State Senate Race!

RealityBites wrote:

$168475.11 so far for the Harper campaign.
And he reported in The Douglas Enterprise that his top five contributers gave less than $20,000 total. Do you folks honestly believe that the rest of it came in nickels and dimes?
Based on one of the junk mail pieces his campaign distributed, his church should be very worried about losing their tax exempt status. When a pastor openly endorses a candidate alongside a picture of their church, a line has been crossed.

The Internal Revenue Code places no limitations on the legislative
activity of church members including pastors who act as individuals,not as representatives of the church.
A clergyman or pastor may, as an individual citizen, personally endorse or oppose a candidate. The fact that he is employed by a church does not negate his constitutional rights to free
speech and political expression. A pastor or clergyman may also lend his name to a candidate for political advertisements or devote personal time to a candidate’s campaign. The pastor’s title may even be listed with his name, for identification purposes only.

The Internal Revenue Code places no limitations on the legislative activity of church members—including pastors who act as individuals, not as representatives of the church.

The picture of pastor and "the church" is what creates the problem.

DOC wrote:

So far Harper has only spent $90,000 and has $168,000 in his campaign chest. That's not too bad. Spent less than $10,000 per county in his district. Greg Goggans put in $180,000 of his own money in his campaign.

Expenditures for July have not been reported - it will far exceed $90,000. Greg Goggans is not running & is not the issue.

DOC wrote:

<quoted text>
The Internal Revenue Code places no limitations on the legislative
activity of church members including pastors who act as individuals,not as representatives of the church.
A clergyman or pastor may, as an individual citizen, personally endorse or oppose a candidate. The fact that he is employed by a church does not negate his constitutional rights to free
speech and political expression. A pastor or clergyman may also lend his name to a candidate for political advertisements or devote personal time to a candidate’s campaign. The pastor’s title may even be listed with his name, for identification purposes only.

I think it's odd that it seems that Tyler's campaign made payments directly to a couple of churches for advertising. It actually shows to churches, not to an individual like a preacher. Is it legal to do that within the area of seperation of church and state stuff?

concerned wrote:

The Internal Revenue Code places no limitations on the legislative activity of church members—including pastors who act as individuals, not as representatives of the church.
The picture of pastor and "the church" is what creates the problem.

Actually, it doesn't.

That's like assuming that because I'm standing in front of McDonald's eating a hamburger that I indorse obesity in this country.

I could be eating a veggie burger from across the street for all you know.

He's right. A pastor has just as much right and privilege to endorse a political candidate as you do. There is no law against it.

For a moment, replace the word pastor with "professor" and the word "church" with "educational institution." Do you see how trite it sounds now?

Question wrote:

<quoted text>
I think it's odd that it seems that Tyler's campaign made payments directly to a couple of churches for advertising. It actually shows to churches, not to an individual like a preacher. Is it legal to do that within the area of seperation of church and state stuff?

That's actually an interesting question.

I wonder if that's legal.

Question wrote:

<quoted text>
I think it's odd that it seems that Tyler's campaign made payments directly to a couple of churches for advertising. It actually shows to churches, not to an individual like a preacher. Is it legal to do that within the area of seperation of church and state stuff?

I looked it up and found this:

A ban on church intervention in political campaigns became law in 1954 with the passage of then-Senator Lyndon Johnson's amendment to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(3), which covers tax-exempt charitable organizations in general.[7][52] The amendment was passed with no recorded input from churches or any other charitable groups.[7] Under the amended IRC, churches and all other 501(c)(3) charities are "absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office" if they are to remain tax-exempt.[IRC 8] Contributions to political campaign funds in support or opposition to candidates are also prohibited, but pastors may campaign as individuals without the imprimatur of the church, and churches may speak out on public issues so long as they don't "devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation." [1]

Link: http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/

I'm thinking that giving funds directly to a church for political advertising is probably illegal. Giving it to the pastor of the church however, isn't.

http://www.dcbabrief.org/vol110998art5.html

interesting reading.

A Church or any organization that participates as a tax free Entity can NOT endorse a political candidate. A pastor can as an individual but it becomes illegal if the church is associated in any way with the pastor's endorsement. A picture of both the pastor and church would give the impression the candidate has the endorsement of the church along with the pastor's unless the pastor publically expresses the church does not endorse the candidate.

Here is a link that explains about church and politics and may answer questions above.
http://ministry127.com/current-events/politic...

I donated money to Tyler campaign so he would use it to beat that prickk Hatfield.. and the next Democrat.. It cost a lot of money to campaign..especially over a large area like this one... not like it is money given to him by taxes.. It is money we want to be spent .. and looks like a lot of people donated to him. You guys are frickin crazy to even be discussing it but I know why you are .. Because Tyler Harper is squeeky clean.. I have known him all his life.. He is good people.. a yes sir, yes maam kinda person.. A guy that would go out of his way to help a stranger.. A guy that would play the game with integrity and represent you in a positive way(if YOU deserved it or not.. He is a guy that you would want to marry your daughter because he has been taught respect by his parents.. During the primary they attacked his fathers business dealings because there was nothing else.. and those dealings were above board and legal according to U.S. Government.. SO if you can't do any better to attack him for legal dealings of his father and how much money he uses to get elected .. and now it looks like you wanna attack his preacher ... you should quit...lol OMG ya'll are full of it and for a parting note to you fools.. read this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/mark...

First off Mitchell has nearly no chance at all ....LOL.. These guys operated inside of the rules set by the US Government. You people are haters.. you pay too much attention to a Doctored up Video.. made by a prickk mark Hatfield.. Don't believe everything you hear. The business they had was regularly audited by the government to make sure all played by the rules.. If you have a problem with any of it you should be pointing at the GOVT who wrote the rules.. Now.. if they did not fulfill contracts or fraudulently did something then that would also fall under the GOvt. because they audited them every 90 days .. You people are impossible .. Good luck with your man Mitchell

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/mark...

same too wrote:

I hope good man Mitchell stomps Harper into the ground come November.--- Roscoe Allen, wounded veteran, who gets the contracts thru the government due to SBA rules & restrictions (may not know "nothing about no 100 million dollars), but I'd guess Harper who manages this Roscoe Allen company knows EVERYTHING about the 81 million in no bid contracts given to the Roscoe Allen Co. Fishy? That's more than fishy, people.

Hatfield or Harper. Not much of a choice with either of them. Trade a raving birther for a faux Christian. Oh,goody. Why are there so many crazy people in GA? Harper and the rest of the Republicans need to stay out of women's vajayjays, before the gals rise up en masse.

Lizzard Boy wrote:

I donated money to Tyler campaign so he would use it to beat that prickk Hatfield.. and the next Democrat.. It cost a lot of money to campaign..especially over a large area like this one... not like it is money given to him by taxes.. It is money we want to be spent .. and looks like a lot of people donated to him. You guys are frickin crazy to even be discussing it but I know why you are .. Because Tyler Harper is squeeky clean.. I have known him all his life.. He is good people.. a yes sir, yes maam kinda person.. A guy that would go out of his way to help a stranger.. A guy that would play the game with integrity and represent you in a positive way(if YOU deserved it or not.. He is a guy that you would want to marry your daughter because he has been taught respect by his parents.. During the primary they attacked his fathers business dealings because there was nothing else.. and those dealings were above board and legal according to U.S. Government.. SO if you can't do any better to attack him for legal dealings of his father and how much money he uses to get elected .. and now it looks like you wanna attack his preacher ... you should quit...lol OMG ya'll are full of it and for a parting note to you fools.. read this
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/mark...

No, not everyone would want Harper for a son-in-law. Some people actually would rather their son-in-laws to stand on their own two feet and could care less about the bucks that someone has. Also, some people have what seem to be very legitmate questions about how DW Harper's business dealings and those of some of Tyler's contributors may affect the way things are done around here and further up the ladder. Asking about the legitimacy of the payments made from the campaign to some churches is not attacking the preacher. It's asking common sense questions. Fact is that more investigating needs to go on regarding the SBA and seems that in addition to what has already been done, that it may happen. I've never taken the time to look at campaign contributors and payments until today, but it was quite interesting. I'm sure it would be interesting to check out the other candidates too. Like a puzzle or connect the dots in order to get a better idea of why and what politicians' real goal is.

It is perplexng to me to see several physicans and dentists who contributed to Harper. Why? I mean, it can't be that they care a great deal about their patients because Republican seem to want us all to die quickly. Maybe those doctors do care about their patients, but not as much as they do about the almighty dollar.

Sigh wrote:

It is perplexng to me to see several physicans and dentists who contributed to Harper. Why? I mean, it can't be that they care a great deal about their patients because Republican seem to want us all to die quickly. Maybe those doctors do care about their patients, but not as much as they do about the almighty dollar.

because he is a smart, respectful young man with a promising future that will do good things for georgia. mystery solved.

This is my last post on this thread.It seems to me that there is only about 10 to 15 people that are against Tyler. Same old crap beat to death. But this is the facts. Tyler blasted the other candidates at the Republican primary Tuesday. Ya'll haters will be bashing him between now and November. Go ahead, it does not matter. Tyler will win the election. So you 10 to 15 get at it. Don't vote for him.Vote for Gene, he is a good man,but its not his time. I do not work for Tyler or his family or anybody connected to him.I have been working for myself all of my life and will continue to do the same. So get at it,you few are very,well let me say different!

Different from me and all the other Voters!!!!!!

From Fitzgerald wrote:

Different from me and all the other Voters!!!!!!

Because we believe in integrity?

Different wrote:

<quoted text>
Because we believe in integrity?

You are the one with no integrity.

I will not be voting for Tyler Harper. I repeat, WILL NOT vote for Harper. I'll vote to let this 26y/o get back to farming and buzzing around in his very own helicopter. A 26 year old with a million dollar home AND a million dollar beach condo + his own helicopter? What part of government waste do you folks not understand? Think about it. I'm thinking all those 1000s of Vote Harper signs clouded your judgment.

And when Saxby man runs again, I'll just say NO!