive releases like this a day late and buck short is beyond me.
Just imagine the real implications of Barr’s actions.
Let’s say the judge granted the injunction.
Let’s say that Rick Warren, John McCain, and Barack Obama each grew a pair, became libertarians, and told the court to F-off.
They show up anyway.
What does Barr want to have happen in this case? Does he want to send in federal storm troops to stop the debate from taking place?
Bob Barr = Communist.
Bobby: Ricky, will you please invite me to your birthday party?
Ricky: No. I’m only inviting Johnny and Barry. You can’t come.
Bobby: Waaaaaaaaah! I’m going to sue you!