May 12, 2004
(Updated) John Belgarde Fined For Previous Elections Law Violations
County Recall Organizer Penalized For Prior Recall Activities
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Okay, this is going to get perhaps a little arcane and complicated, so let's start with part of the history. Once upon a time, back in January to be more precise, the Elections Division of the Secretary of State proposed civil penalties against John Belgarde for violations of elections law during his failed right-wing recall campaign against Mayor Vera Katz last year.
If you click through to that post, you'll find still more history of how those proposed penalties came about in the first place. But the the current development: It seems that yesterday the Elections Division finalized a penalty against Belgarde in the form of a $535.20 fine for failure to file timely and sufficient reports of contributions and expenditures.
Now, why should you care? Well, the name John Belgarde should be ringing bells -- because he is currently the executive director of the Christian Coalition of Oregon, which is spearheading the recall effort against Multnomah County Commissioners in response to their decision regarding same-sex marriage.
For weeks now, we've been trying to determine whether or not Belgarde is violating any elections laws this time around, but thus far without success. However, there are a couple of issues worth noting.
To begin with, on the Coalition's contributions page, they include a link to donate to "Multnomah Commissoners Recall" (sic). Potential contributors might want to be aware of the fact that the corresponding link actually takes you to a page for general contributions to the Coalition's Christian Victory PAC -- without any possible way of indicating that the money will be earmarked for the recalls.
Now, we're told by the Elections Division that this is perfectly permissible. So there doesn't apppear to be any sort of violation of elections law. However, it is certainly a deceptive misrepresentation, since a contributor clearly believes they are giving money specifically to the recall efforts, when in fact they in reality are giving money to whatever the Christian Victory PAC chooses to spend it on.
But further indications of tricky behavior on the part of Belgarde can be seen in this Gay American item which shows a signature gathering table for the recall effort on church property. As GA posits, this may be a violation of the rules under which the tax-exempt church must play, since they are "prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office."
Thankfully, we can tie this directly to Belgarde himself because of this other GA item which includes a photograph of Belgarde himself manning that self-same signature gathering table.
So consider this fair warning: While we ourselves have yet to uncover any obvious elections law violation on the part of Belgarde in this current recall effort of his, he is at the very least engaging in fundraising practices which are ethically deceptive, if not legally so. And he may be conducting political activity on property where it is not permitted.
Clearly, his proven tendency to at least toy with the line of propriety appears to be intact. So we encourage our readers to keep a watchful eye on the activities of this particular recall effort. Heightened scrutiny is certainly called for, given the penalty handed down against Belgarde this week for previous activity.
Meanwhile, a site offering a daily progress report on the recall efforts indicates that recall backers have gathered about half the signatures needed to force a recall election for County Chair Diane Linn, nearly all of the signatures required to force a recall election for Commissioner Lisa Naito, but only about one-fourth of the signatures needed to force recall elections for Commissioners Serena Cruz and Maria Rojo de Steffey.
Or rather, those reflect the sheer numbers of signatures, but do not indicate any notion of whether they are valid signatures, which can only be determined once they are turned in. Meanwhile, the curious can read our opinion on County Commissioner elections and the recall efforts.
Update
There is now a note on that second GA post which says that "Grace Foursquare Church has been given notification to stop recall petition signature gathering on Church property."
And, in fact, over at the Christian Coalition of Oregon website, there is a note which reads as follows:
because of unforseen circumstances we had to close the 82nd street location Our apology to those who came by to sign the petitions
Those unforeseen circumstances, of course, would be Belgarde's disregard for the law relating to political activity on church grounds. Anyone have any idea what's at the other locations they are using for signature gathering?
Posted at 03:32 PM | PermalinkComments (15) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, Metro-Area Politics
Trackbacks (1)
-
Christian Coalition equates county commissioners to 'KGB' on 14 May 2004
In today's Atlanta Journal Constitution, John Belgarde, Oregon state director of the Christian Coalition, talks about the Multnomah County Commissioners who supported marriage equality for all Oregonians, including same-sex couples. According to the AJ...
Comments (15)
Bob R. on 13 May 2004
I saw their "Recall" tent on NE 138th Ave (presumably on vacant property or in the public right of way) across from Costco. This was Saturday afternoon, May 8th.
I wanted to drop in for a friendly chat, but Jason talked me out of it. :-)
LC on 14 May 2004
Jesus Christ!
Why can't you just let these poor folks gather their signatures in peace?
Do you even understand the backlash you are tempting with this "I think I caught you in a technical election law violation" crap?
From all appearances, Belgarde looks like your average suburban X-tian bigot, but he doesn't seem remotely close to the evil political figure you would try to portray him.
We live in a democracy with initiative, referendum and recall powers reserved to the people. It ain't perfect, but they are invaluable checks on the abuse of government power.
Consider the context here. The County Commissioners made the most controversial decision in Oregon political history without involving the public. Now that a few of the common folk have the temerity to use a rarely invoked populist process to question them, you want to encourage other elitists like yourself to trip them up on there way to the polls?
The One True b!X on 14 May 2004
Why can't you just let these poor folks gather their signatures in peace?
Because this is politics and they are being deceptive to their own contributors and had been illegally using church grounds to conduct their activities.
PanchoPdx on 14 May 2004
Using the Christian Victory PAC as a fundraising vehicle for the recall is not illegal (or necessarily misleading so long as disclosed in C&E reports). I do think it is tactically shortsighted because non-Christians in favor of the recall will be disinclined to donate. They should have formed something like "The Coalition for Public Accountability PAC" instead, but this just goes to show that they are clearly amateurs.
Your church property argument has free speech problems. Circulating a petition is protected core political speech under the 1st Amendment. I doubt that their tax status would be altered by simply allowing others to engage in political free speech on their property.
What's next, political candidates can't go to church during their campaign?
The One True b!X on 14 May 2004
It's a matter of partisan political activity on tax-emempt property. Any tax-exempt organization is not permitted to engage in partisan political activity, such as backing or opposing a candidate or measure. Non-partisan activity -- such as voter registration -- is allowed.
But a ban on partisan activity -- and certainly a recall against elected officials would qualify -- is part of being tax-exempt.
The One True b!X on 14 May 2004
And note that the church indeed was told to stop allowing the activity.
PanchoPdx on 15 May 2004
Who told them to stop?
They should be safe *if* the church itself is not officially taking a position on the recall.
Petitioning the government for redress is protected core political speech under the first amendment.
The church should not lose its tax status for simply tolerating protected political speech (partisan or no) on its property. They might want to post a disclaimer that they take no position on the recall, but support the right of their *members* to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.
I'm betting they will eventually talk to an attorney and figure this out for themselves, but for now they may have been bluffed.
Congratulations. The folks at the GA website must be proud of their efforts. They can stand beside two centuries of political machine bosses, company town owners, union thugs and southern state literacy test administrators who dabbled in similar tactics and labelled it "politics".
Maybe, when the recall makes the ballot, they can convince a bunch of Christian voters that their vote by mail ballots will still count if postmarked on election day.
(Which is NOT true, so don't try to mail in your May 18th ballots, you have to hand deliver them to the election office or drop off sites).
I'm sorry to all the SSM supporters who are tired of waiting, but the end doesn't always justify the means.
The One True b!X on 15 May 2004
I don't know who told them to stop. But looking at Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations (pdf), published by the IRS, we see this:
Allowing signature gathering for a recall petition in a church's parking lot is obviously indirect participation in a campaign.
PanchoPdx on 15 May 2004
Allowing signature gathering by church members on church property is not "indirectly participating" in a partisan election any more than allowing a political candidate within a church to speak to fellow paritioners in the parking lot about his qualifications for office.
Unless the 1st Amendment can be read to also give the IRS the power to require churches to silence their members on political issues, this interpretation won't fly.
Also, with a recall there is technically no "candidate for elective public office." The vote is just a question of whether to retain an existing officeholder.
The One True b!X on 15 May 2004
Allowing signature gathering by church members on church property is not "indirectly participating" in a partisan election any more than allowing a political candidate within a church to speak to fellow paritioners in the parking lot about his qualifications for office.
In fact, that's not technically allowed either, unless there's "equal time" given. That's why you see churches holding non-partisan candidate forums rather than hosting single-candidate campaign stops.
The One True b!X on 15 May 2004
For example, turning to the same document referenced earlier, and produced by the IRS to guide churches and religious organizations, we find that they may invite a candidate to speak at an event of theirs only if they take steps to ensure that: "it provides an equal opportunity to the political candidates seekings the same office, it does not indicate any support of or opposition to the candidate ..., and no political fundraising occurs."
Further:
if you don't like the law, that's fine. But you're clearly wrong in asserting that you know what the law happens to be.
The One True b!X on 15 May 2004
Also, there's a difference between random casual conversation between a candidate and other members of their own church, say after Sunday services, and the express invitation of that church to a single candidate to address the members. The first is just individual free speech. The latter is prohibited under tax law unless equal opportunity is provided.
PanchoPdx on 16 May 2004
I'm not *clearly wrong* on the law here. I happen to disagree with your reading of the IRC, especially in light of clearly superior constitutional constitutional rights.
In the hypothetical invitation to only one candidate to speak at a banquet, the church is taking an active role. On the other hand, requiring the church to monitor the speech of parishioner-candidates while on church property is another story.
My point from the beginning is that if the church merely tolerates free speech on its property without endorsing it, they should be fine.
A narrow reading of the IRC (similar to yours) would require churches to instruct their members that they can't park cars with partisan political bumperstickers in the church parking lot.
When push comes to shove, the individual right to participate in political free speech should easily trump the unnecessarily narrow application of a vague IRC reg.
The One True b!X on 16 May 2004
In the hypothetical invitation to only one candidate to speak at a banquet, the church is taking an active role. On the other hand, requiring the church to monitor the speech of parishioner-candidates while on church property is another story.
And I agreed with you there, if you notice what I wrote about this point. So you can stop arguing it, because I'm not taking the opposite position. But that latter case isn't what we're talking about in term of Belgarde and the signature gathering.
My point from the beginning is that if the church merely tolerates free speech on its property without endorsing it, they should be fine.
That depends on what we consider tolerating. If it's against the law to allow someone to use your church parking lot to set up a table to promote a candidate or a ballot measure, it's against the law to allow someone to use your church parking lot to set up a table to promote the recall of an elected official. And it is most definitely against the law to allow someone to use your church parking lot to set up a table to promote a candidate or a ballot measure.
A narrow reading of the IRC (similar to yours) would require churches to instruct their members that they can't park cars with partisan political bumperstickers in the church parking lot.
I never made an argument so narrow that it would include that. You're the one who seems unwilling to acknowledge that the law makes distinctions. I've conceded the distinctions between the personal political speech of church members (on the one hand) and the allowing of organized political advocacy on church ground (on the other hand).
The law itself makes that distinction. As I said, if you don't like the law, that's fine. But that it what the law says.
And note that also on the IRS website is this bit from their Charities May Not Engage in Political Campaign Activities page:
So, let's see. So far, the courts say the law's restrictions are not unconstitutional. And the law itself makes distinctions between personal expression and church-permitted organized activity.
What about this is so unclear?
PanchoPdx on 16 May 2004
Bix,
I'm afraid you are painting with too wide a brush here. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is an honest mistake and not trying to mislead folks for political purposes.
First, just because 501c(3) organizations cannot use their resources to support political candidates in partisan races does NOT mean that it is also true of ballot measures (as you stated above).
501(c)3's can use part of their resources for lobbying purposes so long as the amount used in not a "substantial part" of their total expenditures.
Since 1976, the IRS has applied a percentage test for 501c3 expenditures on lobbying. Such lobbying expenditures cannot exceed 20% of the first $500k spent, 15% of the next $500k, 10% of the third $500k and 5% of all expenditures over $1.5 million (with an overall spending cap of $1 million).
Gathering signatures and campaigning on a ballot measure or referendum is considered a lobbying activity. With initiatives & referendums you are essentially directly lobbying the voters on an issue rather than sending people in suits to speak to legislators.
So, not only could a church allow signature gathering on its property, it could pay for signature gatherers to circulate (so long as it didn't violated the percentage requirements).
The question of a recall is admittedly murkier. I'm not aware of a ruling determining whether a recall should be treated as a partisan election rather than a public referendum on a single question. My guess is that it is the latter. But even if it wasn't, and your theory works, any church could easily avoid scrutiny by simply inviting Linn, Naito, Cruz and DeSteffy sit in their own booth on the other side of the parking lot.
I'd like to see that.