Mayodan church under investigation

By Heather Smith

Published: April 21, 2008

MAYODAN — A Mayodan church publicly calling for the defeat of a May 6 ballot issue for the sale of liquor by the drink is being investigated by the state Board of Elections for failing to file as a political committee.

Tina Cardwell, deputy director of the Rockingham County Board of Elections, said her office was obliged to intervene after it received several reports from Mayodan residents. The committee set up to advocate liquor by the drink, Yes For Progress, sent the election board a complaint April 15. It said the church group was doing the same type of publicity as Yes For Progress but failed to file with the county or admit that a church must follow the same laws as other groups.

The elections board sent a letter to the Rev. Paul Sisk, pastor of West Side Baptist, notifying him the church was trying to influence a public vote and would need to file with the Board of Elections. The group would then report the sources of money that paid for publicity, like fliers or tracts urging people to vote against liquor by the drink.

In response, Cardwell said the BOE received a letter from Gibbs Law Firm, of Seminole, Fla., on behalf of West Side Baptist Church. Attorney David Gibbs wrote that state law defines a referen-dum committee as being assembled for the primary purpose of supporting or opposing the passage of a ballot referendum. Gibbs said West Side Baptist’s primary purpose was to spread Christianity, not to oppose a ballot issue.

“As such, it is not a ‘referendum committee’ as defined by the North Carolina General Statutes and, therefore not subject to any of the registration requirements set forth in Chapter 163, including the filing of a ‘Statement of Purpose,’” Gibbs wrote.

The N.C. 2008-09 Campaign Finance Manual says a referendum committee must declare its purpose for organization and must comply with the state laws for collecting and spending money to publicly oppose or support a ballot issue. The manual does not restrict what or how committees present arguments for or against.

The letter closes with the statement that the church wishes for an amicable resolution, but it will “vigorously pursue and protect their rights” if need be.

At receipt of Gibbs’ letter, the case was referred to the state board for investigation.

“We have received a complaint about the group and have begun an investigation,” said Adam Ragan, a compliance specialist for the campaign finance division of the state BOE.

Ragan said he could not comment on the investigation until its completion, but if the state board rules against the church group, the punishment may vary.

The statute says a group refusing to comply could face a civil case or criminal prosecution by the local district attorney. Ragan said the Internal Revenue Service has the right to withdraw a church’s tax-exempt status if it violates political participation guidelines.

Sisk said the church group will not file with the BOE.

“Because, according to the law, we are exempt from going to the election board,” Sisk said. “We are a church, not a committee.”

Sisk said the church opposed the same issue in 2004, but it was not required to file. That was the first year the requirement was law and compliance was not policed, so referendum committees presented public messages without being contacted by the BOE. Sisk said he assumed nothing had changed in the past three years.

“I had no idea we had to go to the Board of Elections because this is a moral issue, it’s a Bible issue and we’re just trying to warn people about the dangers of alcohol,” Sisk said.

Sisk said church members regularly go door-to-door handing out gospel tracts printed by the church but had no government interference until a vote was mentioned.

The church, he said, will push the issue “(A)s far as our lawyer says we can go.”

A message left with Gibbs Law Firm was not returned.

Staff writer Heather J. Smith can be reached at or 623-2155, ext. 15.