"Another Right-Wing Conspiracy in Washington?" by Bill Press. The Washington Post. February 8, 2009; Page B08:

...the terms of their FCC license, "to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance." Stations are not operating in the public interest when they offer only conservative talk.

For years, the Fairness Doctrine prevented such abuse by requiring licensed stations to carry a mix of opinion. However, under pressure from conservatives, President Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission canceled the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, insisting that in a free market, stations would automatically offer a balance in programming.

That experiment has failed.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Do you ever wonder why there is only conservative talk shows? Because that's what people want to listen to.

      • Total hogwash, Josh

        You've simply been duped by the plutocrats' bought and paid for mouthpieces, such as Rush Limbaugh — people who've clearly and completely sold out to the spirit of Satan. The reason AM radio went conservative-talk is solely because those who are against the lower classes want to hypnotize people such as you with lies that what's good for the superrich is good for the poor.

        Hey, Josh. Do you claim to be a professing Christian?

        Regardless, Jesus doesn't stand with the media moguls and would-be monopolists who run Clear Channel Communications, Inc. Pull your head out of the darkness, Josh. See the light.

        Woe to the rich. That's what Jesus Christ said with just cause. Get right with God, Josh (short for "Joshua" that's "Yahoshua" that's "Jesus"). Live up to your name, Josh meaning: "God saves"! Are you being that? You aren't if you're espousing the garbage being spewed by the antichrist of so-called conservative talk radio.

        They aren't conserving anything. They're just devouring, justs like the evil usurers for whom you work. Read Jesus's words, Josh. Then tell me about it.

        Furthermore, I haven't wondered why there is nearly only fascist-talk radio. I know why. I'm a Christian. Every Christian knows about devils, Josh.

        Lastly, the Fairness Doctrine isn't about just radio. It's about TV too.

        Look, radio broadcasting and TV is licensed from the people. The people own the airwaves and easements for cables and outer space for satellites, etc. If they say they want equal time for opposing views on their airwaves, etc., if they are going to grant licenses, then that's what you get in a democratic society even if it is a limited, representational, pluralistic form of government. Why should consolidators (monopolists) who been given licenses to make huge sums of money off advertising on the people's collective property not have to abide by the people's wishes that there be a democratic aspect to the programming? What do you have against a fully informed electorate? Every time someone says 9-11 was not an inside job, why shouldn't a libertarian 9-11 Truther be able to tell the other side of the storey to the public over the public's airwaves so that then the people can have all the information available upon which to base voting decisions rather than getting only the censored, government propaganda that comes out from those who take their talking points from memos issued from the White House, as happened with the George W. Bush administration?

        Peace, Love, and Truth,

        Tom Usher