Category: Warren Throckmorton

The UK Guardian reported yesterday that two state AG’s (NY and NC) will look into the finances of Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow and his fundraising charities. Examining the federal tax forms from Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism (2015 990), I can see why. Remember CASE is the nonprofit which serves as the fundraising organization for Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice, supposedly a religious liberty law firm.
According to the IRS, family relationship on the board of a nonprofit raise a red flag:

Irrespective of size, a governing board should include independent members and should not be dominated by employees or others who are not, by their very nature, independent individuals because of family or business relationships. The Internal Revenue Service reviews the board composition of charities to determine whether the board represents a broad public interest, and to identify the potential for insider transactions that could result in misuse of charitable assets.

It seems obvious that a nonprofit should not be organized like a closely held family company. Now look at the board of Sekulow’s CASE:

Perhaps the name of the organization should be changed to Christian Advocates Serving Sekulows.
The only person on the board who is not named Sekulow is Colby May. However, he cannot be considered an independent board member because his income is dependent on grant money received from CASE/ACLJ.  May runs the ACLJ’s DC affiliate which is completely funded by CASE/ACLJ. A review of ACLJ-DC’s 990 form shows May as the Director.

ACLJ-DC’s income was reported on the 2015 990 as $853,796.

As can be seen on ACLJ’s 2015 990, a grant of the exact same amount was given to ACLJ-DC.

 
I suspect CASE might have to provide more information to the AGs about how executive compensation was decided since none of the board members can be considered independent. Again, the IRS guidelines specify independence in setting compensation.

The Internal Revenue Service encourages a charity to rely on the rebuttable presumption test of section 4958 of the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulation section 53.4958-6 when determining compensation of its executives. Under this test, compensation payments are presumed to be reasonable if the compensation arrangement is approved in advance by an authorized body composed entirely of individuals who do not have a conflict of interest with respect to the arrangement, the authorized body obtained and relied upon appropriate data as to comparability prior to making its determination, and the authorized body adequately documented the basis for its determination concurrently with making the determination.

The CASE/ACLJ 990 form indicates the Sekulows and CASE/ACLJ engaged in four sizable mutual transactions as well as a major one involving a company half-owned by Jay Sekulow. See below:

Given the fact that none of the board members can be considered independent, how could this board prevent conflicts of interest as defined by the IRS?

B. Conflicts of interest. The directors of a charity owe it a duty of loyalty. The duty of loyalty requires a director to act in the interest of the charity rather than in the personal interest of the director or some other person or organization. In particular, the duty of loyalty requires a director to avoid conflicts of interest that are detrimental to the charity. Many charities have adopted a written conflict of interest policy to address potential conflicts of interest involving their directors, trustees, officers, and other employees. The Internal Revenue Service encourages a charity’s board of directors to adopt and regularly evaluate a written conflict of interest policy that requires directors and staff to act solely in the interests of the charity without regard for personal interests; includes written procedures for determining whether a relationship, financial interest, or business affiliation results in a conflict of interest; and prescribes a course of action in the event a conflict of interest is identified.

According to the 990, a third party expert reviewed the 5-million payment to Sekulow’s law firm and said it was all fine. I hope the AGs get to interview that third party. In the spirit of transparency, I call on Sekulow and company to disclose the identity of the expert and the basis on which the transaction is reasonable.
I hope the attention Sekulow is now getting will shine a light on the disgusting fund raising practices too many Christian charities use. Many such charities flaunt the very values and beliefs they claim to be upholding.

June 29, 1787 (click to read Madison’s notes)

Summary

On this day in Convention, the delegates decided on proportional representation in the House of Representatives and postponed a vote on representation in the Senate. Connecticut delegate Oliver Ellsworth introduced the Connecticut Compromise for consideration.

Influences on the Delegates

The delegates picked up on June 29 as if Franklin had never made his call to prayer.  They resumed the debate over representation in the legislature straightaway. The first words of Madison’s notes reflect the divisions over the power of states and how they should be represented in the national legislature.

In Convention. —  Doctor JOHNSON. The controversy must be endless whilst gentlemen differ in the grounds of their arguments; those on one side considering the States as districts of people composing one political society: those on the other, considering them as so many political societies. The fact is, that the States do exist as political societies, and a government is to be formed for them in their political capacity, as well as for the individuals composing them.

However Connecticut’s William Johnson laid some groundwork for a compromise.

On the whole he [Johnson] thought, that, as in some respects the States are to be considered in their political capacity, and in others as districts of individual citizens, the two ideas embraced on different sides, instead of being opposed to each other, ought to be combined; that in one branch the people ought to be represented, in the other the States.

Madison used Britain as a point of comparison. The new government would be better for the states than the British arrangement.

According to the views of every member, the General Government will have powers far beyond those exercised by the British Parliament when the States were part of the British Empire. It will, in particular, have the power, without the consent of the State Legislatures, to levy money directly from the people themselves; and therefore, not to divest such unequal portions of the people as composed the several States of an equal voice, would subject the system to the reproaches and evils which have resulted from the vicious representation in Great Britain.

Madison then pointed the delegates to the European experience.

His [Madison’s] great fear was, that their Governments would then have too much energy; that this might not only be formidable in the large to the small States, but fatal to the internal liberty of all. The same causes which have rendered the old world the theatre of incessant wars, and have banished liberty from the face of it, would soon produce the same effects here. The weakness and jealousy of the small States would quickly introduce some regular military force, against sudden danger from their powerful neighbours. The example would be followed by others, and would soon become universal. In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive magistrate. Constant apprehension of war has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty.

And then, adding to what had become a familiar formula, Madison referred to the results of flaws in the system of Rome.

The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim, to excite a war whenever a revolt was apprehended.

He closed by suggesting there was something for the delegates to learn from Britain and Europe.

Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved, the people. It is, perhaps, questionable, whether the best-concerted system of absolute power in Europe, could maintain itself, in a situation where no alarms of external danger could tame the people to the domestic yoke. The insular situation of Great Britain was the principal cause of her being an exception to the general fate of Europe. It has rendered less defence necessary, and admitted a kind of defence which could not be used for the purpose of oppression. These consequences, he conceived, ought to be apprehended, whether the States should run into a total separation from each other, or should enter into partial confederacies. Either event would be truly deplorable; and those who might be accessary to either, could never be forgiven by their country, nor by themselves.

Although vague, Hamilton’s reference to miracles bears notice.

We should run every risk in trusting to future amendments. As yet we retain the habits of union. We are weak, and sensible of our weakness. Henceforward, the motives will become feebler, and the difficulties greater. It is a miracle that we are now here, exercising our tranquil and free deliberations on the subject. It would be madness to trust to future miracles. A thousand causes must obstruct a re-production of them.

If he had made this statement at another time, I might not mention Hamilton’s skepticism. However, it seems noteworthy because his statement about “madness to trust to future miracles” came the day after Ben Franklin urged the delegates to seek heaven’s assistance. Willing to acknowledge that the Convention was an improbable event, he didn’t believe the delegates should expect any more such miracles.
Near the end of the session, Ellsworth of Connecticut offered a compromise. In this oration, he mentioned the example of Holland to support his point. I include the whole speech because it formed the basis for our present system.

 Mr. ELLSWORTH moved, “that the rule of suffrage in the second branch be the same with that established by the Articles of Confederation.” He was not sorry, on the whole, he said, that the vote just passed had determined against this rule in the first branch. He hoped it would become a ground of compromise with regard to the second branch. We were partly national, partly federal. The proportional representation in the first branch was conformable to the national principle, and would secure the large States against the small. An equality of voices was conformable to the federal principle, and was necessary to secure the small States against the large. He trusted that on this middle ground a compromise would take place. He did not see that it could on any other, and if no compromise should take place, our meeting would not only be in vain, but worse than in vain. To the eastward, he was sure Massachusetts was the only State that would listen to a proposition for excluding the States, as equal political societies, from an equal voice in both branches. The others would risk every consequence rather than part with so dear a right. An attempt to deprive them of it was at once cutting the body of America in two, and, as he supposed would be the case, somewhere about this part of it. The large States he conceived would, notwithstanding the equality of votes, have an influence that would maintain their superiority. Holland, as had been admitted (by Mr. MADISON), had, notwithstanding a like equality in the Dutch confederacy, a prevailing influence in the public measures. The power of self-defence was essential to the small States. Nature had given it to the smallest insect of the creation. He could never admit that there was no danger of combinations among the large States. They will like individuals find out and avail themselves of the advantage to be gained by it. It was true the danger would be greater if they were contiguous, and had a more immediate and common interest. A defensive combination of the small States was rendered more difficult by their greater number. He would mention another consideration of great weight. The existing Confederation was founded on the equality of the States in the article of suffrage, — was it meant to pay no regard to this antecedent plighted faith. Let a strong Executive, a Judiciary, and Legislative power, be created, but let not too much be attempted, by which all may be lost. He was not in general a half-way man, yet he preferred doing half the good we could, rather than do nothing at all. The other half may be added when the necessity shall be more fully experienced.

 

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

To read my series examining the proceedings of the Constitution Convention, click here.  In this series, I am writing about any obvious influences on the development of the Constitution which were mentioned by the delegates to the Convention. Specifically, I am testing David Barton’s claim that “every clause” of the Constitution is based on biblical principles. Thus far, I have found nothing supporting the claim. However, stay tuned, the series will run until mid-September.
Constitutional Convention Series (click the link)
To follow on social media, click the following links:
Facebook (blog posts and news)
Facebook (Getting Jefferson Right – history news)
Twitter

June 28, 1787 (click to read Madison’s notes on the day)

Summary

For students of religion at the Constitutional Convention, today is one of the most eventful days of the summer. Two hundred and thirty years ago today, in the midst of strong and passionate debate about the way states would be represented in the new government, Ben Franklin rose to call the Convention to prayer. After brief discussion, the delegates adjourned without a vote on Franklin’s call and a companion motion by Edmund Randolph calling for a Fourth of July sermon followed by daily prayers. As Madison recorded the next day, the Convention did not return to either motion. Prayers were not conducted at the Convention. Franklin later wrote, “The convention, except three or four persons, thought prayer unnecessary.”

Franklin’s Call for the Assistance of Heaven

Franklin’s statement confirms that the delegates did not seek assistance from the Bible or religion to form the Constitution (the entire speech is reproduced at the end of the post). He began:

Doctor FRANKLIN. Mr. President, The small progress we have made after four or five weeks close attendance and continual reasonings with each other — our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ayes — is, methinks, a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those republics which, having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist. And we have viewed modern states all round Europe, but find none of their constitutions suitable to our circumstances. (emphasis added)

As I have documented, the models, both positive and negative, came from Britain, Europe, Greece and Rome, rather than Israel and Christian theology. Franklin then suggested that the delegates call on God.

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights, to illuminate our understandings?

Franklin then made a case for the following motion which was seconded by Roger Sherman.

I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

Delegates Declined to Pray for Heaven’s Assistance

Madison recorded the reaction of the delegates:

Mr. SHERMAN seconded the motion.
Mr. HAMILTON and several others expressed their apprehensions, that, however proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the Convention, it might at this late day, in the first place, bring on it some disagreeable animadversions; and in the second, lead the public to believe that the embarrassments and dissensions within the Convention had suggested this measure. It was answered, by Doctor FRANKLIN, Mr. SHERMAN, and others, that the past omission of a duty could not justify a further omission; that the rejection of such a proposition would expose the Convention to more unpleasant animadversions than the adoption of it; and that the alarm out of doors that might be excited for the state of things within would at least be as likely to do good as ill.
Mr. WILLIAMSON observed, that the true cause of the omission could not be mistaken. The Convention had no funds.
Mr. RANDOLPH proposed, in order to give a favorable aspect to the measure, that a sermon be preached at the request of the Convention on the Fourth of July, the anniversary of Independence; and thenceforward prayers, &c. to be read in the Convention every morning. Doctor FRANKLIN seconded this motion. After several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing this matter by adjourning, the adjournment was at length carried, without any vote on the motion.

As noted above, Franklin later wrote that the reason for the lack of interest in his motion was that the delegates, “except three or four persons, thought prayer unnecessary.”

Don’t Expect Interference of Heaven

As we shall see, the delegates continued their debates using “ancient history,” Britain, and the rest of Europe for their models and authorities. Rarely did anyone reference religion in the formation of the Constitution. In fact, just days later on July 2, delegate Gouverneur Morris, as if to answer Franklin’s motion for assistance from heaven, said to the Convention:

Reason tells us we are but men; and we are not to expect any particular interference of Heaven in our favor.

I have written in more detail about Franklin’s call to prayer in the past (here, here, and here). Eric Metaxas made the call to prayer a main focus of his recent book If You Can Keep It (see my review of that book here). Metaxas uses the story to imply that the call somehow set the Convention on the path toward solution and compromise. However, a daily reading of Madison’s notes paints a different picture. Instead of supporting the Christian nationalist notion of a Christian republic, I think the reaction to Franklin’s call to prayer undermines the claim that the delegates sought to create a Constitution based on biblical principles.

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

To read my series examining the proceedings of the Constitution Convention, click here.  In this series, I am writing about any obvious influences on the development of the Constitution which were mentioned by the delegates to the Convention. Specifically, I am testing David Barton’s claim that “every clause” of the Constitution is based on biblical principles. Thus far, I have found nothing supporting the claim. However, stay tuned, the series will run until mid-September.
Constitutional Convention Series (click the link)

To follow on social media, click the following links:

Facebook (blog posts and news)
Facebook (Getting Jefferson Right – history news)
Twitter
Franklin’s entire speech:

Doctor FRANKLIN. Mr. President, The small progress we have made after four or five weeks close attendance and continual reasonings with each other — our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ayes — is, methinks, a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the human understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those republics which, having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution, now no longer exist. And we have viewed modern states all round Europe, but find none of their constitutions suitable to our circumstances.
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights, to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

I hope you go read this article by the Guardian on Jay Sekulow’s fund raising tactics.  I had been aware of the massive amounts of money he has raised through fear mongering but I didn’t know about the actual tactics. This is obscene.
Sekulow has a company that manipulates Christians into giving money they can’t afford to give. Reminds me of K-LOVE. Here is a script:

I hope reporting like this helps dry up the money flow to these people. Most charities of this size simply don’t need your money.
 

June 27, 1787 (click the link to read Madison’s notes)

Summary

There were no votes on substantial issues today. The “highlight” was a speech of “over three hours” by Luther Martin on the need for each state to have an equal vote in the national government. The backdrop for this assertion was the continual tension between large and small states. The smaller state delegates were worried that the larger states would have the upper hand in the new republic.

Influences on the Delegates

Martin’s speech was condensed to the essence by Madison. In so doing, Madison recorded the influences on Martin’s thinking.

In order to prove that individuals in a state of nature are equally free and independent, he read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Somers, Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with states, till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he read other passages in Locke and Vattel, and also Rutherford. That the States, being equal, cannot treat or confederate so as to give up an equality of votes, without giving up their liberty. That the propositions on the table were a system of slavery for ten States. That as Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, have forty-two ninetieths of the votes, they can do as they please, without a miraculous union of the other ten. That they will have nothing to do but to gain over one of the ten, to make them complete masters of the rest; that they can then appoint an Executive, and Judiciary, and Legislature for them, as they please.

All of these philosophers were known to the delegates and they were all influenced by a rational Christianity which called into question supernatural claims in Scripture. For instance, Priestley declared the trinity and doctrine of the atonement to be blasphemous (see page 54, Joseph Priestley, Socrates and Jesus Compared. (Philadelphia: J. Byrne, 1803). According to Locke scholar Greg Forster, Locke “fought hard for the position that people could be saved in Jesus while denying the Incarnation, the Trinity and the Atonement.” For the most part, these political philosophers were enlightenment Christians who were outside or on the edges of orthodoxy. If one wanted to take these influences as evidence of a Christian foundation for the U.S., the next step would be to acknowledge their brand of Christianity (for the most part) bears little resemblance to evangelicalism of today. Thus far, there is no evidence that biblical principles are foundational to “every clause” Constitution as David Barton claimed.
In any case, Martin’s view was only partly represented in the final Constitutional product. As we know, all states have the same number of members in the Senate, but the House of Representatives apportions members according to the population of the state.