Nonprofit Law Prof Blog

More Johnson Amendment Excitement: National Religious Broadcasters v. Werfel

It’s exciting times for those of us (like me!) who follow Johnson Amendment developments. The SAFE SPACE litigation is temporarily dismissed in Tax Court, but I have been assured that it’s only so the parties can develop the administrative record with the IRS, and it will be back in court as soon as that happens. Meanwhile, as was pointed out by my co-blogger Darryll Jones last week, the National Religious Broadcasters and others (“NRB”) filed a complaint in Eastern District of Texas, arguing that even though no adverse action had been taken against any of them, the existence of the Johnson Amendment unconstitutionally chills their speech and religious expression. The lawsuit will almost certainly be dismissed, but the complaint is interesting, nonetheless.

First, like SAFE SPACE, NRB tries to make a First Amendment argument by ignoring the “alternate means” doctrine introduced by the Supreme Court in 1983 in Taxation With Representation v. Regan and applied to the Johnson Amendment by the DC Circuit in Branch Ministries v. Rossotti. The Complaint doesn’t even mention these leading cases. It’s hard for me to imagine that this approach will get very far, but the Easter District of Texas may see things differently from me. Stranger things have happened.

But NRB goes farther than that by making two distinct arguments about unequal treatment by the IRS, claiming that the IRS is singling out conservative churches for discriminatory application of the Johnson Amendment. If that were true, it would radically transform the legal arguments because, as NRB points out, it would turn the speech claim into a “viewpoint discrimination” case, the religious liberty claim would involve discrimination between particular religious doctrines, and there might be a viable equal protection claim. If the IRS were discriminating against conservative churches, I think we would all agree that they should be stopped.

So, it’s worth looking at NRB’s arguments about discrimination. First, they argue that the existence of a Revenue Ruling from 1972 that holds that the editorial board of student newspapers are allowed to endorse candidates means that “it is a denial of equal protection to interpret § 501(c)(3) to allow college newspapers to endorse candidates while prohibiting nonprofits like Plaintiffs from doing the same.” The 1972 Ruling is admirably concise, but it manages to squeeze into its two short pages the basis of its reasoning, which establishes why the opinions of college newspaper student editors are materially different from the kinds of organizational communications that NRB and its co-plaintiffs seek to make. It says that the editorial opinions “are acts and expressions of opinion by students … of the educational institution …. [not] the acts of the university[.]”.

Second, NRB argues that the IRS permits campaign activity in churches if that activity favors Democratic candidates while it prohibits campaign activity in churches if it favors conservative candidates. Again, the complaint lists several examples of campaign activity in churches that favors Democratic candidates, which “goes unhindered by the IRS.” The complaint also lists examples of 501(c)(3) news organizations (not student newspapers) that endorse candidates, while the IRS “allows this to proceed unhindered.” But when the complaint turns its attention to IRS action against conservative churches, it has much less to say. It states generically that “Plaintiffs are aware of instances of recent investigations and adverse actions against conservative religious organizations,” (¶ 94), but apparently those instances are so secret that they cannot be named in the complaint. It mentions an adverse action against an organization called “Christians Engaged” (¶ 93), but that action was reversed by the IRS. Most intriguingly, it describes IRS action against the Cornerstone Chapel of Leesburg Virginia, which resulted in “a tax penalty for violating the Johnson Amendment” that the Cornerstone Chapel paid. (¶ 92). That’s it. I couldn’t find anything on the internet about this tax penalty paid by Cornerstone Chapel, but I’m really not that good at googling, so maybe that’s on me. It’s a shame that Cornerstone Chapel didn’t think to call Michael Farris, the lead attorney for the NRB complaint, because Cornerstone Chapel would be an ideal plaintiff in this action. I think they’re practically in his backyard. If the IRS assessed an unconstitutionally discriminatory penalty against them, I would like to see their rights vindicated in court.  

Maybe I’m devoting too much space to a single complaint that appears destined to be dismissed in short order. But in a way it does a much better job of identifying the underlying problem with the Johnson Amendment than SAFE SPACE does: fear of discriminatory application. Anyone (not just Republicans) looking for seemingly egregious examples of political adversaries violating the Johnson Amendment can find them, and they will generally also find that such violations “go unhindered by the IRS.” In that atmosphere, mere rumors of enforcement against one’s political friends may be enough to warrant a suspicion of discrimination. Discriminatory application of the Johnson Amendment would indeed be a violation of the Constitution, of numerous laws, and of the core values of our nation. The fact that there appears to be no evidence beyond rumors should be enough to dismiss a lawsuit, but that doesn’t necessarily solve the problem.

There was a time when the IRS had a “political action compliance initiative,” which sought to enforce the Johnson Amendment in as transparent a way as possible while still respecting taxpayer privacy. Some mechanism like that could be used to enable the IRS to increase its enforcement of the Johnson Amendment in a way that counteracts fears of discriminatory application rather than letting them fester. It may be that we are past the point when government can use transparency mechanisms to build trust in the rule of law, and that these mechanisms are destined to fail. But I hope not.

--Benjamin Leff

Christian Charity Violates the Johnson Amendendment ... Or Does It?

Saturday, ProPublica published a story about Ziklag, a charity created to marshal the power of wealthy conservative Christian donors to effect dramatic political and cultural change in America. The article references “six nonpartisan lawyers and legal experts” who “[a]ll expressed concern that Ziklag was testing or violating the law” (including our own Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, Phil Hackney, Roger Colinvaux, as well as nonprofit-law giant Marcus Owens). 

The main concern appears to be campaign intervention in violation of IRC 501(c)(3) (what is nowadays called “the Johnson Amendment”). Violations of the Johnson Amendment are notoriously fact specific, and in my view, the article doesn’t describe a clear “smoking gun” violation. Much of the focus is on Ziklag’s “Steeplechase” project, which is an effort to get out the vote in swing states with the intention of turning out Trump-leaning voters to swing the election to Trump. As probably everyone reading this blog knows, according to IRS guidance, charities are permitted to conduct voter registration, voter education, and get-out-the-vote drives, so long as they are “carried out in a nonpartisan way.” But, as everyone probably also knows, the question of what it means for such drives to be nonpartisan is also quite complex. For example, my understanding is that the leaders of an organization can have an opinion about who is the better candidate, and while the IRS does not permit express targeting of sympathetic voters, there is room for play in the joints. Ironically, Republicans have recently ramped up their criticism of get-out-the-vote drives by charities, presumably under the belief that it is Democrats who use “nonpartisan” voter education for partisan ends more often or more effectively than Republicans.

Another “gray area” in Johnson Amendment law is the status of an internal “confidential” communication of a charity. Pro Publica obtained a video of an internal communication of Ziklag members that seemed to be intended to be kept confidential – the leader said, “You almost hate to put it out this clearly … because if somebody else gets ahold of this, they’ll freak out.” He then went on to say that Biden was “an empty suit with an agenda that’s written and managed by someone else.” The content of that message presumably constitutes campaign intervention since it disfavors a candidate in an upcoming election. But it is not at all clear that the medium of the message constitutes intervention: it was intended to be an internal communication between a relatively small number of members of the organization. It’s hard to imagine that the Johnson Amendment should be used to police every conversation between the leaders of charities and their members or staff. IRS guidance specifies that communications by organizational leaders at “official meetings” or “publications” are to be attributed to the organization and therefore must be free of electoral content, but there is no authority to help one decipher whether a confidential video constitutes an official meeting or publication.

In the end, I trust the opinions of the six experts that ProPublica cite in their report, since the ones named are the leading scholars in the field. And I strongly support ProPublica’s efforts to educate the public about campaign intervention by charities. But it is worth pointing out how elusive clear conclusions about campaign intervention often are, and how much is still left ambiguous in the law itself. While the experts cited are probably right that Ziklag is “across the line,” it may well be that Ziklag is conducting its affairs in conformance with the law, or at least with a genuine effort to conform. An intention to observe the law is entirely consistent with an intention to use 501(c)(3) status to advance the electoral interests of one’s preferred candidate. And, in my view, a diligent intention to observe the letter of law, even combined with a strong intention to distort the law’s spirit, is far better than contempt for the law. It is the difference between liberal society and an illiberal one. But maybe that’s just the tax lawyer in me talking.

--Benjamin Leff

New York AG Issues New & Updated Guidance for Religious Corporations & Their Members

From a recent email sent by the Office of the New York State Attorney General:

The Attorney General’s Charities Bureaus is pleased to announce the publication of new and up-dated guidance for Religious Corporations and their members.

* * *

Religious Corporations: Sales and Other Disposition of Assets – Up-dated guidance for religious corporations, including a check list of requirements for petitions to the Attorney General or the Court for approval of sales, clarification of which denominations must seek approval of the Attorney General and/or the Court, detailed guidance on preparation for a sale, explanation of statutory requirements and the role of the Attorney General, sample forms for documents required by the Attorney General and/or the Court.

Guidance for Congregants Whose Houses of Worship are or May be Offered for Sale or Lease – NEW guidance for members of religious congregations, many of whom have the right to vote on whether property of their congregations should be sold, including questions to ask to have an understanding of the procedures and time required to sell the property and the financial and other impact of the sale on the congregation.

Lloyd Mayer

Proposed Class Action for Solicitation Fraud Filed Against LDS Church

We previously reported about the August 2023 Ninth Circuit decision reinstating John Huntsman's claim against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (more on that decision here) and the March 2023 survival in the face of a motion to to dismiss of a civil RICO claim against the LDS Church by another disgruntled donor. Now a different set of unhappy donors have filed a proposed class action against the LDS Church.

The thrust of their complaint is that the Church told them that their donations would be used immediately for charitable purposes, including "humanitarian relief," but instead some or all of their donations became part of a now multi-billion dollar endowment. The specific claims filed in the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City include breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The docket is available on Pacer, but I have not been able to find a copy of the actual complaint that is not behind a paywall. 

Coverage: AP; Law360 (subscription required); NY Post.

Canopy Forum: RFRA at 30

On Thursday at 10:30 am Central, the Canopy Forum is hosting a webinar entitled "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act at 30." While it is not specifically geared toward answering nonprofit or tax-exempt organization questions, religious organizations are a huge, and important, sector of the nonprofit world, attracting more than 25% of charitable donations in 2021. So even if the discussion of RFRA doesn't directly address questions of nonprofit law, it's an important law dealing with an important corner of the nonprofit world. (Full disclosure: I'll be talking about RFRA and religious tax protestors.) An abstract for the webinar:

Thirty years ago this November, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). RFRA was birthed from a popular bipartisan effort in Congress to respond to Employment Division v. Smith, a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld as constitutional under the Free Exercise Clause facially neutral and generally applicable laws. Soon after its enactment, RFRA’s scope came under dispute. Today, the contours of the federal statute—and its state law progeny—continue to be a source of litigation and scholarly discussion. This one-day symposium will look back at RFRA’s origins and evolution and look forward to its new frontiers.

If you're interested, you can register here.

Samuel D. Brunson

Fraudulent Inducement of Donations?

A couple years ago, James Huntsman, son of Jon Huntsman Jr. (the former governor of Utah and former presidential candidate, among other things) sued the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS or Mormon church). He asserted that he had tithed in reliance on church statements that the LDS church did not use tithing money for commercial endeavors, that the church did use tithing money for commercial endeavors, and that therefore he was entitled to have his donations returned, as well as to punitive and exemplary damages. About two years ago, the district court granted the LDS church's motion for summary judgment.

Then, earlier this month, the 9th Circuit reversed. It found that it was possible that a jury could find that "tithing" included earning on invested tithing, and therefore summary judgment was inappropriate in this case. The court remanded it to the district court, though it has extended the deadline for the church to petition for en banc review. 

I wrote about the case at a Mormon-themed blog here. That provides most of the context surrounding this suit. But the case raises a couple interesting broader questions, including nonprofit questions. One is, how often does a disaffected donor allege fraud to try to get their donation returned? (To be clear, at best this case is just barely on the right side of frivolous; as a substantive matter, I don't think Huntsman can win.) Has it happened in the past? Will it be a new trend in the new world of performative litigation? Do nonprofits need to be meticulously clear about what they say they'll do with their money?

Samuel D. Brunson

State Appellate Court Reinstates in Part Methodist Conference's Claims Against SMU

One of the consequences of theological divisions within denominations over hot button issues such as same sex marriage, female pastors, and other doctrinal disputes is an increasing body of case law relating to control of church property and institutions. Cases involving Episcopal churches have been particularly prominent, as noted by the Pew Research Center more than 10 years ago and illustrated by a 2021 set of certiorari denials by the U.S. Supreme Court as mentioned at the end of this SCOTUSblog post.

One of the ongoing such disputes is between the South Central Jurisdiction Conference of the United Methodist Church and Southern Methodist University (SMU). SMU's Board of Trustees voted 34-1 in 2019 to remove all references to the Conference from its Articles of Incorporation, including removing the Conference's right of approval over amendments to SMU's articles of incorporation and its authority to elect members of the Board. The Conference promptly filed a lawsuit in Texas state court challenging the amendments, but SMU prevailed at the trial court level against all of the Conference's claims through a combination of dismissals and summary judgment.

Now the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District has weighed in, reinstating many of the the Conference's claims and directing that they be tried. Here is the court's conclusion:

We conclude that the Conference, as SMU's controlling parental entity, had standing to challenge the 2019 Amendments under the 1996 Articles, which are lawful provisions pursuant to [Texas Business Organizations Code (TBOC)] § 22.207. We further conclude the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the Conference's TBOC § 4.007 claim [relating to allegedly filing a materially false certificate of amendment] and in dismissing the Conference's claims for breach of contract and declaratory-judgment claims (a), (b), (c), and (f).

We partially sustain the Conference's first and third issues and conclude the trial court erred in dismissing the Conference's claim for breach of contract and for declaratory judgment asserted in paragraph 64, subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), and (f) of the Conference's second amended petition. We also sustain the Conference's sixth issue and conclude the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against the Conference on its claim under § 4.007 of the TBOC. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

We remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is worth noting that the appellate court found the dispute did not turn on a dispute over church doctrine, but instead over the proper application of relevant corporate documents, and so was proper for the court to resolve.

Lloyd Mayer

The Mormon Church v. the SEC

About a week and a half ago, the SEC announced that it had charged Ensign Peak Advisors and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon church) with violating Section 13(f) of the '34 Act and Rule 13f-1. Ensign Peak agreed to settle and pay a $4 million fine for failing to file Form 13F for about 22 years, while the Mormon church agreed to settle the allegation that Ensign Peak acted with its knowledge and direction and pay the SEC $1 million. On this blog we're usually more focused on tax (and, on occasion, state nonprofit) issues than we are securities regulation, but this is a big deal securities reg story involving nonprofits, so it's worth a little time to dig into and understand.

But before we dig into the story, it's worth laying some groundwork:

The Players:

The Mormon church is organized as a Utah corporation sole and, unsurprisingly, is exempt from tax under section 501(c)(3). (In fact, I'm putting the finishing touches on a book about the Mormon church and taxes, which will probably be published at the end of this year or sometime in 2024.) The church has a strong preference for centralization and hierarchy; in the U.S., the Utah corporation owns basically all of its property (unlike other denominations, which often incorporate different regions or congregations separately). The Mormon church is tremendously wealthy; just before the pandemic, a whistleblower alleged that it had $100 billion of invested assets (an amount that presumably didn't include, for instance, land it uses for church buildings).

Continue reading

New Suit Alleges San Diego Catholic Diocese Transferred Assets to Avoid Paying Sex Abuse Claims

In a news report on today's edition of Religion News Service, Alejandra Molina writes that a "law firm representing alleged sexual abuse victims in California is suing the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego, claiming the diocese fraudulently moved around real estate assets in an attempt to hide its wealth and avoid paying child sex abuse claims."

According to Molina, 

The suit, filed Tuesday (Feb. 21) by the Zalkin Law Firm in San Diego County Superior Court on behalf of more than 100 plaintiffs, alleges that the diocese transferred at least 291 real estate parcels, with a total tax-assessed value of more than $453 million, to parish corporations in order to defraud creditors at a time when the diocese was aware of “significant claims” by victims of childhood sex abuse.

The lawsuit alleges that these transfers “were done as part of a scheme created, masterminded, and designed” by the diocese and parishes so assets could not be “reachable” by creditors and those filing claims.

Molina continues:

The lawsuit claims that the diocese made these transfers beginning in September 2019, the same month the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 218, which, with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s endorsement, lifted a statute of limitation on childhood sex abuse claims. The law opened a three-year window beginning in 2020 that allowed alleged victims of child sexual abuse to file lawsuits without age limitations. 

The suit comes days after Cardinal Robert McElroy, bishop of the Diocese of San Diego, announced that the diocese may declare bankruptcy as it faces “staggering” legal costs in dealing with hundreds of lawsuits alleging priests and others sexually abused children.

Meanwhile, Kevin Eckery, spokesman for the diocese, defended the transfers, saying they predate the Assembly bill. "Under canon law the assets of each parish have been separate and independent from the Diocese," Eckery said. "Over 10 years ago, long before Assembly Bill 218 was introduced, the Diocese began the process of formalizing in civil law the separate legal status of each parish and its assets. This included recording proper legal title for each parish to its own real estate."

Eckery added, “The Diocese has a profound obligation and moral duty to use its own assets to equitably compensate survivors.”

In an article published almost two weeks ago, The Associated Press reported Eckery as saying that the cost of settling the outstanding cases against the diocese which have not gone to trial would amount to $550 million. McElroy had also written a letter to be distributed to parishioners which revealed that most of the diocese’s assets had been used to settle previous allegations, ending in a $198 million payout in 2007.

In a news conference on Wednesday, Attorney Irwin Zalkin said the “diocese and its parishes have engaged in a conspiratorial enterprise to defraud child abuse victims and to deny them the justice they deserve.” He noted that if the diocese files for bankruptcy, it would have to identify and disclose its assets. He continued: “The question would be whether these properties that got transferred are assets of the diocese or not.”

He went on to state that the lawsuit seeks to reverse those transfers. He wants the properties to revert to diocesan ownership as “assets of the diocese as they are, and they should be.” Zalkin said his firm will pursue the matter through the civil court or through bankruptcy proceedings if the diocese files for bankruptcy. 

Zalkin denied that the filing of the lawsuit was timed to coincide with Ash Wednesday but noted instead that "it speaks volumes as to the moral conduct or lack of moral conduct of this diocese." According to Zalkin, the leaders of the diocese have "developed a PR spin on how they’re concerned about victims, and they want to do the right thing by victims, but at the end of the day, it’s all about the money and protecting their assets.” 

The lawsuit also claims that the diocese created an “Independent Compensation Fund,” in which survivors’ claims would be reviewed by an independent claim evaluator. If the claim qualified, a final settlement offer would be made. However, the lawsuit alleges that in reality, the fund “was designed to draw out individuals who would otherwise be eligible to bring a lawsuit pursuant to AB 218 and settle their claims for pennies on the dollar.”

“At the same time that the ‘Independent Compensation Fund’ was becoming operational and the Senate was passing AB 218 on to the Governor in mid-September of 2019, the Diocese was engaged in a massive effort to transfer title to hundreds of millions of dollars of real property for no consideration,” the lawsuit reads.

The lawsuit states that “this fraudulent scheme” was meant to defraud “plaintiffs and others with claims based on clergy sexual abuse.”

Prof. Vaughn E. James, Texas Tech University School of Law

 

$100 Billion (Redux)

So Wednesday, David Nielson, the whistleblower who sent a complaint to the IRS about the Mormon church's tax-exempt investment arm a handful of years ago, sent a revised and significantly polished update to the Senate Finance Committee.

For context: Ensign Peak Advisors is an investment company. Its sole (as far as I can tell) client: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (that is, the Mormon church). It manages something in the range of $100 billion of the church's assets. And also, Ensign Peak Advisors is a tax-exempt organization.

Mr. Nielson has argued for a variety of reasons that it should not be exempt (because, among other things, it fails the organizatonal and operational tests (and in this round he added a private inurement claim).

Reading through this round, I think I understand his assertions. And I think they boil down to his misunderstanding certain transactions and terms of art. But I gave a more fulsome analysis of my thoughts on Twitter.

(He also makes some securities law claims, claims that I'm not qualified to comment on and which, honestly, also probably depend intimately on the underlying facts.)

Samuel D. Brunson

Photo by Ken Lund. CC BY-SA 2.0

Churches & Tax Exemption: Growing Less Settled?

Since I occasionally write about tax law and religious organizations, I am sometimes asked if there is a realistic possibility that churches might lose their tax exempt status given scandals ranging from televangelist salaries to sexual abuse. My go-to response is that there are hundreds of congregations in every congressional district, and if there is one thing that would unite them it would be protecting that status. So no.

Making me wonder if my response has been too glib are the following recent pieces on this topic that the authors thought worth the effort to write. The first relates to certain specific churches, but the other two are more broad based defenses of the exemption, responding to recent criticisms: 

• Taylor Holley, Note, Auditing Scientology: Reexamining the Church's 501(c)(3) Tax Exemption Eligibility, 54 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 345 (2022). The author raises commerciality, private inurement, and fundamental public policy concerns with Scientology organizations.

• Reece Barker, Note, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Taxation of Churches, 47 BYU L. Rev. 1001 (2022). The author argues "[a]though religious organizations are currently exempted from taxation, this issue is important because there is a growing appetite to remove the exemptions. For example, many view religion as an untapped source of revenue for cash-strapped governments. Others think they can coerce religious organizations to bend to the will of popular opinion through revocation of tax exemption. But whether the tax is designed to increase revenue or to align doctrine with popular opinion, religious taxation is off the table. It is off the table because tax exemption for religious organizations is not a reward, benefit, tax break, or legislative prerogative; it is a right rooted in the First Amendment. A right that acts as a crucial bulwark of society because it enables state and church autonomy that protects each from exercising undue influence over the other." (footnotes omitted)

• Howard Husock, Removing the Tax Exemption for Religious Congregations Is the Wrong Move for Our Polarized Nation (Opinion, Chronicle of Philanthropy, Nov. 17, 2022). He concludes "[t]he value of religion in providing links among neighbors, promoting friendship, and building a foundation for good works in an increasingly fragmented society transcends any tax accounting. During this time of extreme polarization, limiting the tax deduction for America’s most popular form of charitable giving would be exactly the wrong move."

And as an added bonus, another recent article addresses the perennial topic of churches and politics:

• Julia Camp, John Masselli, and Amy J.N. Yurko, Religion versus Politics: An age-old question with continued importance to the U.S. nonprofit classification system, The ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research (2022) (subscription required). From the abstract: "Following the awarding of church status to some seemingly politically charged organizations, we investigate this issue and propose that it is time for the U.S. Congress and the IRS to revisit, evaluate, and revamp the existing system to prevent political organizations from abusing the tax provisions intended to benefit churches."

Lloyd Mayer

Rev. Jim Wallis: How Congress Can Bring Good News to the Poor This Advent

In an opinion piece in today's Religion News Service, the Rev. Jim Wallis, Director of Georgetown University’s Center on Faith and Justice and the Chair in Faith and Justice at the McCourt School of Public Policy, calls on Congress to bring good news to America's children this Advent by expanding the child tax credit.

Rev. Wallis begins his article by noting that as the season of Advent begins, millions of Christians around the world prepare to mark the birth of a child born on the margins of a great empire. He continues:

As it happens, Advent runs alongside another season of sorts in the nation’s capital: a lame-duck congressional session. Lawmakers aren’t expected to pass much legislation during this time — hence the fowl nickname — but they will likely consider extending Trump-era tax cuts for corporations.

This provides an opportunity — even a moral obligation — to bring good news to American children as well. Congress should not approve any year-end corporate tax breaks without expanding the child tax credit.

In the throes of the pandemic, in 2021, Congress expanded the child tax credit, raising the amount available to the poorest American families up to $3,600 a year per child and allowing the credit to be distributed across the tax year in monthly installments. The measure produced historic results. Even during a global pandemic and economic recession, the expanded credit helped drive the child poverty rate to a record low of 5.2%, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The current Congress allowed the expanded credit to expire at the end of 2021, leading to dire consequences: 3.7 million children, including 2.5 million Black and Latino kids, fell back into poverty. Some believe that number will rise to 4.1 million because of the still-rising costs of food, gas and housing.

According to Rev. Wallis, these numbers represent a deep — and totally unnecessary — moral failure. He laments the fact that

In a nation where millions claim to follow the teachings of Christ, this is strangely un-Christian behavior. In the Gospels, Jesus makes his concern for children crystal clear. In the Gospel of Matthew, he explicitly says that caring about God entails caring for children. “Whoever welcomes a child in my name welcomes me,” he says. 

Yet, says the Rev. Wallis,

In this country, we have constructed safety nets for corporations (in the form of financial bailouts), for farms (federal subsidies) and for retirees (Social Security.) Why haven’t we produced a social safety net for children, our most vulnerable members?

He recounts stories of how the poor have benefited from the expanded child tax credit:

I’ve heard stories about parents who used the tax credit to pay overdue doctor bills, buy new school clothes, fix the family car and pay for internet connections so their children don’t fall behind in school.

One study found that more than half of families that received the child tax credit used the money to put food on the table. Think about that: The politicians who ended this program literally took food from the mouths of children. We know that taking this money away will hurt children, who did nothing to deserve such harm. Research shows that children who live in a family with income below the poverty line display lower levels of educational attainment, poorer health and lower earnings.

Moreover, says the Rev. Wallis, expanding the child tax credit is more than moral; it is also economically sound:

A report from the Joint Economic Committee found that every dollar of CTC payments generates $8 in social and economic benefits, as families spend this money back into the local community. Despite fears that the credit would deter employment, research proved otherwise, with nearly 94% of parents saying they plan to continue working at the same rate or even more.

Reviving the expanded child tax credit isn’t political — it’s about staying true to our moral obligations by giving families the means to survive and thrive.

The line between faith and politics is not always direct, but caring for children should not be a political matter. We have a generational opportunity to alleviate the scourge of child poverty in this country. According to researchers, the child tax credit lifted millions of families above the poverty line, decreased food insecurity by nearly a third and cut child poverty by 40%.

We do not all have to agree on how to fight poverty in this country, but when we see something that works, such as the child tax credit, it makes little sense to stop merely because Congress can’t summon the political will. We have a moral obligation to ensure that every child — each made in the image of God — has the chance to grow and thrive. That is what it means to be “pro-family.”

As he concludes his opinion piece, Rev. Wallis reiterates his theme -- that it would be excellent policy implementation this Advent Season for Congress to expand the child tax credit:

When Jesus began his public ministry, he did so with a simple but profound message. He came, as the prophet said, to “bring good news to the poor.” This Advent, the expansion of the child tax credit would be welcome news for millions of American families.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Rev. Jim Wallis.

Prof. Vaughn E. James, Texas Tech University School of Law

 

 

 

   

King Charles III: Britain's New Defender of the Faith

Today's Religious News Service presents an interesting analysis of the new British monarch's task of making the country's rapidly expanding numbers of nonbelievers feel included. The analysis begins by noting that the recently deceased Queen Elizabeth II's funeral was not entirely representative of Britain’s increasingly secular population. The funeral service was held in Westminster Abbey. According to RNS, the "medieval abbey, the sublime music and military processions were all a visual and aural feast, but the event was at its heart a Christian ceremony, with the coffin placed in front of the altar and presided over by robed clergymen."

With this in mind, RNS continues, the Queen's funeral "was not entirely representative of Britain’s increasingly secular population. Even its believers are less likely to be Christian than at the start of Elizabeth’s reign, with 2.7 million Muslims, 800,000 Hindus and a half-million Sikhs, among many other faiths. Christians, who once consisted mostly of various Protestants — chiefly members of the Church of England, the Church of Scotland and the Church in Wales — and Roman Catholics, have been joined by a growing Pentecostal movement and other evangelical churches, according to the BBC."

In Britain, though, the Church of England remains the official, established church, with the monarch as its Supreme Governor, and since Elizabeth’s death on Sept. 8, we have seen it in the ascendant. Yet, there are also signs that the late monarch, now-King Charles III and the Church of England have recognized that the time has come to adjust.

RNS continues its analysis:

In a landmark speech in 2012 at Lambeth Palace, the London home of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the queen said of the Church of England that “Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country.”

She credited the established church with having done so already. “Gently and assuredly, the Church of England has created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely,” she said.

The new king has endorsed those words as recently as Sept. 9, the night after his mother died, in his first televised address to the British nation as its king. “The role and the duties of Monarchy also remain,” he said, “as does the Sovereign’s particular relationship and responsibility towards the Church of England — the Church in which my own faith is so deeply rooted.”

But he continued, ”In the course of the last 70 years we have seen our society become one of many cultures and many faiths.”

Nearly 30 years ago, as prince of Wales, Charles articulated concern about other faiths and Christian denominations in modern Britain not feeling included, and controversially suggested that when he became king he should be called Defender of Faiths — plural— rather than the title Defender of the Faith bestowed on Henry VIII by the pope in 1521 and used by England’s monarchs since.

Anglicans reacted harshly to Charles’ gambit, fearing he would not be fully wedded to assuming his role of Supreme Governor of the Church of England when the time came. Even after he rescinded his statement in 2014, the moment haunted Charles. His statement on Sept. 9 came in part to reassure doubters, who then heard him proclaimed king and Defender of the Faith the next day before the Accession Council, who proclaimed him the new monarch.

Then, bit by bit, we saw more evidence of how the king and his advisers, as well as the late queen, through her funeral plans, tried to embrace other traditions.

The Sept. 12 service of thanksgiving for the queen’s life was held at Edinburgh’s St Giles Cathedral, the main church of the Church of Scotland. Representatives of other faiths were in attendance, and the Gospel was read by Mark Strange, primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, the other main Protestant church in Scotland besides the Church of Scotland.

More surprising, a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans was read by Leo Cushley, the Catholic archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, and included lines often interpreted as encouraging ecumenical dialogue: “We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.”

When Charles then paid a visit to Northern Ireland, more efforts were made to include the Catholic population, for whom the monarchy has long been a sensitive issue. At St. Anne’s Cathedral in Belfast — where the president of Ireland, Michael Higgins, and Taoiseach (as Ireland calls its prime minister) Micheál Martin were in attendance — Eamon Martin, the Catholic archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, offered a prayer; others were said by Methodist and Presbyterian church leaders. At a service during Charles’ stop in Wales, prayers were said by Muslim and Jewish representatives as well as representatives of several Christian denominations.

But a reception at Buckingham Palace for 30 faith leaders on Friday (Sept. 16) — before the new king met any world leaders in London for the funeral, and even before he took part in a vigil with his siblings at the lying-in-state of his mother — spoke volumes about the importance Charles assigns religion in Britain.

Charles welcomed not only the Catholic archbishop of Westminster but Bishop Kenneth Nowakowski of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy and Imam Asim Yusuf, telling them that Britain’s sovereign has an “additional” duty — presumably in addition to being Supreme Governor of the Church of England — to protect “the space for faith itself” in Britain. This duty, he said, is “less formally recognized but to be no less diligently discharged.”

He added: “It is the duty to protect the diversity of our country, including by protecting the space for faith itself and its practice through the religions, cultures, traditions and beliefs to which our hearts and minds direct us as individuals. This diversity is not just enshrined in the laws of our country, it is enjoined by my own faith.”

That Charles’ words were backed up by his mother was evident in the state funeral Monday. The specialness of the Church of England and of multifaith, diverse Britain was acknowledged as a procession of religious representatives entered Westminster Abbey in advance of the main funeral party: Jews, Baha’is, Jains, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Sikhs and Hindus, as well as Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis; Pope Francis was represented by Archbishop Paul Gallagher, the Vatican’s secretary for relations with states.

Reading prayers during the service were the Rev. Iain Greenshields, moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland; Shermara Fletcher, principal officer for Pentecostal and charismatic relations for Churches Together in England; the Rev. Helen Cameron, moderator of the Free Churches; and Roman Catholic Cardinal Vincent Nichols.

The questions that remain are: "What happens now?" "What shall we see at Charles's coronation?" "Will it be all-inclusive affair, or will it be limited to clergy of the Church of England?" Of great importance also, is whether King Charles III, whose titles include "Defender of the Faith," be a defender of both believers and nonbelievers. After all, in the last British census (2011), a quarter of the population said they had no religion.

Prof. Vaughn E. James, Texas Tech University School of Law 

 

Mass Corruption at Church: New York AG Investigation Reveals Harlem Clergy Took Secret Cash as They Sold Churches to Developer

According to New York State prosecutors, senior religious leaders conspired with a developer to sell seven churches in Harlem and Brooklyn in exchange for secret payments — only for the developer to waver from his promise to build new homes for the churches, in some cases demolishing them and letting the sites sit empty for years.

As reported by Nick Garber of Patch, prosecutors maintain that the deals, which netted the three church leaders nearly $2 million combined, were uncovered through an investigation launched by New York Attorney General Letitia James’s office into the developer, Moujan Vahdat. Vahdat and two of the church leaders reached settlements with the state last year, though the accusations against them have not previously been reported. A third pastor also under investigation is still battling the state in court.

According to prosecutors, the churches, all part of predominantly African-American denominations, were often struggling financially and saw the sales as potential lifelines. In a 2015 resolution, one church board supporting the sale to Vahdat wrote:

Not without a struggle, over the past several years we have worked hard to maintain the upkeep of the house of God. We understand that there has been a need for a greater vision from God to move this church forward in its fiscal responsibility and ministry.

However, authorities maintain, behind congregants' backs, church leaders were accepting cash payments and expensive gifts then turning a blind eye as Vahdat revised the sale contracts in his favor, squeezed churches for more money, and in one case, shut off a church’s heat in the middle of winter and allowed its ceiling to collapse onto a parishioner.

According to Patch, Vahdat’s attorney defended his client's conduct, telling the news organization that he remains focused on “bringing vibrant new church facilities to the community.” Indeed, said the attorney, even after the state’s intervention, many of the houses of worship are still doing business with Vahdat to this day.

In a court filing laying out their investigation, prosecutors wrote that Vahdat, a billionaire real estate and telecommunications magnate, began eyeing churches for possible development deals in 2013. However, prosecutors noted that despite his history in the real estate industry, Vahdat had no experience with church developments. But, prosecutors continued, Vahdat soon met Bishop Kevin Griffin, the senior pastor of Childs Memorial Temple Church of God in Christ (COGIC), and by 2014, Griffin agreed to sell his dilapidated Amsterdam Avenue Church building for $2 million to Vahdat, who promised to replace it with an apartment building with space reserved for Childs Memorial. According to prosecutors, Griffin did not reveal to either his parishioners or New York State authorities that he personally received $450,000 once the church sale closed in early 2016 and an additional $440,000 in “finder’s fees” for introducing Vahdat to other church leaders. 

There followed a series of events whereby Vahdat was introduced to three other ministers and he purchased other churches in Harlem and one in Brooklyn using the same modus operandi. While claiming to be serving the Lord, the pastors were enriching themselves and really serving Vahdat. But by early 2018, the state attorney general’s office had begun investigating the church deals after hearing “allegations” that the churches’ sale terms had been changed. According to prosecutors, as the probe loomed, Vahdat asked two of the pastors to produce letters describing the personal payments he gave each of them as "having been made for charitable purposes for use on the churches’ behalf" — adding that he had given them the payments personally only for “expediency” and “convenience.”

According to Patch, clergy members pressed Vahdat in the ensuing months for answers about missing payments he owed to the churches and a lack of progress on the new developments. 

By 2021, state prosecutors intervened in the New York church dealings, reaching settlements with Vahdat in October and with two other pastors -- Rev. Melvin Wilson and Bishop G.M. Ingram -- in November. Vahdat agreed to "neither admit nor deny" the state's accusations, while Ingram and Wilson both promised not to make any public statements denying the investigation's findings.

"The clergy placed their self-interest ahead of the interests of the churches," the attorney general’s office wrote in a virtual presentation delivered to the AME churches in November 2021.

Let us take a close look at the punishment meted out to the offenders:

• Wilson and Ingram’s settlements both required them to pay back the money they received in a series of installments — plus, in Ingram’s case, the proceeds from his Rolex watch, which he sold for $33,000;
• Both men are barred from holding a role in any New York-based nonprofit or charity that involves dealing with money, though both can continue holding purely “spiritual” positions;
• Yet, both Wilson and Ingram appear to maintain active roles in the AME Church. Ingram and his wife were thrown a retirement party in 2021 and were pictured attending an AME board meeting earlier this summer, while Wilson’s LinkedIn profile lists him as the pastor of an AME church in Orange, N.J.;
• According to the Religious News Service (RNS), on August 31, the AME Church released a statement that condemned "the inappropriate practices of our colleague and the former presiding elder in the New York Conference, who currently pastors in the New Jersey Conference;"
• Ingram will not take part in any denominational events until 2024, while discipline against Wilson will be determined by the bishop now in Ingram's former role;
• Vahdat’s settlement, meanwhile, requires him to keep up to date on any payments owed to the churches and cover their legal fees.

I wonder as I conclude, what ever happened to this principle learned at Seminary: "He has shown you, O man (and woman), what is good; And what does the Lord require of you, But to do justly, To love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8, NKJV).

Prof. Vaughn E. James, Texas Tech University School of Law 

 

 

 

NYTimes looks at Hasidic Jewish Schools in New York City

The New York Times provided an interesting, though critical, look into Yeshivas in New York City. The two points that stand out are that the children of these schools, particularly the boys, are roundly not able to pass basic competency state tests assessing learning, and that the schools are taking in lots of public dollars to accomplish this result.

The story necessarily raises the issue of what role education plays within the nonprofit sector; what role nonprofits should play in primary and secondary education in a democratic order; what role primary and secondary education ought to provide in a democratic order; and what role religion should play in shaping any of that education. I have a draft paper thinking about charter schools within that order that I will be posting soon, that confronts some of those questions. But, it does not confront the role of religion in that order.

Primary and secondary education play many roles, but the two most significant that resonate in the US conception seem to be preparing individuals to be able to be employed and support themselves and also to support a democratic order. We are not born with the ability to do either of these things and it is in all our interests to ensure the children of the country have the ability to engage in both endeavors. From the description in the article, these schools are likely failing on both counts.

And yet, the notion of freedom of religion for parents to train children to uphold the values they uphold remains strong in our nation. This comes into stark contrast though with maintaining a just political order. I think there is a lot for the nonprofit world to reflect upon in this article. Worth some thought.

From the story: "The leaders of New York’s Hasidic community have built scores of private schools to educate children in Jewish law, prayer and tradition — and to wall them off from the secular world. Offering little English and math, and virtually no science or history, they drill students relentlessly, sometimes brutally, during hours of religious lessons conducted in Yiddish.

The result, a New York Times investigation has found, is that generations of children have been systematically denied a basic education, trapping many of them in a cycle of joblessness and dependency.

Segregated by gender, the Hasidic system fails most starkly in its more than 100 schools for boys. Spread across Brooklyn and the lower Hudson Valley, the schools turn out thousands of students each year who are unprepared to navigate the outside world, helping to push poverty rates in Hasidic neighborhoods to some of the highest in New York.

The schools appear to be operating in violation of state laws that guarantee children an adequate education. Even so, The Times found, the Hasidic boys’ schools have found ways of tapping into enormous sums of government money, collecting more than $1 billion in the past four years alone."

There are many highly critical responses of this article from the Orthodox community. Here is one.

Philip Hackney

Philanthropy News Digest: University of Haifa Receives $121.5 Million for Scholarship Funds

The Philanthropy News Digest is reporting that the University of Haifa in Israel has announced gifts totaling $121.5 million from Giving Pledger Elie Horn to establish two scholarship funds. Mr. Horn, who lives in Sao Paulo, Brazil, is the Syrian-born Brazilian Jewish founder of Cyrela Brazil Realty, Brazil's largest real estate company. Through their foundation (The Elie and Susy Horn Foundation), Horn and his wife, Susy, have supported Jewish communities and causes around the world in countries including Israel, Korea and Belarus.

The gifts include $120 million over 20 years in support of Ahavat Olam (Eternal Love) scholarships for students interested in pursuing in-depth studies in Jewish religion, heritage, and history. Scholarship recipients participate in enrichment courses and activities in fields promoting pluralistic Judaism, Jewish culture and heritage, and Jewish history. The remaining $1.5 million from Horn and his sister, Joyce Horn, which will be matched by the university, is earmarked for women who face difficulties financing their studies. The new scholarships will be available for the 2022-23 academic year.

The Philanthropy News Digest reports that in a press release, University of Haifa president and professor Ron Robin stated, "I’m proud that we are able to offer these scholarships and to help a large and diverse circle of candidates, particularly after two difficult years due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The University of Haifa promotes social mobility, and thanks to these new scholarships we will be able to make higher education accessible to wider circles who might otherwise have chosen not to pursue academic studies due to financial considerations. We are tremendously grateful to Mr. Elie Horn for his historic gift, and we look forward with excitement to the upcoming academic year.”

Prof. Vaughn E. James, Texas Tech University School of Law

Tax Exemption and Abortion

Over the last decade or so, we've seen a movement demanding that the IRS strip the tax exemption from churches that discriminate against LGBTQ individuals. Those demands are rooted in the Supreme Court's Bob Jones decision, which held that the requirements for tax exemption implicitly include not violating a fundamental public policy. The demands generally assume (or, sometimes, explicitly say) that LGBTQ rights have become a public policy, sufficiently embraced by government as to meet the "fundamental" standard. (David Herzig and I have written a little about this, including here.)

For various reasons (including especially that Bob Jones has only been expanded beyond racially-discriminatory private schools in the rarest of circumstances), these assertions have had rhetorical, but not legal, power. And I assumed they were rooted in the post-Bob Jones era.

But in researching a new project (I'm currently finish a draft of a book on Mormonism and the tax law, hopefully arriving sometime next year!) I learned that this kind of rhetorical activism predates 1983. In fact, in the early 1970s, the Feminist Party filed a complaint with the IRS asserting that the Catholic Church should lose its tax exemption. Why? Because of its involvement in the abortion debate.

Of course, it didn't ground the complaint in fundamental public policy. Instead, it claimed that the Church violated the tax law's restriction on lobbying.

The Feminist Party's complaint proved exactly as effective as later complaints in the LGBTQ context. Still, it's interesting to see tax exemption wielded as a pressure point on religious institutions before Bob Jones expressly made that a constitutional requirement, and it's interesting today to see it in the context of a reemergent abortion debate.

Samuel D. Brunson 

RNS: In Defiance of US Bishops, Nancy Pelosi Receives Communion at the Vatican

Last week's Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization has left the American public very divided. Many are angry; many are happy. The debate over the right to an abortion and women's rights to make their own decisions about their bodies has heated up. In the midst of this heated atmosphere, RNS reported today that in defiance of some U.S. Roman Catholic bishops, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi received Communion during a Mass presided over by Pope Francis on Wednesday (June 29) for the celebration of the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul.

Back in Speaker Pelosi's home diocese of San Francisco, California, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone announced on June 1 that the Catholic congresswoman is banned from receiving Communion due to her abortion rights stance. Since then, she has been barred from receiving the sacrament in four other dioceses. 

Pelosi called the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs an “outrageous and heart-wrenching” decision. The US Catholic Bishops lauded the court's decision, which they said overturned “an unjust law that has permitted some to decide whether others can live or die.”

But earlier today, Wednesday, Speaker Pelosi met with Pope Francis before the service and received a blessing, according to one of the Mass attendees. 

Sitting in the VIP section during the traditional Mass at St. Peter’s to celebrate the patron saints of Rome, Pelosi listened to Pope Francis’ homily before receiving Communion from one of the many priests in the basilica, according to eyewitnesses. Francis has rarely distributed Communion, citing precisely the desire to prevent politicization of the sacrament.

In his homily, Francis urged the faithful to “Go to the crossroads and bring everyone: blind, deaf, lame, sick, righteous, sinful, everyone, everyone! This word of the Lord must resound, resound in the mind and heart: everyone! In the church there is room for everyone!” He added that “many times we become a church with open doors but to dismiss people, to condemn people.”

The RNS article concludes by noting that

Last year, Pope Francis told reporters on his return flight from Central Europe that he has never denied Communion to anyone and criticized bishops who didn’t act as shepherds and “aligned themselves with political life, on political problems.” The Vatican’s doctrinal department, in a letter in May of last year, urged the U.S. bishops to engage in dialogue among themselves and with Catholic politicians before reaching any decision.

Well, in this, as in an increasing number of philosophies, there appears to be a great divide between these United States of America and the Rest of the World!

Prof. Vaughn E. James, Texas Tech University School of Law

Should Private Schools Proven to Discriminate Intentionally Receive Government Aid?

    In thinking about the recent Supreme Court decision in Carson v. Makin, No. 20-1088, which deals with private religious schools and state tuition programs, I raised the question of whether government aid should be awarded to private schools at all.  One reason I raised this issue is because private schools are not subject to the same civil rights laws as public schools.  Almost one year ago to the day, I blogged about how historically private schools have not been subject to federal civil rights laws because they did not receive federal funds.  I also noted that perhaps unknowingly, by virtue of receiving P.P.P. loans during the pandemic, private schools became subject to such laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.  In other words, private schools with P.P.P. loans cannot engage in racial discrimination against employees, students, parents, or other participants.  This includes in terms of employment, admissions, enrollment, and other treatment. 

    One must consider the compelling question whether private schools (which in the absence of a P.P.P. loan or other federal funding) are permitted to run afoul of civil rights laws, should be able to receive government aid under a state tuition program, which appears to be the case with the Maine law.  Granted, private schools (non-religious and religious) are subject to nondiscrimination requirements by virtue of their 501(c)(3) status, which they must attest to annually either by filing Form 990 or a statement with the IRS, respectively.  Nevertheless, it is important to consider that Title VI imposes prohibitions against racial discrimination not covered by section 501(c)(3).  One definite difference is that private schools who become subject to federal civil rights laws, e.g., those who receive P.P.P. loans, may have to pay compensatory damages to individuals who prove intentional discrimination in lawsuits against the schools.  In addition, injunctive relief may be awarded to such individuals.  In other words, these private schools are no longer shielded from causes of action from individuals and families who have faced racial discrimination at their hands.

    In the opinion, Chief Justice Roberts himself acknowledged the distinction between public schools and private schools in this regard:  “[T]o start with the most obvious, private schools are different by definition because they do not have to accept all students…”  Given that private schools (who have not received federal funds) largely are shielded from damages or injunctions for intentional discrimination which can be proven, should they be allowed to receive government aid?  This is the larger question that must be answered.

 

Khrista McCarden

Hoffman Fuller Professor of Tax Law

Tulane Law School

Charity Scandals: AME Church Suspends Pensions; Finance Director Stole $4.7 Million from WV Charity; Update on Minnesota's Feeding the Future

It sadly has become difficult to keep up with all of the news reports about charity insiders misusing funds - maybe it is time to update the 2003 paper by Marion R. Fremont-Smith and Andras Kosaras on Wrongdoing By Officers and Directors of Charities: A Survey of Press Reports 1995-2002, 42 Exempt Organization Tax Review 25. So I am going to limit my reporting here to several recent reports involving millions of dollars each:

• AME Church: The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that the African Methodist Episcopal Church "has suspended retirement payments and discussed steep cuts to the savings of its ministers amid an investigation into missing funds." The church further said that there is an ongoing investigation, including by federal law enforcement, of a possible financial crime. The pension fund, which reportedly had about $120 million in assets as of 2017, serves about 5,000 retired clergy and church workers. Additional coverage: Religious News Service.

• River Valley Child Development Services (West Virginia): MarketWatch reports that a court has ordered the former director of business and finance of this charity to repay $4.7 million that she stole in the wake of her guilty plea and sentencing to seven years in prison. The article goes on to note that as part of her restitution agreement she has agreed to forfeit six airplanes apparently from a small aircraft charter and aviation services company she owned, the proceeds from the sale of three houses, and two cars.

• Feeding the Future (Minnesota) Update: I previously reported on the apparent diversion of tens of millions of dollars from federal funds provided to this charity. The Star Tribune reports that a judge will now oversee the closure of the charity after a request from the Minnesota Attorney General's office and the charity's board voting to voluntarily dissolve it. The court has begun the process of obtaining financial documentation and a complete inventory of the charity's assets. To date no charges have been filed, but federal and state investigations are ongoing. Extensive additional coverage: N.Y. Times.

Lloyd Mayer