01.02.87

Page 1

VOL. 31, NO.1.

Friday, January 2, 1987

FALL RIVER, MASS.

Southeastern Massachusetts' Largest Weekly

•

$8 Per Year

A New Year Wish for You May the Christ, the Son of Light, This year grow strong in thee, Tran~forming

all thy days and hours

As sun. transforms a tree.

NC photo

Did Supreme Court do Catholic press a favor? WASHINGTON (NC) - The Supreme Court pr.ovided a stirring endorsement of the First Amendment and may have done the nonprofit press a favor when it ruled in favor of a pro-life group and its election edition newsletter. In a 5-4 decision, the high COlm ruled Dec. 15 that applying a law forbidding corporate campaign activity to Massachusetts Citizens for Life was unconstitutional because it "infringes protected speech without a compelling justification for such infringement." Although the decision involved corporate law, and a pro-life group, not a religious newspaper, the high court might have done the nonprofit press a favor, according to James Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Press Association. "This is a really ringing affirmation of the First Amendment free speech rights of a non-profit corporation," he said. "I think it's important. It may be useful as a precedent" for any future dispute involving the religious press, he added, underscoring the words "may be." Internal Revenue Service rulings have forced newspapers published by organizations with tax-exempt

status to avoid editorial endorsements of specific candidates and refrain from offering candidate surveys and voting record compilations in a manner that could be perceived as biased. For example, according to the U.S. Catholic Conference, voting record compilations "must deal with a wide range of subjects," refrain from stating if a politician agrees with the church's or organization's position, and not reveal whet-her the church or organization agrees or disagrees with the legislator's vote; newspapers must exert similar _care in candidate surveys. Nonetheless, "although a Catholic newspaper may not endorse any candidate, it may report election and other political news in an ' unbiased manner,"the USCC told diocesan newspapers in a 1984 memorandum. In the Supreme Court case, Federal Commission vs. Massachusetts Citizens for Life Inc., the pro-life group got into trouble over a special election edition of its newsletter. While not endorsing candi-. dates, the special publication listed voting records, highlighted with photographs those politicians with

especially good pro-life records, noted whether candidates' records complied with the anti-abortion group's beliefs, and urged citizensto "Vote Pro-Life." The Supreme Court unanimously refused to accord the newsletter's special edition the exemption

granted to the news media, such as daily newspapers, to publish political advocacy and editorials. Furthermore, it said Massachusetts Citizens for Life broke the law, as a corporate entity, by making what was in effect a contribution on behalf of certain candi-

"

She's a distinguished teacher.

dates through publication of the material in the special edition. However, in the crucial part of the decision, a 5-4 court majority ruled that applying corporate campaign law to a non-profit corporaTurn to Page Six

See page 2.


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.
01.02.87 by The Anchor - Issuu