# Pastors Will Challenge IRS Rules Prohibiting Political Endorsement **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 23, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603 "2012-09-23T17:04:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/41 "2012-09-24T02:54:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Actually, that’s what they want. If the IRS refuses to act, this exercise has little point. I don’t see how you get this impression. My guess is that they are expecting to act something like a mob, protected by their sheer numbers and perhaps a degree of anonymity. Someone will have to report each and every church where is happens (or officially speaking it won’t have happened), every case will have to be investigated, verified and documented. Then the IRS will have to put each one through a separate judicial procedure – whatever that is. These people are gambling that the IRS will simply give up after seeing the enormity of the task, and the churches will begin to do it more routinely, just like mobs used to lynch people but without the actual deaths. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/42 "2012-09-24T02:54:33Z")
> [@](#): > > I think that using the taxing power as a way to get at rights they can’t get at through legislation is a problem, however. Is it a good idea for us to make churches tax exempt or not? It is a good idea to make nonpolitical nonprofit organizations tax exempt, and to make donations to them tax deductible. If a church happens to be a nonpolitical nonprofit organization, then this applies to it. If it happens not to be, then it does not. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/43 "2012-09-24T02:54:52Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > I know the unofficial stuff, and I know what the law says (or at least its summary). > > My point, that I am very poorly making, is that the Minister can stand up for 4 Sundays straight leading up the election with Eight - count them - 8! points on why gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. > > Now - he is not outright SAYING that we should vote down Prop 8. But we certainly would know what he is pushing. Nor would he be in violation of the letter of the law. > > Is that what we want? Yeah, we’d know what he was in favor of , but I’m not sure he can’t directly tell you that the church’s position is against Proposition 8. They are permitted to do some lobbying.And I don’t necessarily have an issue with a church engaging in some lobbying or encouraging members to vote a particular way on particular issues. What I don’t want is the ability for churches to keep their tax- deductible contribution status while functioning as a political organization if contributions to other political organizations are not tax-deductible. I have no problem with any church endorsing candidates so long as contributions to that church are treated like contributions to any other organizations which endorse candidates. I can’t deduct donations to NARAL, to a union or to the NRA and if a church is going to endorse candidates like they do then donations to that church shouldn’t be tax-deductible either. Or they can set up a separate PAC and only use the non-deductible donations to the PAC to conduct political activity. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/44 "2012-09-24T02:58:47Z")
Time to just repeal their tax exemptions totally and tax the shit out of all of them. Between the Catholic church and the Mormons we can wipe out the deficit overnight. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/45 "2012-09-24T03:07:54Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > I hope you were joking, because I thought this was hilarious. ER… Yes. Reading the post to which I was responding should make it clear. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/46 "2012-09-24T03:20:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > From the link I provided in the OP: > > They want the IRS to act. If the IRS does not act, they cannot challenge the restriction in court. I really am not understanding this, most probably (I’m guessing) because there’s something about tax exemption for churches that I’m not aware of. In my current state of ignorance, it seems to me that the most likely outcome if the provision were found unconstitutional would be for churches to lose their tax exempt status, because if it turns out to be unconstitutional to say “You’re exempt from taxation so long as you’re not endorsing a candidate,” then–churches will no longer be exempt from taxation regardless of whether they are endorsing a candidate. What am I missing here? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/47 "2012-09-24T03:29:50Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It is a good idea to make nonpolitical nonprofit organizations tax exempt, and to make donations to them tax deductible. If a church happens to be a nonpolitical nonprofit organization, then this applies to it. If it happens not to be, then it does not. Problem is, nonprofits used to be tax exempt unconditionally. The political activity strings came later, after they were dependent. That’s a clear example of using the tax power to restrict something you can’t otherwise restrict. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/48 "2012-09-24T03:30:03Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I don’t see how you get this impression. My guess is that they are expecting to act something like a mob, protected by their sheer numbers and perhaps a degree of anonymity. Someone will have to report each and every church where is happens (or officially speaking it won’t have happened), every case will have to be investigated, verified and documented. Then the IRS will have to put each one through a separate judicial procedure – whatever that is. > > These people are gambling that the IRS will simply give up after seeing the enormity of the task, and the churches will begin to do it more routinely, just like mobs used to lynch people but without the actual deaths. Here is how I got the impression: > [@](#): > > More than 1,000 pastors are planning to challenge the IRS next month by deliberately preaching politics ahead of the presidential election despite a federal ban on endorsements from the pulpit. > The defiant move, they hope, will prompt the IRS to enforce a 1954 tax code amendment that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, from making political endorsements. Alliance Defending Freedom, which is holding the October summit, said it wants the IRS to press the matter so it can be decided in court. The group believes the law violates the First Amendment by “muzzling” preachers. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/49 "2012-09-24T03:31:06Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I really am not understanding this, most probably (I’m guessing) because there’s something about tax exemption for churches that I’m not aware of. > > In my current state of ignorance, it seems to me that the most likely outcome if the provision were found unconstitutional would be for churches to lose their tax exempt status, because ther would effectively no longer be such a status. In other words, if it turns out to be unconstitutional to say “You’re exempt from taxation so long as you’re not endorsing a candidate,” then–churches will no longer be exempt from taxation regardless of whether they are endorsing a candidate. > > What am I missing here? I would guess the ideal decision of the churches would be for the court to say to the government, “You cannot censor the speech of a church as a condition of tax exemption.” This would, in effect, rule out the restriction on tax exemption, not eliminate the whole concept of tax exemption. In effect, the churches would still be tax exempt, but free to act in this particular political manner. Then Congress might or might not pass new legislation to address. I personally wouldn’t have a problem with eliminating the tax exempt status of churches altogether, but I can see that idea going nowhere fast in this political climate. So a gridlock, which is pretty much the political status quo, would be to the benefit of churches. How likely is the decision that I suggest? No idea really, but IMO it would be perfect for the churches. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/50 "2012-09-24T03:31:11Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I really am not understanding this, most probably (I’m guessing) because there’s something about tax exemption for churches that I’m not aware of. > > In my current state of ignorance, it seems to me that the most likely outcome if the provision were found unconstitutional would be for churches to lose their tax exempt status, because if it turns out to be unconstitutional to say “You’re exempt from taxation so long as you’re not endorsing a candidate,” then–churches will no longer be exempt from taxation regardless of whether they are endorsing a candidate. > > What am I missing here? The strings would be unconstitutional, not the tax exempt status, which has been with us for over 200 years. The strings were attached later, for the express purpose of restricting political activity using means otherwise unavailable to the government. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/51 "2012-09-24T03:31:47Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I really am not understanding this, most probably (I’m guessing) because there’s something about tax exemption for churches that I’m not aware of. > > In my current state of ignorance, it seems to me that the most likely outcome if the provision were found unconstitutional would be for churches to lose their tax exempt status, because if it turns out to be unconstitutional to say “You’re exempt from taxation so long as you’re not endorsing a candidate,” then–churches will no longer be exempt from taxation regardless of whether they are endorsing a candidate. > > What am I missing here? There is an overarching rule that says churches are tax-exempt, and an addendum that says, “…unless they engage in politics.” The claim here is that the addendum is unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/52 "2012-09-24T03:32:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No. The government always bends over backwards to favor conservatives, regardless of the wording of the law. That’s and extremely foolish comment. When Jesse Jackson first ran for President way back in 1984 he spoke at numerous African-American churches he was regularly introduced by pastors who not only explicitly endorsed him but passed around collection plates and encouraged people to contribute to his campaign. For that matter numerous African-American ministers have regularly endorsed various liberal candidates for political office and allowed them to speak before their congregations. Anyone who thinks that it’s only conservative Republicans who receive the kind of treatment from Churches we’re discussing is grossly ignorant of modern American politics. Granted, many white people foolishly tend to ignore black people when they choose to make generalizations about the political scene. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/53 "2012-09-24T03:46:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here is how I got the impression: Do they plan to call the IRS and inform it of what they did – each and every pastor call and say, “I said such and such on Date X. Come get me.” Do they plan to document their own violations to make it crystal clear what they’re saying and doing? That would make it a lot easier and faster to get a ruling if all these churches just hand over an audio or videotape to the IRS when it knocks on their door. I personally think that most pastors who participate because they believe that they individually won’t be caught and suffer any consequences. If we are to take them at their word, then I hope the government crushes them into the legal and financial equivalent of a bloody pulp. And while I didn’t hear about black churches endorsing Jessie Jackson, I would have wished the same fate to have befallen them. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/54 "2012-09-24T03:47:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There is an overarching rule that says churches are tax-exempt, and an addendum that says, “…unless they engage in politics.” The claim here is that the addendum is unconstitutional. So I can start a political campaign and tack on the phrase “under God” somewhere or another, and all donations to my campaign become tax deductible? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/55 "2012-09-24T03:57:19Z")
It’s much easier to just organize your campaign as a non profit rather than specifically a religious non profit. I’d also like to add that for the purposes of the income tax it would actually be discriminatory to make churches pay income tax. churches are non profit. For profit corporations only pay corporate taxes on their profit. Since churches don’t make a profit, there’s nothing to tax, unless you treat them differently from other organizations. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/56 "2012-09-24T03:59:31Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Do they plan to call the IRS and inform it of what they did – each and every pastor call and say, “I said such and such on Date X. Come get me.” Do they plan to document their own violations to make it crystal clear what they’re saying and doing? That would make it a lot easier and faster to get a ruling if all these churches just hand over an audio or videotape to the IRS when it knocks on their door. I personally think that most pastors who participate because they believe that they individually won’t be caught and suffer any consequences. > > If we are to take them at their word, then I hope the government crushes them into the legal and financial equivalent of a bloody pulp. > > And while I didn’t hear about black churches endorsing Jessie Jackson, I would have wished the same fate to have befallen them. Yes, they plan to record their sermons and send them in. Um… Did you read the link in the OP? > [@](#): > > Last year hundreds of pastors participated in the special Sunday event, preaching about American politics and hot-button issues including same-sex marriage and abortion, according to The New York Times. The politically charged sermons were recorded and sent to the IRS to prove the pastors’ violations of a 1954 tax code amendment banning such discourse. Did you read the OP? > [@Bricker](#): > > They will record that sermon and send it to the IRS, essentially challenging them to take some enforcement action. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/57 "2012-09-24T04:14:55Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > No. The government always bends over backwards to favor conservatives, regardless of the wording of the law. > > That’s and extremely foolish comment. > > When Jesse Jackson first ran for President way back in 1984 he spoke at numerous African-American churches he was regularly introduced by pastors who not only explicitly endorsed him but passed around collection plates and encouraged people to contribute to his campaign. > > For that matter numerous African-American ministers have regularly endorsed various liberal candidates for political office and allowed them to speak before their congregations. > > Anyone who thinks that it’s only conservative Republicans who receive the kind of treatment from Churches we’re discussing is grossly ignorant of modern American politics. I wasn’t speaking only about churches. In general, on every issue the government favors conservatives. Plenty of extremist conservative people and organizations are largely ignored while if left wingers did the same as them they’d be considered terrorists or subversives and treated as such. It’s the Quakers and the ACLU who get spied on by the government, not right wing militia groups. It’s Rush Limbaugh that gets pushed by the military on the troops, not the left wing equivalent (even if there is one). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/58 "2012-09-24T04:30:35Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > So I can start a political campaign and tack on the phrase “under God” somewhere or another, and all donations to my campaign become tax deductible? No. Because the IRS has rules for how to qualify as a church, and merely tacking on the phrase “under God,” is insufficient. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/59 "2012-09-24T05:39:20Z")
So break it down for me: what is the likelihood that the churches will get what they really want - i.e. the ability to legally “be political” while preserving their tax exempt status? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/60 "2012-09-24T06:09:54Z")
Very. It’s pretty cut and dried. Congress may not use the tax power to regulate something they can’t otherwise get at with their legislative power. Perhaps if being non-political had been a condition from the beginning it might be seen differently by the courts, but adding it on after churches have come to depend on it is clearly trying to use the tax power to compel behavior. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603.md?page=4)