The Complex Web of Religious Freedom Legislation: Tracing the Origins and Funding of State Initiatives

The debate surrounding religious freedom and its intersection with gay rights has been a contentious issue in the United States for several years. One notable example of this conflict emerged in Arizona with the passage of Senate Bill 1026, also known as SB1026. This legislation, which supporters claimed protected religious freedom, was met with criticism from those who believed it served as a cover for businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians. However, the origins and funding of this legislation and similar initiatives in other states remain shrouded in mystery.

The Arizona Center for Policy and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) were among the groups involved in crafting the legislation. The ADF, which coordinates legal efforts for Christian organizations across the United States and in 31 countries, played a significant role in shaping the bill. But who initiated the push for this legislation, and who provided the funding for it and similar efforts in other states?

The collaborative and coordinated nature of legislation makes it difficult to pinpoint the exact source. Numerous players, both inside and outside of government, contributed to the creation of SB1026. Some spoke publicly about their involvement, while others worked behind the scenes. Furthermore, the money required to spread the message and legislative proposals nationwide is substantial.

Ian Vandewalker, from New York University law school’s Brennan Center for Justice, explained that the disclosure regime has holes, making it challenging to determine the origins of the funding for these initiatives. The lack of transparency surrounding the financial backing of these efforts is a significant obstacle to understanding their origins.

SB1026 was not an isolated incident. Similar legislation has been proposed in at least 14 other states. The language used in these bills is remarkably similar, with phrases such as “exercise of religion” and “religious belief” appearing in multiple pieces of legislation. This congruence is not a coincidence; it is common for legislation to be copied from one place to another.

However, without explicit proof, it is challenging to attribute the creation of any such effort to a single person or donor. Brian Walsh, the head of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center’s American Religious Freedom program, noted that “a couple of dozen organizations” might be involved in any given legislation.

The push for religious freedom legislation stems from the belief that, since 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court has not adequately protected religious freedom as a matter of constitutional law. The landmark case Employment Division v. Smith, in which the plaintiffs were denied unemployment benefits in Oregon after being fired for using peyote in a religious ceremony, set a precedent that many believe infringed upon religious freedom.

Not everyone agrees that there is a crisis at hand. Some, like Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, argue that there is no present concern related to religious liberty in their states. Brewer vetoed SB1026, stating that she had not heard of any examples where a business owner’s religious liberty had been violated.

Regardless of the justification, there is no denying that numerous efforts are underway along similar lines. The influence and money required to coordinate and spread the message and legislative proposals nationwide are substantial. However, determining the source of this influence and money is a complex task due to the ways that funds can be raised and spent in politics.

Under federal rules, a significant amount of information does not need to be disclosed. Groups known as 501c4s, which are officially corporations that can spend as they wish, often pop up overnight, spend money on causes and campaigns, and then disappear. Robert Maguire from the Center for Responsive Politics noted that with an issue like religious freedom, where there is a large number of debates, it is entirely possible that groups have emerged without any public knowledge.

The 2010 Citizens United ruling, which gave big businesses, unions, and nonprofits more power to spend freely in federal elections, has contributed to this trend. The ruling opened a Pandora’s box of outside spending, which has been increasing ever since.

The future of these religious freedom initiatives remains uncertain. While some are demanding change, there is currently no significant momentum in Washington for campaign finance reform that would make it easier to determine who is behind these efforts. The lack of transparency surrounding the financial backing of these initiatives makes it difficult to assess the scope and impact of this push.

In conclusion, the complex web of religious freedom legislation in the United States presents a challenge when it comes to understanding its origins and funding. The collaborative and coordinated nature of legislation, combined with the lack of transparency surrounding the financial backing of these initiatives, makes it difficult to trace the source of this legislation and the influence behind it. As the debate surrounding religious freedom and gay rights continues to evolve, it is essential to shed light on the funding and origins of these initiatives to ensure that the public is well-informed and that the intent of the legislation is clear.