# Non-profit status: Political signs on church property? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 4, 2008, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-profit-status-political-signs-on-church-property/471093 "2008-11-04T18:09:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-profit-status-political-signs-on-church-property/471093/1 "2008-11-04T18:09:28Z")
Is this church risking losing their non-profit status by having a bunch of signs on their property, implying support for those candidates? The church is also a polling place but the signs are outside the legal minimum distance from the door, so that much is cool. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-profit-status-political-signs-on-church-property/471093/2 "2008-11-04T18:45:56Z")
Which church would that be? I think they would be in the clear if they permitted anyone running to post a sign for people voting there to look at - that wouldn’t be seen as an endorsement in any sane world. I have seen this in many polling places in Pennsylvania, where oftentimes churches were used as polling stations. I don’t recall this ever being an issue for the reason I just stated. ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-profit-status-political-signs-on-church-property/471093/3 "2008-11-04T18:48:18Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Which church would that be? A church near my house has two “Yes on 8” signs out front. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-profit-status-political-signs-on-church-property/471093/4 "2008-11-04T18:55:01Z")
> [@Hostile\_Dialect](#): > > A church near my house has two “Yes on 8” signs out front. Ballot measures aren’t party slates or candidates - I don’t think an explicit endorsement of these presents any kind of constitutional issue. ---
**Author:** ![Amp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Amp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amp)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-profit-status-political-signs-on-church-property/471093/5 "2008-11-04T18:58:23Z")
A church near me, my polling place actually, had two _Yes On 2_ signs. I say had because I accidentally tripped over both of them when I was walking past there this morning and ruined them. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-profit-status-political-signs-on-church-property/471093/6 "2008-11-04T19:03:57Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Which church would that be? I dunno. I can’t keep Evangelicals straight. Berean something. > [@](#): > > I think they would be in the clear if they permitted anyone running to post a sign for people voting there to look at - that wouldn’t be seen as an endorsement in any sane world. I talked to one of the elders and he seems to think they were put up by the poll workers. Dupage County used to be the Republican answer to Chicago and Cook County, but I don’t think things work like that here anymore. I think it’s more like somebody stuck all their leftover signs there yesterday and the management didn’t teake them away. I didn’t try sticking a sign for a Dem there as an experiment to see if it would be yanked. As we both know this world isn’t sane, so I put nuttin’ past nobody. I called over there in a spirit of friendly warning. I may not agree with them, politically or theologically, but they’re good neighbors and I don’t want them to get in trouble for something an over-enthusiastic person did unofficially. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-profit-status-political-signs-on-church-property/471093/7 "2008-11-04T19:06:10Z")
The basic rule, as I understand it, is that non-profit religious institutions can’t endorse a candidate or party. They can express opinions about political issues: > [@](#): > > Issue Advocacy vs. Political Campaign Intervention > > Under federal tax law, section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office. However, section 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention. Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate. A statement can identify a candidate not only by stating the candidate’s name but also by other means such as showing a picture of the candidate, referring to political party affiliations, or other distinctive features of a candidate’s platform or biography. All the facts and circumstances need to be considered to determine if the advocacy is political campaign intervention. > > Key factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following: > • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office; > • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval for one or more candidates’ positions and/or actions; > • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election; > • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election; > • Whether the issue addressed in the communication has been raised as an issue distinguishing candidates for a given office; > • Whether the communication is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any election; and > • Whether the timing of the communication and identification of the candidate are related to a non-electoral event such as a scheduled vote on specific legislation by an officeholder who also happens to be a candidate for public office. > > A communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or voting in a specific upcoming election. Nevertheless, the communication must still be considered in context before arriving at any conclusions. [http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html](http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html) They can also lobby, but there are limits on their lobbying activities: [http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163392,00.html](http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163392,00.html) [http://www.catholicconferenceofillinois.org/bins/site/ftp/Guidelines-politicialactivities\_asof12-20-07\_FINAL.pdf](http://www.catholicconferenceofillinois.org/bins/site/ftp/Guidelines-politicialactivities_asof12-20-07_FINAL.pdf) [http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3341/1/48?TopicID=2](http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3341/1/48?TopicID=2) ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-profit-status-political-signs-on-church-property/471093/8 "2008-11-04T19:19:41Z")
So you are saying that having the signs there, even if placed by an unknown third party, is an implied endorsement of those candidates, **Gfactor**? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-profit-status-political-signs-on-church-property/471093/9 "2008-11-04T19:29:21Z")
I’m not sure there’s much guidance on that particular issue. I misread your OP (I thought you were asking about issue advocacy even though you clearly weren’t) and I hadn’t seen your last post when I made mine. Church officials seem to think it’s risky enough to warn their clergy: “DO NOT allow campaign signs to be placed on your church property.” [http://www.wncclay.org/2008Elections.dsp](http://www.wncclay.org/2008Elections.dsp) and see, > [@](#): > > Campaign Signs on Church Yard > When we arrived at our church this evening, we found some campaign signs posted on the church yard and handbills in the windshield wipers of the cars that had been parked in the church parking lot. We took the signs down and collected the handbills and put them in the trash. Unfortunately, however, we have been told that a reporter took pictures of the church with the signs before we arrived at church. We are concerned about the story the reporter might write. We did not encourage or permit these signs to be placed on church property. What should we do? > > You did the right thing by taking all the signs down promptly. The next step should be placing a call to the reporter to ensure that he or she has your statement about this incident. Further, you should keep the written statement in a file in case anyone should ask you about the incident in the future. As long as it is clear that the church did not sanction this activity, there should not be a problem. [http://divinity.wfu.edu/rpa/cep.html](http://divinity.wfu.edu/rpa/cep.html) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-profit-status-political-signs-on-church-property/471093/10 "2008-11-04T19:40:34Z")
> [@Amp](#): > > A church near me, my polling place actually, had two _Yes On 2_ signs. I say had because I accidentally tripped over both of them when I was walking past there this morning and ruined them. [Over here, please.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10401585#post10401585) ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-profit-status-political-signs-on-church-property/471093/11 "2008-11-04T20:23:34Z")
Y’know, much as I like you guys, I says to myself, I says, “ **drop**? You’re in the office by yourself today. Nobody will care if you leave your phone on ‘speaker’ and broadcast lo-fi classical music until the nice lady from the IRS answers the phone.” Short answer, yeah, it can cause problems. Nice Lady suggested they move the signs down the street. I suggested they move them to the tennis courts across the street. Elder Joe asked a polling judge if he could just take them down. Judge said, “You can do whatever you want with them It’s your property.” ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-profit-status-political-signs-on-church-property/471093/12 "2008-11-04T21:20:42Z")
Here, by the way, is the complete IRS Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations: [http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf](http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-profit-status-political-signs-on-church-property/471093/13 "2008-11-04T21:27:28Z")
My polling place is a public school. Today there are signs on the walkway leading to the polling entrance and volunteers handing out literature for various candidates. They’ll all be gone tonight at 7:00 p.m. If my public school district can allow it without getting in trouble with the IRS, I don’t see why it should be a problem with your church. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-profit-status-political-signs-on-church-property/471093/14 "2008-11-04T21:34:17Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > If my public school district can allow it without getting in trouble with the IRS, I don’t see why it should be a problem with your church. Is your public school district recognized as tax exempt under IRC 501(c)(3)? It is possible: [http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/faqs/html/school501c3.html](http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/faqs/html/school501c3.html) But it is unlikely: [http://michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-17451\_18668\_18689-54442--,00.html](http://michigan.gov/hal/0,1607,7-160-17451_18668_18689-54442--,00.html) If not, that’s a significant difference because the limitations we’ve been discussing apply to entities recognized as tax-exempt under 501(c)(3). ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2008, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-profit-status-political-signs-on-church-property/471093/15 "2008-11-05T17:33:52Z")
It would be an interesting case. Churches are tax exempt because of the 1st Amendment, not because of a tax code. I bet you could make an interesting case against the tax code. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2008, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-profit-status-political-signs-on-church-property/471093/16 "2008-11-05T20:29:06Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > It would be an interesting case. Churches are tax exempt because of the 1st Amendment, not because of a tax code. Do you have a citation for this proposition? > [@](#): > > I bet you could make an interesting case against the tax code. Not really. [http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/branch\_ministries.pdf](http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/branch_ministries.pdf) > **[That Godless Court?](https://books.google.com/books?id=kjLLlS9hWmYC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=Christian+Echoes+National+Ministry,+Inc.+v.+United+States&source=web&ots=OcmIbnx9rp&sig=qGbvIosrrbv4agG-0cseuUcJEp4)** > > The religion clauses of the First Amendment, which seem simple and clear, have been and continue to be controversial in their application. Church-state issues have never been more complex, controversial, and divisive than they are today. In this...