If churches can stay tax-exempt while giving to candidates, why can't parties become churches?

[RTFirefly]

A Republican Congressman has submitted a bill which would prevent the IRS from enforcing the requirement that churches not give to political campaigns if they want to stay tax-exempt:

The law prohibits tax-exempt charitable organizations such as churches from participating directly or indirectly in any political campaign to support or oppose a candidate. If the IRS determines that a group has violated the law, it can revoke its tax-exempt status.

<snip>

The bill specifically forbids the IRS from spending money to enforce the law against “a church, or a convention or association of churches,” unless the IRS commissioner signs off on it and notifies Congress.

The bill doesn’t mention other types of non-profit groups, or even synagogues or mosques, said Nick Little of the Center for Inquiry, which promotes secularism.

Questions of the proposed law’s constitutionality aside, if it became law, what’s to prevent the Democratic Party from reorganizing as the Church of the Greater Good, and the GOP from turning itself into the Church of Individual Empowerment? This way, we could deduct our contributions to the [del]political parties[/del] churches, which would go to supporting political candidates of our preference.

Given existing law, plus this one change of course, is there any reason why that couldn’t happen?

[John_Mace]

if you look at the legal definition of “church” per federal law, it has to have these attributes:

• a distinct legal existence and religious history,
• a recognized creed and form of worship,
• established places of worship
• a regular congregation and regular religious services, and
• an organization of ordained ministers

I don’t see how a political party could qualify.

But if they could, then people would really start saying Obama was the Messiah!

[Chronos]

On the other hand, I’m sure both sides could find already-existing churches sympathetic to their cause to funnel donations through.

[Smapti]

@John_Mace

if you look at the legal definition of “church” per federal law, it has to have these attributes:

• a distinct legal existence and religious history,
• a recognized creed and form of worship,
• established places of worship
• a regular congregation and regular religious services, and
• an organization of ordained ministers

I don’t see how a political party could qualify.

Our Lady Of Perpetual Exemption managed to pull it off.

[Chronos]

…For less than a month. I’d like to see something at least a little bit more “perpetual” than that.

[John_Mace]

@Chronos

…For less than a month. I’d like to see something at least a little bit more “perpetual” than that.

And a little bit more exempt, too, I suppose!