Trump vows to "destroy" the Johnson Amendment

[Santti]

Please enlighten me on how World War III is somehow preferable over this?

Are you referring to Hillary? Have you not seen Trump pissing in Chinese governments morning cereals? Mexico is also rather angry with him. How long has Trump been in the office again? Hillary is many things, but she is not utterly clueless when it comes to international affairs.

[Edge-]

Now, beside the dozens of way I can see this backfiring, let's not pretend it did not happen before.

Charity receiving millions in donation from countries outside the US, for instance. Countries with very close ties with terrorist groups and/or religions.

Is this an ever so thinly veiled, "BUT HILLARY!" comment? Because that's what it reads like, and it's dishonest as fuck.

Charities like the Clinton Foundation, which is a 501(c)(3), are prohibited from making any political contributions.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-pr...-organizations

So either you're confused, or you're legitimately making shit up.

[JohnBrown1917]

I can't wait until outside countries start flooding Muslim groups in the US with money to donate towards political campaigns.

Nothing will get the GOP to reverse course on this faster than fearing that Muslims may outspend their Christian base, bonus points for them being able to invoke the fictitious thread of Sharia Law too! : 3

Theyll try to change it to only allow churches to donate money.

[Delana]

Theyll try to change it to only allow churches to donate money.

Obviously we're not going to allow foreign money into our election process. We don't now unless your name is Hillary Clinton and you run a foundation.

[Triks]

Obviously we're not going to allow foreign money into our election process. We don't now unless your name is Hillary Clinton and you run a foundation.

Wasn't your new Kaiser bailed out by Russians after one of his bankruptcies?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Is this an ever so thinly veiled, "BUT HILLARY!" comment? Because that's what it reads like, and it's dishonest as fuck.

Charities like the Clinton Foundation, which is a 501(c)(3), are prohibited from making any political contributions.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-pr...-organizations

So either you're confused, or you're legitimately making shit up.

Neither of these. Sorry if you thought I talked about the Clinton Foundation, I've been very careful not to include it because I knew some people would try to twist it as partisanship.

Donation from outside parties has been happening for a long time, both within the Republican and Democratic parties. If you think this is a problem only with the Clinton Foundation, or that I have just this one in mind, you're mistaken.

And -- again, my stance is that I think Trump's doing a mistake.

[Edge-]

Neither of these. Sorry if you thought I talked about the Clinton Foundation, I've been very careful not to include it because I knew some people would try to twist it as partisanship.

Donation from outside parties has been happening for a long time, both within the Republican and Democratic parties. If you think this is a problem only with the Clinton Foundation, or that I have just this one in mind, you're mistaken.

And -- again, my stance is that I think Trump's doing a mistake.

...what was the point of bringing up charities, then? Your comment has literally nothing to do with the changes proposed by Trump, as charities are not relevant in any regard.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

...what was the point of bringing up charities, then? Your comment has literally nothing to do with the changes proposed by Trump, as charities are not relevant in any regard.

The point I was making is that it's not acceptable for a political figure or government to receive outside funds (whether for political purposes or not), may it come from religious groups or state party.

Instead of preventing this, Trump instead went the opposite way, setting a dangerous precedent for corruption.

[Delana]

Wasn't your new Kaiser bailed out by Russians after one of his bankruptcies?

If they did, I should thank them. They've secured the future of the US for a little while.

Maybe one of these days the globalists will get the second amendment abolished and they can take over. But it's not this day. That's the only actual threat to the US. Nobody else could hope to hold the US mainland against The People, let alone the US military. And the left is freaking out about Russians o.0.

[Edge-]

The point I was making is that it's not acceptable for a political figure or government to receive outside funds (whether for political purposes or not), may it come from religious groups or state party.

Instead of preventing this, Trump instead went the opposite way, setting a dangerous precedent for corruption.

I can get on board with that, thanks for clearing up.

Wish we could actually have our elected officials work to get the corrupting influence of money out of politics as a whole, or at the very least out of the campaigns (give everyone the same amount of money and don't force them to spend most of their time fundraising for the next election instead of actually doing their work), but sadly that's likely never going to happen. Especially with Trump and the GOP pushing to allow for more and more money to make its way into, and remain in politics.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

I can get on board with that, thanks for clearing up.

Wish we could actually have our elected officials work to get the corrupting influence of money out of politics as a whole, or at the very least out of the campaigns (give everyone the same amount of money and don't force them to spend most of their time fundraising for the next election instead of actually doing their work), but sadly that's likely never going to happen. Especially with Trump and the GOP pushing to allow for more and more money to make its way into, and remain in politics.

Well, maybe that'll happen someday. I still like to think we can get back on track and not destroy ourselves before then. Or maybe I'm just under the delusions of utopia, I don't know.

Still, I reiterate Trump's making a mistake with this and if he doesn't realize it, he'll probably be the first to taste the consequences anyway.

[Concequence]

I thought we were draining the swamp, not adding new layers of pond scum to it. Even if you ignored the separation of church and state argument, the notion that we should allow tax-exempt organizations to donate to politicians is absurd.

But wait, Trump is doing everything he said he would do ... Even the things he said he was just kidding about, and the things we were all sure were just crazy rants from an egotistical maniac.

[Asotcha]

If only I could believe this.

If anything else, it'll be a useful tool to tell which ones go in which direction to see who's really serious and who just wants to dress up.

[Nathreim]

Politics interfering in religion is not the main concern about the amendment (it is an amendment, your opinion has no weight on that subject) being repealed. Religion interfering in politics, however, is a very different beast.

Its an IRS provision. As a Senator LBJ proposed an amendment to the tax code thats where it got its name. After it passed it became a provision in the IRS Tax code.

People thinking it is a Constitutional Amendment are being mislead by the name.

- - - Updated - - -

The fuck are you talking about? You don't think there are some rich religious organisations out there with an interest in influencing politics in the US?

They already can legally according to the 9th Circuit court of DC. When they ruled on the only case this was ever used they said what a non-profit has to do to work around the Amendment. They can start a second organization give money to that and use it however they wish they just have to pay taxes on it. Which is why Regan left it in during the Tax Reform act of 1984 its so narrow an easy to work around it wasn't worth changing.

[Mormolyce]

They already can legally according to the 9th Circuit court of DC. When they ruled on the only case this was ever used they said what a non-profit has to do to work around the Amendment. They can start a second organization give money to that and use it however they wish they just have to pay taxes on it. Which is why Regan left it in during the Tax Reform act of 1984 its so narrow an easy to work around it wasn't worth changing.

That is a fundamental difference though, that channel is taxed.

Can you point me to this legal decision?

[Nathreim]

That is a fundamental difference though, that channel is taxed.

Can you point me to this legal decision?

Branch Ministries v. Rossotti

[Mormolyce]

Branch Ministries v. Rossotti

I mean, I do see what you're saying but considering that the punishment for violating the law is loss of tax free status, requiring them to create a non-tax free organisation to pursue their political agenda is effectively the same thing. The point is that public money is not effectively subsidising an organisation that is attempting to influence public policy, a clear conflict of interests. If repealed, that is exactly what might (and almost certainly would) happen.

It's hard to imagine a law that could be set up to prevent them from doing that in any case.

[Tijuana]

Well, the religious nutters will be happy at least.

Statements like this are the reason most Atheists are in the closet. Nobody wants to be associated with people who say stuff like this.

[Wyrt]

Statements like this are the reason most Atheists are in the closet. Nobody wants to be associated with people who say stuff like this.

Why? I didn't call everyone who is religious a nutter.

[Tijuana]

Why? I didn't call everyone who is religious a nutter.

Perhaps that was not your intention but, it sure reads like that since you made no distinction. /shrug