Pastors Will Challenge IRS Rules Prohibiting Political Endorsement

[Bricker]

in an effort to force a court decision on the constitutionality of the IRS regulation prohibiting churches from directly endorsing candidates, hundreds – or perhaps thousands – of pastors intended to take to their pulpits October 7th, give a sermon that examines the political issues voters will face, and explicitly recommend their congregation vote for a specific candidate.

They will record that sermon and send it to the IRS, essentially challenging them to take some enforcement action.

I say: good. Few things irritate me more than a law that the government won’t repeal but won’t enforce consistently. It leaves an individual unwilling to undertake the conduct because of the risk of liability, but unable to challenge the law to fully and finally determine the constitutionality thereof.

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

in an effort to force a court decision on the constitutionality of the IRS regulation prohibiting churches from directly endorsing candidates, hundreds – or perhaps thousands – of pastors intended to take to their pulpits October 7th, give a sermon that examines the political issues voters will face, and explicitly recommend their congregation vote for a specific candidate.

They will record that sermon and send it to the IRS, essentially challenging them to take some enforcement action.

I say: good. Few things irritate me more than a law that the government won’t repeal but won’t enforce consistently. It leaves an individual unwilling to undertake the conduct because of the risk of liability, but unable to challenge the law to fully and finally determine the constitutionality thereof.

You forgot to mention the political slant of this-it’s being organized by the conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom.

[Gorsnak]

Say, that gives me an idea for how to help reduce the deficit.

[Lobohan]

Shit, if we could tax the Catholic Church…

[WhyNot]

@Bricker

I say: good. Few things irritate me more than a law that the government won’t repeal but won’t enforce consistently. It leaves an individual unwilling to undertake the conduct because of the risk of liability, but unable to challenge the law to fully and finally determine the constitutionality thereof.

I agree

@Gorsnak

Say, that gives me an idea for how to help reduce the deficit.

Amen.

[alphaboi867]

Good. I hope this backfires horrible for them and the IRS ends up taxing them.

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

You forgot to mention the political slant of this-it’s being organized by the conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom.

My bad. Now that we know who’s advancing the idea, we can decide if it’s a good one.

Fortunately, it’s a conservative group, so I am still in favor of it.

[Bricker]

@alphaboi867

Good. I hope this backfires horrible for them and the IRS ends up taxing them.

Actually, that’s what they want. If the IRS refuses to act, this exercise has little point.

[steronz]

@Bricker

Actually, that’s what they want. If the IRS refuses to act, this exercise has little point.

I really can’t imagine that’s the desired outcome. Religious leaders can already preach about various moral and political issues, can’t they? Which means they can essentially spell out support for a specific candidate without saying his or her name, much in the same way that “issue ads” skirt campaign finance rules by not directly mentioning a candidate.

If the IRS acts, they get a rather marginal increase in political power in exchange for losing their tax exempt status. I have no problem with them forcing the government’s hand, but I can’t imagine they actually want to lose their tax exempt status. I’d think they’d want the IRS to do nothing.

[jasg]

Can we expect the courts to rule that Churches are people too?

[MandaJo]

@steronz

I really can’t imagine that’s the desired outcome. Religious leaders can already preach about various moral and political issues, can’t they? Which means they can essentially spell out support for a specific candidate without saying his or her name, much in the same way that “issue ads” skirt campaign finance rules by not directly mentioning a candidate.

If the IRS acts, they get a rather marginal increase in political power in exchange for losing their tax exempt status. I have no problem with them forcing the government’s hand, but I can’t imagine they actually want to lose their tax exempt status. I’d think they’d want the IRS to do nothing.

I think they want to take it to the Supreme Court and have it be ruled that they can’t lose their tax-exempt status by endorsing candidates. So they get everything.

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

My bad. Now that we know who’s advancing the idea, we can decide if it’s a good one.

Fortunately, it’s a conservative group, so I am still in favor of it.

Would you be just as in favor of it if it was being directed by a liberal group organizing liberal churches to advance liberal causes? Alliance Defending Freedom isn’t defending the right of churches to speak out on any subject-they want to further certain right wing causes using the captive audience of the pulpit.

[Der_Trihs]

@Bricker

in an effort to force a court decision on the constitutionality of the IRS regulation prohibiting churches from directly endorsing candidates, hundreds – or perhaps thousands – of pastors intended to take to their pulpits October 7th, give a sermon that examines the political issues voters will face, and explicitly recommend their congregation vote for a specific candidate.

They will record that sermon and send it to the IRS, essentially challenging them to take some enforcement action.

I expect that the IRS will do what it’s been doing for a long time; let them get away with it. Especially since they are conservatives.

[Czarcasm]

@Der_Trihs

I expect that the IRS will do what it’s been doing for a long time; let them get away with it. Especially since they are conservatives.

Pretty much my prediction too-the Oppressed Christian Majority will get away with it for the most part, and Bricker will declare a great victory over the Imaginary Oppressors.

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

Would you be just as in favor of it if it was being directed by a liberal group organizing liberal churches to advance liberal causes? Alliance Defending Freedom isn’t defending the right of churches to speak out on any subject-they want to further certain right wing causes using the captive audience of the pulpit.

Any ruling they get will protect liberal and conservative churches equally.

Correct?

[Der_Trihs]

@Bricker

Any ruling they get will protect liberal and conservative churches equally.

Correct?

No. The government always bends over backwards to favor conservatives, regardless of the wording of the law.

[Bricker]

@steronz

I really can’t imagine that’s the desired outcome. Religious leaders can already preach about various moral and political issues, can’t they? Which means they can essentially spell out support for a specific candidate without saying his or her name, much in the same way that “issue ads” skirt campaign finance rules by not directly mentioning a candidate.

If the IRS acts, they get a rather marginal increase in political power in exchange for losing their tax exempt status. I have no problem with them forcing the government’s hand, but I can’t imagine they actually want to lose their tax exempt status. I’d think they’d want the IRS to do nothing.

From the link I provided in the OP:

The ADF and similar organizations feel like the rule makes churches choose, however, between participating in political campaigns they feel strongly about and accepting tax-free donations. “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” is a way to goad the IRS into enforcing their restrictions, which could then be challenged in court.

They want the IRS to act. If the IRS does not act, they cannot challenge the restriction in court.

[Bricker]

@Der_Trihs

No. The government always bends over backwards to favor conservatives, regardless of the wording of the law.

As well they should. The full force of government power should be applied to stamp out the insidious cancer that is liberalism, and I for one am thrilled that it is.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Czarcasm

Pretty much my prediction too-the Oppressed Christian Majority will get away with it for the most part, and Bricker will declare a great victory over the Imaginary Oppressors.

And if they don’t, that’s evidence of said oppression, isn’t it?

See also Bricker’s infamous thread about the liberals’ “war on Christmas” for background.

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

Any ruling they get will protect liberal and conservative churches equally.

Correct?

Free catnip for cats and mice-Huzzah!