THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, August 4, 1996 TAG: 9608050171
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY WARREN FISKE, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: 195 lines
Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed occasionally boasts about the urgent call he received in the closing days of the 1990 congressional campaign from his boss, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson.
Robertson was worried that arch-conservative Sen. Jesse A. Helms of North Carolina was on the verge of losing to Democrat Harvey B. Gantt. ``So Pat called me up and said, `We have got to kick into action,' '' Reed recalled at the coalition's national convention a year later.
``Bottom line is, five days later, we put three-quarters of a million voter guides in churches across the state of North Carolina, and Jesse Helms was re-elected by 100,000 votes out of 2.2 million cast.''
In addition to the voter guides, the coalition made about 29,800 calls reminding conservative and evangelical voters, who were likely to support Helms, to go to the polls, according to a subsequent investigation by the Federal Election Commission. All told, the Christian Coalition - which claims to be tax-exempt in part because it does not make political endorsements - spent $52,000 on the campaign.
The Helms race is one of many elections cited by the FEC last week in a suit accusing the Chesapeake-based coalition of making illegal campaign contributions to Republican candidates. At issue is whether the coalition's activities constitute a political endorsement.
The FEC - joined by a number of Democratic organizations that have never enjoyed the largesse of the coalition - says the answer is an obvious ``yes.''
``Although the Christian Coalition asserts that its major purpose as an organization is simply to discuss issues and influence legislation,'' wrote three FEC commissioners last week, ``. . . the record shows that the Christian Coalition seeks to achieve legislative success and political power through the election of like-minded candidates to federal office.''
But lawyers for the coalition argue that the activities fail to meet the strict legal definition of a political endorsement, even though they acknowledge the group's actions may influence legions of evangelical voters. And any finding to the contrary, they warn, would have a chilling effect on the coalition and hundreds of other smaller voter-education groups across the nation.
``How can citizens participate in democracy and discuss issues if they're concerned that the federal government will fine them for discussing issues?'' said Jim Bopp, an Indiana attorney defending the coalition in the suit.
So starts a complex legal battle that many election law experts predict eventually will be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. The 1.7-million-member coalition, which vows to fight the FEC, faces potential fines of more than $1 million and - perhaps more important - government regulation and public disclosure of its long-secretive fund-raising and political expense operations.
A determination that the coalition is endorsing candidates could undermine the group's contention that it is tax-exempt. The coalition receives $21 million each year from donors. The Internal Revenue Service is reviewing whether a ``substantial'' portion of that money is spent on political endorsements and other partisan activities - and thus is subject to federal taxes.
Bopp said the coalition has scrupulously avoided endorsing candidates as last defined by the Supreme Court in 1976. An endorsement, the court said, must ``include explicit words of advocacy of election or defeat of a candidate Congress, vote against, defeat, reject.''
Bopp said the coalition never uses such words in its voter guides, phone banking or direct mail activities. The guides - which are the center of the suit's focus - merely list candidates' stands on issues of importance to the coalition.
``We practice issue advocacy, not candidate advocacy,'' Bopp said. ``That's a crucial distinction.''
Critics of the coalition - including the Democratic National Committee, whose complaints led to the FEC's suit - say the group is flouting the spirit of the law. They say guides - tailored for each congressional district - report stands, sometimes inaccurately, on divisive social issues. And because the guides are distributed at churches with socially conservative members, they in essence constitute an endorsement, many say.
``It's a very coy way of getting around the law,'' said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist who examined the coalition's practices in a recently published book on campaign finance.
The FEC long has been sympathetic to such complaints. For 20 years, it has sought to expand the definition of an endorsement to include examination of ``the total context'' of a political activity such as publishing a voter guide. Those efforts, however, have been consistently overturned in lower courts.
``In matters pitting free speech issues against campaign finance laws, free speech has consistently won,'' said Lisa Rosenberg, a lawyer with the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, which monitors the FEC and supports broader disclosure laws.
``That means the FEC is in for an uphill battle, even though it may have a solid case,'' she added.
The key to the FEC case, experts say, will be in proving its charges that the coalition has coordinated its election-year activities with GOP campaigns and the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington.
The FEC alleges that the coalition, in coordination with campaigns, spent $980,000 helping former President George Bush's re-election bid in 1992; $52,000 aiding Helms in 1990; $61,000 on behalf of Senate candidate Oliver L. North of Virginia in 1994; and $325,000 helping the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee in 1990.
The FEC says expenses are ``in-kind'' contributions to campaigns that make the coalition subject to federal campaign finance and disclosure laws.
The coalition, which argues it is not subject to FEC regulations, denies having coordinated expenses with any campaign. The FEC has yet to reveal its proof.
``We're waiting to see it,'' said coalition spokesman Mike Russell.
A determination that it has made in-kind contributions could hamper the coalition's fund-raising prowess. The group would no longer be allowed to accept corporate donations. And individuals, who now can give unlimited amounts to the coalition, would be limited to $1,000 gifts per federal election.
Equally important, the coalition would be required to begin publicly disclosing the names of all people who contribute more than $200 a year and detail all of its expenses.
``My sense is that some of the donors who do not want to be publicly identified with Reed and Robertson would be embarrassed,'' said John Green, a University of Akron political scientist who specializes in the religious right.
Three FEC commissioners, all Democratic appointees, wrote in a separate opinion last week that the coalition is no different from any political action committee that seeks to influence elections and is required to report its activities.
``Just as it would be unthinkable to exempt national (political) party committees from public disclosure . . . so too the Christian Coalition should not be exempted from its disclosure responsibilities,'' they wrote. ``Public disclosure is far too important to be so easily evaded.''
The FEC's suit offers quotes from Robertson and Reed speeches over the years as evidence that the coalition's goal is to elect conservative candidates.
``I believe that the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political force in America by the end of this decade,'' Robertson said in a 1991 training film for evangelical activists.
``. . . We will develop the abilities to elect majorities in the U.S. Congress and the legislatures of at least 30 states, as well as city councils, the city school boards and other local bodies. . . . We will know where our supporters live, how they vote, and we will be able to get them to the polls on Election Day.''
Bopp said the quotes are legally meaningless as long as the coalition does not use ``express words'' of endorsement. ``Whatever motives Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed choose to express,'' he said, ``are totally irrelevant.'' ILLUSTRATION: Photos
Christian Coalition's Ralph Reed: He got voter guides to churches
and later boasted of their impact on Helms' win.
Pat Robertson: He sounded the alarm. If help didn't come, Sen. Jesse
Helms could lose to Democrat Harvey Gantt.
Graphics
THE COMMISSION, THE VOTE
The commission has six members, each appointed by the president
and confirmed by the Senate. Terms are six years.
By law, no more than three commissioners may be members of one
political party. To encourage nonpartisan decisions, at least four
votes are required for any official action.
The vote in May to sue the Christian Coalition was unanimous.
The FEC members who voted:
Lee Ann Elliott, chairwoman. Republican.
Elliott was elected to be chairman of the Federal Election
Commission in 1996. She had been nominated to her third six-year
term by President Clinton in 1994. She was chairwoman in 1984 and
1990, and vice chairwoman in 1983, 1989 and 1995.
John Warren McGarry, vice chairman. Democrat.
Appointed by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate in 1989
to his third six-year term. He was vice chairman in 1980, 1984 and
1990, and was chairman in 1981, 1985 and 1991.
Joan D. Aikens, commissioner. Republican.
Began her fifth term at the FEC in 1989 after being appointed by
President Bush. She was vice chairman in 1991 and chairman from May
1978 to May 1979, in 1986 and in 1992.
Scott E. Thomas, commissioner. Democrat.
A Bush nominee, he was chairman in 1987 and 1993.
Source: FEC's site on the World Wide Web.
Staff research by librarians Peggy Earle, Maureen Watts, Diana
Diehl, and editorial assistant Kennan Newbold.
THE LEGAL POINT
Has the Christian Coalition in effect endorsed candidates by
using language of ``express advocacy.''
The definition of express advocacy is ``language which in express
terms advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified
candidate.''
An endorsement, according to a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court ruling,
must ``include explicit words of advocacy of election or defeat of a
candidate . . . such as vote for, elect, support, cast your ballot
for, Smith for Congress, vote against, defeat, reject.''
ON THE WEB
Internet Web site addresses of interest:
Federal Election Commission: http://www. fec.gov/index.html
Decisions of the
U.S. Supreme Court: http://www.aw.cornell.
edu/supct/supct.table.html
KEYWORDS: FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION CHRISTIAN COALITION by CNB