There has been growing criticism (and falling poll numbers) of Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger after she ran as a moderate and then immediately veered to the far left after her election. Once in power, Spanberger and the Democrats unleashed a slew of tax increases, moved to eliminate all but one Republican district in the purple state, passed an array of anti-gun laws, and enacted other controversial measures. One of these measures is a clearly unconstitutional effort to strip pro-Confederate groups of their tax exemption.
This week, Spanberger signed HB167, the law that eliminated the tax exemption for various confederacy-linked groups, including the Virginia Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, the General Organization of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, the Confederate Memorial Literary Society, the Stonewall Jackson Memorial, Incorporated, the Virginia Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and the J.E.B. Stuart Birthplace Preservation Trust, Inc.
Notably, as soon as they came into power, Democrats also passed House Bill 1377 to move against the Virginia Military Institute, including appointing a task force that could effectively close the historic school. Many Democrats have previoulsy sought to close VMI despite its unique and inspiring history in training some of our most famous military leaders, including General George Marshall. Liberals want to close the school due to its history from the Civil War.
Spanberger recently expressed support for the effort but returned the bill with suggestions to use the board of directors to carry out the review.
Spanberger’s substitute eliminates that task force entirely and instead directs VMI’s own board of visitors to carry out the review.
The board would be empowered to carry out a fairly hostile and open-ended agenda, including to “distance [VMI] from the Lost Cause narrative, foster an inclusive environment, and address any other concerns.” Spanberger has appointed 27 new board members, including former Gov. Ralph Northam, who is viewed as hostile to VMI.
The New York Times explained that the Democrats wanted to “distance Virginia from its Confederate past.” However, they also want to use a content-based law to discriminate against groups with which they disagree. The law clearly violates the First Amendment, but neither Spanberger nor the Virginia Democrats appear to care.
In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), the Court struck down a signage regulation because”restrictions … that apply to any given sign [depend] entirely on the communicative content of the sign.” Likewise, Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 116 (1991), the Court stressed that the government’s ability to impose content-based burdens on speech raises the specter that the government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.
From taxes to trademarks, content-based discrimination runs afoul of our free speech values. In Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017), the Court cited Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes decision in United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929), that “the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.'”
Over 30 years ago, I wrote about the collision between anti-discrimination laws and the free exercise of religion. I have been critical of the use of the tax code to effectively punish organizations that do not comport with the IRS’s view of good public policy.
That prior work was critical of the 1982 decision involving Bob Jones University, in which the Supreme Court upheld the denial of tax-exempt status. In the case of Bob Jones, the university was engaged in reprehensible racial discrimination. However, I wrote how the actual standard is far more vague and could potentially be used more broadly.
Virginia is an example of precisely that problem in the use of tax exemptions to engage in viewpoint discrimination.
I have opposed such moves with a variety of organizations with which I have long-standing objections. That includes the Administration’s threat to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status.
Tax exemption should not be a status bestowed upon those adhering to the demands of whatever party is in power. Free speech and associational rights are fostered by granting this status.
Virginia will now spend additional money to defend this unconstitutional action and fight for the right to discriminate against those who have opposing views in the state.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
The US was originally a Conferacy o the 13 colonies under the Articles of Confederation. It didn’t work out because the Federal government had no way to keep states in line and no way to raise revenue. It was also not a Democracy.The Confederacy was discarded for our Current Constitution and our limited form of democracy. Both were republics but Congress appointed the President under the Articles of Confederation. Ther is nothing wrong with the word Conferacy it’s just another form of government.
Profoundly stupid comment.
As you say there is nothing wrong with the actual WORD Confederacy.
But he original Confederacy was not the confederacy of the Civil War.
The problem is that the Confederacy in question actively waged war against the United States in an act of insurrection.
Afraid the reference to Harvard and comparing it to Virginia is inaccurate. The Trump administration threatened Harvard’s funding because of its race-based policies including denying admission to whites and Asians. It wasn’t about speech.
Iran is a disease that has snatched woke. There is no hope. This deadly virus mimics rabies. Grandad was an admiral and a surgeon during WW II. 7 sailors contracted rabies and as they died in the ship’s infirmary, the most horrible deaths he ever witnessed, they could do absolutely nothing to relieve their suffering. Nothing.
Iran has spread their fatal outlook and behavior to these Americans, wokers, and as they deteriorate before our very eyes, loyal Americans are powerless to intervene. We are forced to sit back and watch them sputter and writhe, convulse and go mad. Despite their vicious attacks, we regret to observe our once rational compatriots die excruciating deaths.
Democrat schills always leave something out. Trump is always so stupid. The friend of the Democrats known as Iran is running out of oil storage capacity so production wells will have to be shut down.
Oil well spoilage during extended shutdowns, known as shut-in, often results from water buildup, paraffin/tar accumulation, and equipment corrosion, which can make wells uneconomical or irreparable. Stagnant conditions cause phase separation, where water settles and gases
form corrosive, damaging substances that restrict flow upon restarting. This happens only thirteen days after a well has been shut down. Oh that stupid Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing. Right?
Start here:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, The American Founders, 1776
So funny, that’s what Democrats think they’re doing in Virginia.
The American Founders had had enough and secured their resolve.
It took a mere three years from the Boston Tea Party, December 16, 1773, to the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
Almost every day this blog reminds us that Race Politics has been made by the Democratic Party the prism for seeing all events current and past. I doubt that any country, even Germany in the 1930’s, has been as drenched as we are now by racially-themed political campaigns.
Sir. You says “after she ran as a moderate and then immediately veered to the far left after her election.” That is incorrect. When she ran she pretended to be a moderate and immediately after her election took the mask off.
Well Professor, I commend you and your continued effort to bring these things to light but when we are talking about lost causes I’m afraid the American left does not care. They have always had a disdain for the Constitution and an arrogance where they continue to tell us to sit down and shut up because we are too stupid to know what is best for us. Since Trump was re-elected they don’t seem to be seeking any approval from the American people, quite the contrary, they seem to be making an appeal to all non-Americans. I’m disheartened to watch people claim one party is “destroying democracy,” while they, themselves don’t seem to have opened a dictionary and read the definition of that word. I wish I could be optimistic but I’m not If I had to say how I feel, it would be something like the cup is four fifths empty right now. Congress is no longer a legislative branch, it is an off, off, off Broadway performative dance class full of the theater kids who perform to the squirrels and sparrows outside their tree fort. I could say what I think of much of our politicians (on both sides of the aisle though the left has a clear anti=American agenda) but I’m afraid the 1st Amendment wouldn’t protect my speech.
@Anonymous
Agreed. This from Walz recently, in Europe. Do not tell me the dems are not part of a globalist regime:
https://justthenews.com/world/europe/europe-walz-rips-trump-attacking-iran-no-threat-present-thats-fascism?utm_source=breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
Really, the modern left is quite simply, evil. They cannot be anywhere near the levers of power in this country again anytime soon. I hope ALL Americans of Iranian ancestry are taking note.
Isn’t one of the definitions of insanity to be doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I am beginning to see a pattern here with democrats who, I would suspect are very familiar with the constitution under which they live and work, would have realized that their proffered legislations will run up against that document and be rejected; yet still the continue, time after time. Is it insanity or is it just stubborn, myopic, indoctrination that keeps pushing them on and on?
Results are never the same.
“Isn’t one of the definitions of insanity to be doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I am beginning to see a pattern here with democrats”
I wish that observation applied only to Democrats. Sadly, the exact same thing is true of far too many Republicans. Thune for one very prominent example.
True, insanity is sui generis. But when you begin to wear it as a badge of your ideology, it can be alarming.
@whimsicalmama
Yes, until they change it, and I really do believe at this point that is their full intention; and they are willing to play the long and supremely underhanded game. 🤷🏻
More desperation from dems. Trump has trumped them and they still don’t realize it!
Trump has WON the game of politics, once and for all, and it’s a new dawn of American Politics because of him and he’s just getting started!
Our next president will be operating in a world made greater by benevolent Trump. I already got more than what I voted for, – amazing!
“the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”
OK, but how do you get from tolerating “a thought you hate” to a hate campaign targeting YOU as a demonic figure deserving of social, economic or even physical cancellation?….and threatening your family members by association?
Hmmm. the shoe doesn’t quite fit on the other foot, does it?
This is exactly where Prof. Turley drifts off into naive idealism in his permissive, no-consequences approach to free speech. “Thoughts you hate, and ad-hominem hate directed at YOU are two very different levels of objectionable speech.
Free speech is a balance point centered between two ugly extremes…the authoritarian state built on censorship and propaganda — and the anarchy of militants bullying opponents and unhinged tribalistic “us vs. them” warfare.
Somewhere lost in Turley’s framework is the survival of a cohesive polity able to function in realtime making non-regrettable public decisions — the “functionalism” he devalues as lower in importance than free speech. What that means is that, it doesn’t matter if government can function at all, so long as hateful voices have freedom to spread fear and loathing.
Only a foolish people will voluntarily dispense with the requirement for civility. Because without civility, speech becomes weaponized, a tool of the most manipulative, paranoid, distempered, inauthentic, and militant actors. When the tone of the public square falls under their unhinged rage, meritocratic argument is drowned out, and public decisionmaking is prone to paralysis, ping-pong gyrations, and regrettable outcomes.
Under Pres. Trump’s renunciation of DEI, it’s time to stop the teaching of hateful factionalism, whether at Harvard or VMI.
I respectfully disagree. The law is capable of tolerating mere thought we hate, while not protecting hateful speech that rises to the level of threats, defamation, and fraud. That is exactly what the First Amendment requires it to do.
We have laws against death threats and against wire fraud. What’s the track record of these being enforced? It’s always easier to tolerate iffy behavior than to effectively deter it.
It’s hard to uphold civility precisely because there’s no red line everyone can agree upon.
Even something like the existence of members-only chat rooms, where the participants one-up each other coercing younger teens into self-harm — what 99.9% of us would label utter depravity — and yet the operators, hosts and sick participants of these chat rooms argue 1st Amendment rights and mock the majority’s feckless grip over “upholding norms”.
If what you’re saying is true, why doesn’t “the law” protect young teens from this organized, malicious depravity? It’s because, an escapist framework of free speech is easy compared to one demanding responsibility. Figuring out where the limits on free speech begin is not for the simpleminded, nor the intellectually weak, nor the morally confused.
Nor is figuring out how to consistently uphold those limits without wading into state control over ideation. That’s why I say free speech is a balance point between two very noxious bookends. People who are striving to find that balance point, especially with new digital media and AI care about where our society is heading. The closed-minded way we are labelled as enemies of free speech is totally undeserved, and a barometer of creeping militancy and incivility in dealing with complex, gnarly issues.
Recall Spamberger and charge her with fraud. She fraudulently misrepresented herself during the campaign. Her opponent can begin.
“Her opponent can begin.”
WInnie Sears comes from a military background and for better or worse, would imo be unlikely to go down the lawfare path.
There is no provision in Virginia law to recall the governor. It’s impeachment, or nothing.
Turley would support NAMBLA recruiting on elementary school grounds.
Yes, he can’t even bring himself to address online terrorists brainwashing his own children, leaving us wondering if that interference would be classified by him as “speech I don’t like, but would defend to the death their right to express”.
No court or judge enjoys any power to legislate, execute, modify, amend, or modify-by-interpretation any statutory or fundamental law—not by “precedent,” “settled law,” “doctrine” et al.
The judicial branch enjoys merely the judicial power, that is, to judge or to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises.
The 1st Amendment is unqualified and is, therefore, absolute.
____________________________________________________________________
“According to the literal, unadorned text of the First Amendment, the freedoms of speech and press are absolute and “Congress shall make no law” abridging them.”
“Under a strictly literal interpretation of the First Amendment and the Supremacy Clause, any law abridging speech or the press—including defamation—is unconstitutional because the written text provides no exceptions and judges have no power to amend it.”
– Gemini
____________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;….
I note that § 58.1-360 (lines 219 through 230) of the bill signed by Spanberger curiously left in place the tax exemption for the Robert E. Lee Memorial Foundation (a prominent Confederate Civil War hero and slave-owner, among other things) —but struck/removed the tax-exempt status of the little ole Confederate Memorial Literary Society, with an income less than $150K –the majority of which had been dedicated to the American Civil War Museum. (See Schedule A, https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/view_990/540699599/2a6c3031b3a43b33f6407895853319bd )
Sad.
I looked both up. The Robert E. Lee Memorial Foundation consists (and is the asset-holder) of the prior expansive and historic residence and grounds of Lee (protected by the National Trust for Historic Preservation) –which includes almost 2,000 acres along the Potomac River, and brings in tons of tourism monies, inter alia. …Not so much for the Confederate Memorial Literary Society, so why was it stricken?
Likewise, Robert E. Lee is long deceased and doesn’t speak out; but the Spanberger-stricken Virginia Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the General Organization of the United Daughters of the Confederacy have literally thousands and thousands of living members….
Typical of conservatives to want continued celebration of slave labor work camps and memorialization of those who sought to keep Black Americans in leg chains and lashed with a whip.
Recall how long it took to drive down cigarette smoking – not all at once, but starting at the edges.
Getting rid of memorialization by racist organizations is going to take time.
You mean like the Robert E. Lee Memorial, which got Spanberg’s tax exemption?
It’s history. History should not be erased, the good, bad and ugly.
You should occasionally use a mirror to see the self-inflicted bite marks on your back.
???
Well, there’s a silly statement that has nothing to do with the issue.
I agree that is curious. I suspect that this is the result of political strategy and that once one set of organizational exceptions are stripped away, a subsequent bill will be passed to complete their removal of exempt status. The backers of this legislation just did not want to have too much fussing to impede their “progress”.
In a side note, you write about General Lee, “a prominent Confederate Civil War hero and slave-owner, among other things” The reality is a bit more interesting. First Lee was a long time army officer. At that time there were no accommodations for slaves on US army forts so Lee certainly when stationed at army installations had his wife but no slaves with him. And unlike many other southern officers, Lee’s family did not possess plantations to accomodate slaves. (Lee’s father went bankrupt and fled leaving Lee’s family penurious.) So it is not clear if Lee actually, by title, owned slaves. On the other hand, his wife, from the wealthy and famous Custis family, did. It turns out that in 1858 Lee’s wife’s uncle died bequeathing her with three plantations – one of which is the site of Arlington National Cemetery and two in the Richmond environs. Lee was made executor with instructions to free the slaves in 5 years – that is in the year of 1862. This was such a demanding tasks to get the plantations in shape to sell, that Lee took leave from his military duties. The war came and true to his word, in 1862 General Lee emancipated the inherited slaves fulfilling his obligations even in the midst of General Lee’s pressing military duties.
While we may not agree with Lee’s decision to defend the Confederacy and by extension the values of the Virginia citizens at that time including slavery, it is clear the General Lee held himself to an astonishing high level of personal ethics. So even today, General Lee’s reputation summation does not neatly fit into categories emphasized by the modern public immersed in present day values.
Thanks for filling that in/fleshing it out.
In my comment to X/George, I spent some time on Court/IRS clarifications that tax exemptions/deductions/”subsidies” include a component of “public benefit.” It is indeed curious that the “public benefit” of the history and understanding of the Civil War might “benefit” one side of the story via tax exemption, but not the other. In this case, the comprehensive iteration of history is the “public benefit.” While, of course, we would want to promote the idea that the war’s conclusion was the correct one, and that slavery was inherently contrary to America’s founding principles, the “public benefit” to historical accuracy, in my mind, means that from an informational/educational standpoint, the PRESERVATION OF THE HISTORY behind BOTH sides deserves equal tax exemption.
Before my time, but I later learned about Big Mama Rag, which lost its tax exemption – later restored on appeal, after the appellate court deemed that it lost its status because of unfavorable but constitutionally-protected views. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/494/473/2150407/ And of course, we remember the IRS being called out for its exaggerated and particularized scrutiny of Tea Party groups seeking exemption….
It’s my understanding that exempt status is premised on educational method and truth, even if such promotes unpopular views that are not propagandistic (is that a word? ha ha. sorry if it is not). So that’s why I understand what JT was saying.
gotta go now, thanks for taking the time for that insight.
I join you agreeing on the need for the preservation of history – both sides. Getting back to General Lee, it is interesting that in 1869, he wrote a letter declining to endorse the erections of monuments of notable leaders of the Confederacy, including himself, saying in part, that he preferred “not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife.” Clearly General Lee had pivoted from conflict to reconciliation and had wanted to get this whole affair behind him and focus the attention of his fellow southerners on the future. With our distance from those events, one could perhaps disagree. In England, one frequently comes across castles that have been “slighted” because their owners were on the losing side. I am glad, though, that these castles where not completely demolished. Similarly in my hometown, I would marvel at the remains of a civil war fort, the earthen works still clearly visible. Pictures or textual accounts are simply inadequate.
Lin, this reinforces the state’s argument that the bill is based on secular, fiscal, and educational utility. If the state keeps an exemption for a site that provides massive public education and tourism but removes it for a private membership group, it is making a utilitarian distinction, not a “totalitarian” or viewpoint-based one.
Lin, what do you think the reason for doing this is?
To crush an historical group of women whom they hate? To do harm?
“The Robert E. Lee Memorial Foundation… brings in tons of tourism monies.”
Does RELMF have substantial fungible assets that Spamburger & co could have plans to confiscate?
JT – Obfuscation much?
He remember Hunter and all the money he made off his dad?
Nothing like that is happening in the trump administration. Nothing at all.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/18/iran-war-bets-ethics-concerns
Anonymous, your post makes it look like the betting on world affairs is somehow connected to the Trump administration. In the article in the Guardian that you have mentioned there is no mention of wagering on world events by any Republican.
Quoting from the Guardian.
We can’t say from the outset whether any of these trades were illegal. Any one of them could be lucky, and any one of them could be based on lawful information,” said Andrew Verstein, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles.
One thing we know for sure is that Hunter Biden received millions from the Ukraine and China for doing nothing. Do you ever ask yourself if you’re twisting a narrative to fit a preconceived conclusion?
Silly question.
The Guardian is a liberal left organization and was supported initially by big tech, Apple, etc.
YES Ms. Abigail Spanberger, It’s time to burn down Mount Vernon (Va.) plantation of George Washington,
because it the epitome of this Great White Nation The United State of America
[Link] mountvernon.org/
Also Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello as it is the symbol of Slaver and Independence of White slave owners.
[Link] monticello.org/
And while your at it, James Madison’s Montpelier home should be torched as he was the White genius behind the codified servitude of the repressed Masses.
[Link] montpelier.org/
Oh YES Ms. Spanberger you’re on a roll, why stop now!
In Bob Jones, the school was actively practicing racial discrimination. In the case of HB167, the state is arguing that it is no longer in the public interest to provide a direct financial subsidy to groups whose primary mission is the memorialization of a government that fought to preserve slavery. The state has a compelling interest in ensuring taxpayer funds do not support ideologies that contradict the state’s current anti-discrimination values.
Does the state not have a compelling interest in protecting freedom of thought and speech?
The state protects “freedom of thought and speech” by not arresting people for their ideas, not banning their books, and not preventing them from gathering.
The state’s duty to protect speech does not create a “positive” obligation to pay for that speech through tax breaks. An organization’s right to think and speak remains fully intact whether they pay property taxes or not.
And you know all that how? Can you cite the relevant laws?
Va. Code § 58.1-3607: This section previously listed several organizations by name that were granted tax exemptions “by designation”. HB167 stripped these specific named groups, including the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Confederate Memorial Literary Society, from the list.
Va. Code § 58.1-811: This law governs exemptions from state recordation taxes. HB167 removed the specific exemption previously granted to the Virginia Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy for deeds and leases
Ha georgie didn’t even know where to look until After Lin cited Va. Code § 58. At first I thought he was a paid agitator or a student that Turley gave a bad grade to. Then I thought he was a really stupid lawyer who did not want to admit that he was because of all the laughs he gets from real lawyers. Now I just think he is a hybrid, a stupid agitator, probably an old man.
Ah, the super politicization of colleges… eliminate the few conservative schools out there, is the next step in super wokism revolution. UVA which has become a woke bastion of liberals, is about to go further left, thanks to the lying leftist guvna. It’s so sad to see Virginia turn into a bad version of NJ (high, stupid spending and continually rising taxes, folks continually leaving) crossed with insanely-run California( but without the nice climate).
Turley forgot to mention that the government is not required to subsidize specific speech. A tax exemption is a privilege, not a constitutional right. Removing a subsidy does not prevent these groups from speaking, meeting, or associating; it simply requires them to pay the same property and other taxes as most other entities. While Turley argues this is a violation of free speech he seems to think that a tax exemption allows them to exercise free speech for some weird reason. You don’t need a tax exemption to exercise free speech.
“subsidize”
That word does not mean what you think it means.
But nice deception.
Sam,
The term “subsidy” is precisely how courts and fiscal experts describe tax exemptions. Even the U.S. Supreme Court and legal scholars consistently treat tax exemptions as a form of government subsidy.
It means exactly what it means.
No. A “subsidy” is a “grant or gift of money,” often from the government (as in the Pell Grant).
The removal of a tax exemption is not a grant or gift. It is the confiscation of money.
Sam,
Regan v. Taxation With Representation (1983): Justice Rehnquist, writing for a unanimous Court, stated: “A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay.
Also, the law views taxes as a common burden for the maintenance of society (roads, police, courts). When a specific group is exempt from that common burden, they are essentially being “carried” by the other taxpayers.
If you have no “right” to a tax exemption in the first place, removing it cannot be “confiscation.” Most entities—from the local grocery store to the average citizen—are required to pay taxes.
With any due respect, No, George/X: I regret that this is what happens when you rely on AI or Google after you plug in your confirmation-biased search query. You get selective results that you either copy and paste, or rewrite to say what you want them to say/mean.
In the Bob Jones case that you thought you were scoring a point with, the Court expressly stated “When the Government grants exemptions or allows deductions all taxpayers are affected; the very fact of the exemption or deduction for the door means that other taxpayers can be said to be indirect and vicarious ‘donors.'” Then, X/Geo, the Court expressly explained that to justify its exemption, an organization must show that it “confers a public benefit.”
And as far as tax exemptions are related to “subsidies” according to the Treasury Dept and IRS, you might want to look at GCM 33495 or maybe IR-2004-8, (which mostly only affect charitable organizations) LIMITING the understanding of a “subsidy” as having a requirement that it confers such societal benefit, i.e., “For many tax-exempt entities, most notably charities, tax-exemption, the charitable contribution deduction, and other tax benefits constitute an indirect subsidy of activities Congress has determined are beneficiary to society.”
So, why don’t you tell us –in your own words– why an American Civil War Museum’s benefactor, the Confederate Memorial Literary Society, or the Virginia Chapter of the Daughters of the Confederacy, among others, were removed from tax exemption, but not others? Do you think that this might at least partially be what Professor Turley was alluding to?
Please, be specific and cite your sources as foundational for your own personal opinion. Thanks in advance. Yours truly, lin.
Lin.
You’re reinforing the government’s hand. If the IRS or a state legislature determines that an organization’s activities are “contrary to a fundamental public policy” (the Bob Jones standard), it must deny the exemption. By citing these, you confirm that the government has the right—and sometimes the duty—to judge the “benefit” of an organization before granting it tax-exempt status.
The CMLS and UDC held named exemptions written into the code during the 1950s—an era of “Massive Resistance” to integration in Virginia. HB167 targets these specific “carve-outs” because they were granted based on the political favoritism of that era, rather than the neutral “charitable” criteria used for groups like the Robert E. Lee Memorial Foundation, which manages a National Historic Landmark (Stratford Hall) with immense tourism and preservation value.
Lin, the determination of what constitutes a “public benefit” is a legislative function, not a permanent right. As societal values evolve, the legislature (elected by the people) has the authority to decide that organizations dedicated to the “Lost Cause” narrative or the memorialization of the Confederacy no longer meet the threshold of conferring a “societal benefit” that justifies a taxpayer-funded subsidy.
My source?
Va. Constitution Article X, § 6 gives the General Assembly the specific power to establish and revoke tax exemptions.
They key issue is the organizations having their tax exemptions revoked were specifically named in law. Removing them does not prevent them from exercising their free speech rights. There is no right to a tax exemption. Virginia’s constitution gives the legislature the power to revoke them and grant them.
But if you subsidize speech which you approve of, while not subsiding speech of which you disapprove, are you not practicing viewpoint discrimination and using state power to disfavor certain forms of speech?
In Rust v. Sullivan, the Court ruled that the government can “selectively fund a program to encourage certain activities it believes to be in the public interest, without at the same time funding an alternative program.
Proponents of HB167 argue the state isn’t disfavoring speech; it is simply deciding that “memorializing a rebellion against the United States” no longer meets the state’s criteria for a tax-funded public benefit.
A point Turley keeps ignoring is the groups were written into the Virginia Code by name during the Jim Crow era.
Removing a specific, named privilege that was granted based on the political winds of the 1950s isn’t “practicing discrimination”—it is ending a legacy of state-sponsored favoritism. By removing these “special” exemptions, the state is actually moving toward a more neutral tax code where these groups are treated like every other private organization.
If the state passed a law saying “Confederate groups must pay a higher tax than everyone else,” that would be an unconstitutional penalty. But HB167 simply says they must pay the standard tax. Requiring a group to follow the same rules as everyone else is rarely viewed by courts as “using state power to disfavor” them.
In Rust v. Sullivan? No such case George. You’re lying again. HB167? Your interpretation is completely wrong. It does not decide anything, it stipulates a process. More lies George.
And yet you don’t provide proof that it is wrong. Prove me wrong using facts, cases, sources.
In Regan v. Taxation With Representation, the Court held that a legislature’s decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe that right.
Proponents argue that the original laws were examples of viewpoint favoritism—the state giving special financial gifts to a specific historical narrative. Repealing these specific laws is a move toward neutrality, ensuring that the state code no longer identifies and privileges certain ideologies by name.
Regan v. Taxation ? W_T_F is that supposed to be? Whatever it is, you’re making it up. You’re lying as usual.
Try reading for comprehension. It’s not “Reagan v. Taxation”. Read it again. It’s Reagan vs. Taxation without representation of Washington.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/461/540/
A tax exemption is LAW, NOT a privilege. How stoopid can you be man? Another attempt to pawn lies as knowledge eh George.
Tax exemptions are codified in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), specifically under Title 26 of the U.S. Code. law. Everyone knows that except you.
Nope.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that no taxpayer has a constitutional right to a tax exemption or deduction. Instead, these are considered “legislative grace” granted by lawmakers.
A “privilege” in a legal context is a benefit granted by the state that is not a basic civil right. Tax-exempt status is a privilege created by law, but because the law-making body (Congress or a state legislature) created it, that same body has the authority to repeal it.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 eliminated personal exemptions for millions of Americans. This was a change in the law, but it proved those exemptions were not a permanent right.
Under the Code of Virginia, the General Assembly has the specific constitutional and statutory power to designate—and de-designate—exempt property.
Clearly you don’t understand how the law works.
(OT)
Here’s a howler, from this morning:
“The Strait of Hormuz will remain under Iranian military control, *Iran’s navy said today* . . .” (Emphasis added)
Apparently, that “navy” can communicate from Davy Jones’ Locker.
Then comes the FAFO in 3, 2, 1 . . .
They fired on 2 tankers yesterday, and forced 20 others to turn around.
They are in total control of the Strait.
Why does it sound like you are rooting for them?
Not rooting for them.
Merely stating actual facts, that are never to be found on this worthless blog.
As we all know, the MAGA cult prefers “ALTERNATIVE” facts, rather than reality.
No sources most likely liberal pucky!
Rooting? It’s a simple statement of fact. So you’re the self-[appointed nazi who polices speech here huh?
Iran is “in total control of the Strait.”
Really?
Then why can’t any of Iran’s ships get through the Strait? Could it be because the U.S. Navy ( a real, still-existing navy) is enforcing a complete blockade of Iranian ships?
If Iran’s navy is so powerful (and intact), then why don’t they challenge the U.S. navy’s blockade? Could it be because Iranian propaganda from Davy Jones’ Locker is no match for reality?
As late as 2017, a unanimous SCOTUS in Matal v. Tam held that viewpoint discrimination is unconstitutional. The case did not get much attention because it involved an aspect of U.S. trademark law. U.S. law prohibited the registration (and, therefore, protection) of trademarks that were disparaging. The Asian-American rock band The Slants sued the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and won.
An excellent reminder, thank you. (I am familiar with the case.) (I’m hoping that a few commenters here today will “comprehensively” read it to understand the full reach of First Amendment protections, and what may constitute violations.)
Unlike the trademark ban in Tam, which could effectively prevent a band from protecting its name in the marketplace, HB167 does not ban the UDC’s speech, meetings, or libraries.
Here’s a key point, the bill is not about suppressing speech, but rather about removing special name-based carve-outs that were added to the state code during the segregation era to favor a specific historical narrative. It doesn’t say they can’t say what they have been saying all this time. It just removes a special exemption that was given to them as a privilege not a right.
“… that the government may impose… burdens on speech…raises the specter that the government may drive certain viewpoints and ideas from the marketplace.” For Dems that’s a feature, not a bug. In a little over 2 years we may find alot more than freedom of speech driven out of the civic and social marketplace. We should believe the Dem’s promises for our future and act accordingly.