churches would find themselves in the worst of predicaments, with their rights and possibly even existences dependent on the capricious mercies of the federal courts. 

just a little soft porn from the national review, here. is it just me, or is it hot in here all of a sudden? wow.

from what i can see, this analysis is correct, but what trump thinks is true is probably more important than what actually is true. so, expect to have to sue them. but, i agree with the national review: there's an upside to this.

i don't think it's possible to separate money from politics using regulatory bodies, and think we instead need to rely on an engaged population to keep the politicians honest. so, the premise of churches openly funding candidates is less frightening to me than it is to others. basically, i would rather they do it in the open than under the table. so, i would rather see legislation that ensures funding transparency. i'd like to see all candidates forced to put all of their donors up on the internet, listed by donation amounts. people that don't want to disclose their politics should not donate - and i will argue that point quite vehemently. participating in politics is not a personal decision, it is a community process. in order to make an informed choice, voters must be able to determine who is paying who. this is not supplemental, not incidental, but at the core of the decision-making process.

you could reasonably argue that voting is the act of choosing preferred donors. if we continue to remain blind to who the donors are, we'll never actualize a meaningful representative democracy. it can never be anything but a charade.

so, i'm not very tied to the johnson amendment - or things like it. and, let's be real: the johnson amendment is small-c conservatism. i'm really just being consistent.

what i'd rather see come out of this is a kind of grand compromise: if religious institutions want a greater say in the political process, they should be allowed to do so under the following conditions:

1) they must publicly disclose the recipients of all of their funding. not to regulators, but to voters.
2) they need to start paying taxes on income (donations) and on property.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447338/trump-religious-liberty-executive-order-failure

my guess is that paul ryan agreed to push something haphazard through under administration pressure, but for the pragmatic purpose of focusing on tax reform.

the house bill is a punt.

and it landed out of bounds.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/house-health-care-bill-senate-doa-238000

fwiw, the sterilization board ran in alberta from the 20s to the early 70s. canada adopted universal health care in the late 60s; we had an american-style free market system during the period the board was in operation. that canard is baseless.

there were similar boards in "progressive" states as well, mostly notably in california.

http://eugenicsandthefirewall.blogspot.ca/2011/02/its-time-right-owned-up-to-albertas.html