Jon Campbell considers himself a loyal member of the tea party.
The Kingsport, Tenn., man is a conservative Christian who wants the government to keep its hands off his wallet and his personal life. And that’s why, he said, a bill that originally targeted supporters of Islamic law is a bad idea for Tennessee. State officials could have used the bill to punish unpopular groups, he said.
Today, that’s Muslims, he said. Tomorrow, that could be the tea party. He pointed to a 2009 report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center, funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security, that labeled Ron Paul supporters as potential terrorists.
The Material Support to Designated Entities Act, proposed by state Sen. Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesboro, and state Rep. Judd Matheny, R-Tullahoma, exposed an ideological divide in Tennessee’s tea party. It split Libertarians who supported Paul’s candidacy for president, many of those in East Tennessee, from Middle Tennessee social conservatives concerned about national security who have supported Ketron and Matheny.The dispute came at a time when tea party influence is increasing in Tennessee and nationwide. The group backed successful congressional candidates during midterm elections.
Its supporters packed the Gaylord Convention Center in Nashville to hear former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin speak in early 2010. Tea party favorite Lou Ann Zelenik nearly beat former state Sen. Diane Black, a well-known Republican, in the 6th Congressional District race last year.
The split aligned tea party members who strictly interpret the Constitution with some unexpected groups over the Material Support bill, which — until it was amended last week — would have allowed the governor and attorney general to use secret evidence as proof that a group is involved in terrorism. The bill also would have presumed any group they designated a terrorist entity was guilty until proved innocent, opponents said.
Bill sent to Haslam
Libertarian objections to the Material Support bill have helped persuade its supporters to scale back the legislation. An amendment leaves decisions over which groups are terrorist to the U.S. State Department, which already maintains a list of terrorist organizations. The amendment also toughened state penalties for supporting terrorist groups.
The House on Friday night approved that version of the bill by a 76-16 vote. The Senate passed it 26-3 on Saturday afternoon, sending it to Gov. Bill Haslam for signature.
The changes came after a campaign in which the American Civil Liberties Union and Tennessee Muslims opposed the original bill. They continued to press lawmakers to drop the bill even after Matheny and Ketron agreed to take out language that had specifically targeted groups that support Sharia, or Islamic law.
Opponents got help from conservatives such as Sen. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, and Rep. Jon Lundberg, R-Bristol.
Lundberg referred to the Material Support bill as “the ultimate in truly Big Brother” when it was in committee. Before casting a vote for the bill Friday, Lundberg said his fears had been eased when the provisions he objected to — those allowing secret evidence and giving state officials broad powers to decide which groups support terrorism — were removed.
“How this came to this floor was frankly a pretty ugly process,” Lundberg said. “I can support it now.”
In its final form, the bill makes it possible for Tennessee officials to prosecute in state courts people who knowingly provide support to terrorist groups, Matheny said. It also makes support for terrorist organizations a Class A felony, which would add about 11 years to the average prison term for people convicted of breaking the law, according to an analysis prepared by legislative staff.
Carol Swain, a tea party supporter and Vanderbilt University political science professor, dismissed any idea that law-abiding citizens needed to fear the more controversial version of the Material Support bill. She said followers of Paul, like Campbell, are a fringe element of the tea party.
She said that any bill could have unintended consequences. But she thinks the benefits of the Material Support bill to fight terrorism were worth it.
“We should all be against terrorism,” she said.
Judson Phillips, whose Franklin-based Tea Party Nation helped organize the Palin event, said he had not heard any criticism of the bill from local tea party supporters. He dismissed concerns of Ron Paul followers.
“The Constitution is not a suicide pact,” he said. “Even the founding fathers realized there were times that basic civil liberties can be curtailed.”
Mixed messages
Ketron has given mixed messages about the purpose of the bill. He has denied targeting Muslims with it. But while his bill was being scaled back, he distributed copies of a video that claims the Islamic Center of Nashville has been involved in teaching radical Islam. The video was made by the Boston-based Americans for Peace and Tolerance with help from the Tennessee Freedom Coalition, a new nonprofit run by Zelenik.
Asked Thursday if he believes the Islamic Center of Nashville could have been labeled as a terrorist group under his bill, Ketron issued this statement: “Your question regarding whether or not I have said or implied that the Center is a terrorist organization is absurd. I have never said that, inferred it or even suggested it. I provided copies of a DVD produced by an independent organization containing information regarding activities of concern within our state to members of the Senate. The members were free to view the video or not and draw their own conclusions. Period.”
Andrea Hatcher, assistant professor of political science at Sewanee, the University of the South, said she’s not surprised to see a tea party split over the Material Support bill. The tea party has been successful by adapting to local political cultures, so it makes sense to see a regional split over the bill.
Libertarians want to limit the size of government. Social conservatives, she said, want to use the government to endorse their values.
“They are for small government when the government bothers them,” she said. “But they are for larger government when it will regulate for their values.”
Campfield voted against the Material Support bill in the House Judiciary Committee. He said that there are already federal laws in place to deal with terrorists.
“I consider this the Patriot Act 2 for Tennessee,” he said of an earlier version of the bill. “It may focus on Muslims today, but it could focus on the tea party or Democrats tomorrow.”
Campfield said the Material Support act was a flawed piece of legislation that gave too much power to state officials and would put citizens who are critical of the government at risk. The changes made to the bill late last week satisfied most of his concerns.
“It was a bridge too far for me before,” he said. “It really was just opening up a whole can of worms. This (version) is just strengthening penalties, which is something I can support.”
Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the tea party and other political groups should be concerned about the bill because it is unconstitutional and unnecessary.
“The bill’s deeply troubling history shows that it was intended to target groups based on First Amendment-protected beliefs and activities, which is un-American and unwise,” she wrote in an email. “It is also an unnecessary answer to a problem that doesn’t exist because the federal government already has ample legal authority and law enforcement tools to address genuine threats to public safety.”
Sabina Mohyuddin of Tullahoma, a Muslim who has been an outspoken critic of the Material Support act, said she was surprised to hear that some tea party members oppose the bill.
But their similar feelings proves the point that she and other critics of the bill have been trying to make, she said — the bill can punish people for their ideas. She’s frustrated that supporters of the bill can’t see this.
Mohyuddin believes that religious groups are particularly at risk because they often try to change laws to support their beliefs.
“If a church shows a film about abortion and how inhumane abortion is, and then someone decides to take matters in their own hands and kill an abortion doctor, should the church be designated as a terrorist group?” she said. “People say that it won’t happen to them, but it could.”