I would assume that it would be because this would become a huge legal loophole for pouring money into campaigns through. People are uncomfortable with churches’ tax exemption anyway.
IANAL, but I did find this:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=397&invol=664
As for your question about why churches are tax exempt, Thudlow Boink, it looks like it is because they are “non-profit.”
LilShieste
Do you have a cite for this?
Robin
[Note: U.S. laws only]
[Note: IANA lawyer or tax accountant, but I have dealt with some non-profits, and this is my understanding]
An organization that is classified as “non-profit” (a better term is “not-for-profit”) means that any profits that the organization are made must be channeled back into the organization. No payments to shareholders, no stock price increases, etc. Thus, a community art house could be set up as “non-profit” – any profit that they make would be spent on equipment, expanding services, etc. Lots of organizations are non-profit, including charities, churches, ;literary and art groups, hospitals, societies to prevent cruelty to animals, etc. Also, political organizations (the Republican and Democratic parties are both non-profit organizations, as is the League of Women Voters, Consumer Reports), etc.
Since such organizations don’t have any profit, they don’t pay income taxes. They are tax-exempt.
Now, the complication arises because there are tax deductions available to people who contribute to charitable organizations. Then we get special rules for churches, schools, hospitals and similar medical organizations, etc.
If a tax-exempt organization is viewed as “charitable,” then contributions made by individuals are deductible for those individuals. Getting right to the point of this thread: This applies to churches, but not to political organizations. So, for example, if I donate $25 to a church, that $25 is deductible against my own income tax. However, if I donate $25 to the Fund to Elect Ed Zotti Mayor*, I cannot take that as a deduction on my own income tax forms.
Thus, a church that engages in political activies might not lose its own tax-exempt status, but the status would be changed. It would (presumably) no longer be a tax-exempt church (charitable organization) undre 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code… but it would be a political organization (sorry I don’t have the code ID handy) and contributors to that organization would lose the ability to deduct their contributions.
No, they are technically right, they are only holding recruiting drives that happen to be aimed at conservatives, organized under the B/C campaign. As long as they aren’t caught telling anyone specifically to vote for Bush, they’re within the legal limits.
Slimey? Maybe, depends on your point of view. The Southern Baptists certainly think so.
Illegal? No.
I don’t see any wiggle room for “Is this slimey?” Can someone please point out to me how something like this isn’t slimey?
LilShieste
BTW, the same is true of union activity, more or less. If you pay dues to a union, you can deduct those dues (similar to money you contribute to any charitable organization.) However, you may NOT deduct money that is contributed to the union for political uses.
So, the line is there, but it’s a pretty grey and fuzzy one, on both sides.
Handing over church directories is getting a little shady. Stuff like that is what most campaigns normally have to pay thousands for. It’s different state to to state, but I know I’d feel very uncomfortable about simply grabbing one and using it without running afoul of campaign finance laws. I don’t know that it’s illegal per se, but I sure wouldn’t want to risk it.
(bolding mine)
I’m not sure I want to get into the political implications of this whole thing, but where are you getting this? I guess I missed the part about telling anybody to steal anything.
Er, the part where they say to send them church directories? You know, one of the major things that gets the Baptist church really steamed about all this (i.e., they don’t create their church directories to make things easy on solicitors)
Okay, but why did you jump to the conclusion that the directories would necessarily have to be stolen? Seems a little extreme to me.
Anyone know if church directories are normally copyrighted?
I’m sure I wouldn’t want some political activist at my church to give my name and adress out for a republican spam operation.
Perhaps it’s time to review the privacy agreement I signed when I joined up.
-Of course, there wasn’t one, but if people are going to pull this sort of crap, there should be.
I wouldn’t be crazy about it, either, but I’m not sure that using the addresses listed in the directory would constitute a copyright violation. It doesn’t seem any different than going through the phone book for the same information.
The thing is, in every instance I know about, the directory gets put together every few years, with pictures and addresses of the members, then it’s given out to every member who wants one. So if I wanted to give the list to anyone, which I wouldn’t, all I’d have to do is go to my own bookshelf.
I guess part of my question was why the immediate leap to the conclusion that the thing would have to be stolen? Seems like kind of an unnecessarily negative assumption to me. That’s all.
I do know that in the Pittsburgh diocese, various parishes (we’re talking Catholic, here), usually have inserts in their bulletins listing the candidates, and where they stand on the issues. But that’s about it.
Didn’t Bush already ask the Pope to tell the bishops they should back him?
It’s pretty slimy, if you ask me.
Under the Berne convention, they are treated like any other original written text. They are automatically copyrighted the moment they are committed to some tangible form, e.g. paper or a computer file.
And where does that mention stealing? It doesn’t.
The story continues:
Translating values into votes, Republicans seek parish directories
Team Bush wants far more than just the names and addresses of catholics:
Have you all forgotten that many many churches supported and still support liberal causes and liberal candidates? Remember the civil rights movement? You don’t think Martin Luther King should have gotten involved in politics? Separation of church and state, right?
I think there’s a difference between “churches advocate a certain socio-politicial position” and “churches advocate voting for Candidate X.” With the former, there’s the possibility that other candidates can also adopt the same position and get the church’s blessing (heh).
Wow. I have to disagree with **Lemur ** and agree with **rjung ** on that particular point. For instance, I see nothing wrong with a the RCC speaking vociverously against abortion and/or the death penalty-- simple policy issues. Shilling for a particular candidate, however, is 100% political. It’s not clear that the RCC has actually gotten to that point, but it does seem to be flirting with the dividing line between policy and politics. And if any particular parish church does cross the line, the tax exempt status should be pulled for that particular church.
Of course, I don’t see why churches should be tax exempt in the first place, but that’s a whole 'nuther issue…