The second year of the “He Gets Us” Super Bowl ads have brought growing criticism of how religious nonprofits use their money–and where. The same pot of money funding the Jesus-themed, seeker-sensitive, super expensive ads has also funded legal efforts to completely change religious and reproductive freedoms in America.
The campaign, run by He Gets Us LLC was previously financed by The Servant Foundation, which has deep financial ties to the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal organization that’s been involved in landmark Supreme Cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and Masterpiece cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
He Gets Us ran two ads during the Super Bowl on Sunday. Those spots cost an estimated $7 million/30-second spot, up from 2023′s price tag of a little over $6 million, according to pricing reported by Vivvix Ad Intelligence.
The Servant Foundation plans to spend “about a billion dollars” toward the He Gets Us campaign to spread the story of Jesus through community programs and education about the Bible, according to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. They’ve hired a PR firm to address, in the firm’s words, the problem of “How did the world’s greatest love story in Jesus become known as a hate group?” AU said in a report on the organization.
If the funding and the way these organizations intersect seem convoluted, it’s because it is. Some of this intentional confusion is fueled by a desire to protect donor identities, as influential Christian philanthropist Bill High said in a 2020 op-ed for Forbes.
Hobby Lobby, the infamous Christian craft store, also has ties to the ad campaign. Hobby Lobby founder David Green talked about his involvement in He Gets Us during a 2022 interview with Glenn Beck. Green’s son Mart Green serves on the board of Come Near, a newly-formed nonprofit now operating He Gets Us. Two other board members serve as executives of OneHope, an evangelical Christian organization funded by the Greens and by Hobby Lobby directly.
While information about the donations and funding received by Come Near weren’t available online, as the nonprofit was formed just a few months ago, the campaign said it was funded by people who support the evangelical Christian view of Jesus.
“It wouldn’t be hard to guess that many of those backing the campaign believe that Jesus is who the Bible says he is. He Gets Us is an initiative of Come Near Inc., a nonprofit organization committed to sharing the life and love of Jesus, that believes Jesus was human and divine, he rose from the dead, and more,” He Gets Us said on the company FAQ page.
The Servant Foundation was one of the biggest backers of the Alliance Defending Freedom, currently one of the most powerful legal funds in the country affecting the rights of queer people, minorities and women.
It’s unclear how cutting ties with the Servant Foundation has made a difference to the goals of the “He Gets Us” campaign. Either way, it’s important to know what else the big funds behind these skeptic-safe commercials are driving. Here’s five Supreme Court cases either the ADF or Hobby Lobby has participated in:
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was the case that took down Roe v. Wade, and is one of ADF’s biggest victories in the Supreme Court.
What was the case about?
The case addressed the legality of a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. An abortion clinic challenged the law, arguing it violated existing Supreme Court precedents that established a right to abortion (Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey).
What did the court decide?
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Casey. The Court concluded that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion, leaving the issue to individual states to decide.
What were the consequences?
- Increased restrictions or bans on abortion: Many states, particularly those with Republican-controlled legislatures, are now moving to restrict or ban abortion.
- Legal challenges: These restrictions and bans will likely face legal challenges, potentially leading to further litigation and Supreme Court involvement.
- Impact on access to abortion: Many people, particularly those in low-income and rural areas, have faced greater difficulty accessing abortion care due to travel restrictions and financial burdens.
- Political and social impact: The decision has deeply divided the public and is likely to be a major issue in upcoming elections.
303 Creative v. Elenis (2022)
This case dealt with the intersection of free speech and anti-discrimination laws in the context of same-sex marriage.
What was the case about?
Smith, the owner of 303 Creative, a web design company, objected to creating websites for same-sex weddings due to her religious beliefs. The state of Colorado argued that refusing such services violated its anti-discrimination laws.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
The case advanced to the Supreme Court, which ruled the state of Colorado could not use the Colorado Anti Discrimination Act to restrict her religious freedoms, which include choosing which types of weddings she will make websites for.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with Smith, ruling that Colorado could not compel her to create expressive content (wedding websites) that violated her own beliefs. The majority argued that forcing her to do so would violate her First Amendment right to free speech.
What are the potential consequences?
- This decision could impact similar cases involving conflicts between artistic expression and anti-discrimination laws.
- It has fueled debates about the extent of free speech protection and the balance with equality rights.
- Some argue it could embolden discrimination based on other protected characteristics, while others see it as protecting artistic freedom.
- This case specifically addressed website design and expressive content, not denying any services. It doesn’t give businesses a blanket right to discriminate against any customer.
- The decision has divided opinions and its long-term effects are still unfolding.
Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2023)
This case, filed after the fall of Roe, would ban the use of misoprostol and mifepristone, two drugs commonly used for medication abortions, for pregnant people through banning its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
What is this case about?
The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a group opposed to abortion, is challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, a medication used for medication abortions. The Alliance argues that the FDA’s approval process for mifepristone was flawed and that the drug is unsafe. The FDA defends its approval process and maintains that mifepristone is safe and effective when used as directed.
What are the stakes?
If the Alliance wins, it could lead to restrictions or even a ban on mifepristone in the United States. This could significantly impact access to medication abortion, which accounts for more than half of all abortions in the country, according to Guttmacher Institute.
Additionally, the case could set a precedent for how the courts review FDA drug approvals in the future.
What’s the current status of the case?
The case is currently before the Supreme Court, which is considering whether to hear it. The case is still ongoing and hasn’t reached a final decision. If the Court decides to hear the case, it could issue a decision in 2024.
Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Burwell (2014)
The case was a landmark Supreme Court decision with significant implications for religious freedom and employer mandates in healthcare. This case involved specific circ*mstances and doesn’t apply to all corporations or religious objections.
What was the case about?
Conestoga Wood Specialties, a closely held corporation owned by a religious family, objected to providing contraceptive coverage in their employee health insurance plan due to their religious beliefs. They argued that the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive mandate violated their religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
This case allows private businesses to make healthcare decisions for their employees related to contraception based on their religious views. ItThe case said a business owned by a religious family did not have to pay for health insurance coverage for contraceptives.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Conestoga, finding that the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened their religious beliefs.
However, the Court also created an accommodation mechanism, allowing the government to pursue its interest in ensuring contraceptive access through alternative means that did not directly burden the company’s religious beliefs.
What were the potential consequences?
- This decision expanded the scope of religious freedom rights for corporations, particularly closely held ones, in certain circ*mstances.
- It sparked debates about the balance between religious freedom, individual rights, and government mandates.
- The accommodation mechanism introduced complexities and raised questions about its effectiveness and potential impact on employee access to healthcare.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2017)
This was a landmark Supreme Court decision with significant implications for religious freedom, sexual orientation discrimination, and the limits of free speech.
What was the case about?
Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple based on his religious beliefs against same-sex marriage. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The Commission ruled in favor of the couple, stating that the bakery violated the state’s anti-discrimination law. Phillips appealed, arguing that forcing him to create the cake violated his First Amendment right to free speech and free exercise of religion.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
In a 7-2 decision, the Court sided with Phillips on narrow grounds. The majority did not address the broader First Amendment questions but instead focused on the conduct of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
They found that the Commission showed disrespect and hostility towards Phillips’ religious beliefs during the hearing, violating his free exercise rights. They sent the case back to the lower courts for reconsideration without the Commission members who displayed bias.
What are the potential consequences?
- This decision didn’t establish a clear legal precedent on whether businesses can refuse service based on religious beliefs.
- It opened the door for further litigation on similar cases, with future courts needing to balance religious freedom with anti-discrimination laws.
- Some argue it could encourage discrimination based on other protected characteristics, while others see it as protecting religious freedom.
If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
