The Georgia Legislature Wraps Up A Banner Year

Having killed their own version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Georgia's Legislature is considering a bill that would regulate churches if they talk about politics around election time. Wonder why they might be concerned about that?
First Georgia Republicans cut a deal with Democrats. They would kill Georgia’s RFRA legislation in exchange for Democrats supporting roughly a billion dollar tax increase.

Not content to deprive Christians of religious protection, Georgia Republicans have decided to go after churches and other non-profits directly.... According to the legislation, any organization that engages in “election targeted issue advocacy” within 180 days of an election is subject to regulation by the state. What is “election targeted issue advocacy”? If any person or group writes about a candidate, uses the image of an elected official or candidate, or discusses a ballot initiative, the person or group doing that can be regulated.

Voter education, in other words, is going to be regulated by the State of Georgia. But there is also another wrinkle in this.
Georgia Republicans, mind you, are the ones who are raising taxes, killing religious freedom protections, and suppressing free speech by churches. Or should I say Georgia Republicans? Thank goodness our legislature is forbidden to operate more than forty days a year. It's like a plague of locusts.

UPDATE: The Georgia Senate killed the speech-regulating bill in the last half-hour of the session. In the last four minutes of the session both houses took up a major tax bill that almost no one had read, as it was cobbled together today. The speaker just instructed delegates "Take your seats. Desist throwing objects."

UPDATE: Witching hour. The House passed the tax bill in the last seconds. The Senate appears to have hung up on procedure, and drifted past midnight. They are still in session, considering the tax bill in apparent defiance of the law.

UPDATE: The Senate passed the tax bill after midnight, which should produce an interesting legal challenge. What was so important, you ask?

6 comments:

raven said...

Nah, all locusts do is strip your crops and leave you penniless- they don't try to tell you what to think.

jaed said...

If any person or group writes about a candidate, uses the image of an elected official or candidate, or discusses a ballot initiative, the person or group doing that can be regulated.

"Person or group" doesn't sound as though this is restricted to churches; it sounds like so much as "I think what Hillary did five years ago" in a blog post would mean you can be "regulated".

Grim said...

Could be. Keep your eyes open: the Assembly is in session until midnight most final days of the legislative year.

Dad29 said...

Other observers noted that the campaign restrictions bill specifically exempts political entities from regulation.

Well, whatever.

The (R) or (D) label is insignificant. What IS significant is "in office." The Establishment protects and nurtures its own, and no one else. No one.

jaed said...

I used to call the political-speech restrictions in McCain-Feingold "the Incumbent Protection Act".

raven said...

Cromwell's address to Parliament is looking more relevant every day.

Another "you have to pass it to find out what is in it" bill, eh