# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/101 "2012-09-24T20:30:15Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > It’s not ridiculous at all. If this ends up allowing churches to endorse political candidates and at the same time maintain their tax exempt status and allows parishioners to continue to deduct their donations (and admittedly that’s a big if), then by the logic of Citizen’s United, if they can speak their endorsement they can also spend on their endorsement. Or so they will eventually claim if they haven’t thought of it already. If churches can act as tax-exempt PACs…then all PACs will eventually re-organize as churches! As was mentioned upthread: they’ll just add a word or two to their charter – “National Abortion Rights Action League and Church” – and float a supertanker through the loophole. Meanwhile, anybody remember the [Bush Administration trying to yank the tax-exempt status from a church when the pastor gave a sermon](http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/07/local/me-allsaints7) on “Peace?” Bush took that as an “anti-war” statement, which would be explicitly political, given we were at war. (Actually, I never did hear how that one played out. What was the final resolution?) ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/102 "2012-09-24T20:41:17Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Let’s be perfectly clear: their speech is chilled, not by a fear of jackbooted government thugs, but by a desire to keep their preferential tax status… I wasn’t making any comment on the fairness or constitutionality of law itself, I was responding to the post I quoted saying that they can essentially ‘get away with it’ now, so why would they want it changed. They want it changed because it’s a sword hanging over their head, and many ministers would like to say something, realize they are almost certain to get away with doing it, but are afraid of being the one out of thousands that the IRS shits on for it. My personal opinion is that _either_ the IRS should enforce it uniformly and routinely, or it should be repealed. I have no real opinion on which is the _proper_ option. As it stands now, it chills the speech of the timid, and so only the gutsy or politically connected feel free to speak. _That_ is what ain’t right, IMO. ---
**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, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/103 "2012-09-24T20:50:14Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Maybe I missed it earlier, or misinterpreted your posts, but you seem to be happy that the challenge is being made and you wish a final decision be done by the courts, but, as far as I’ve seen, you haven’t taken a side on the actual decision. Correct. My only position here is that a rule which is never enforced, but held out as a possible penalty, is an untenable state of affairs. I am not yet sure about I think things SHOUD be, from a public policy perspective, but I am pretty certain the rule is constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/104 "2012-09-24T20:52:15Z")
Too late to edit my last. Please pretend I ETA’d. ETA: _That_ seems to me to be the point of the exercise the OP is about. And now _actual_ ETA: And the post the OP snuck in on me specifically _says_ so. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/105 "2012-09-24T20:54:23Z")
> [@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. Well, the moment they make endorsing a political candidate a permissible activity for a church, you will see superPACs, party PACs and even candidate committees replaced by churches as the primary funding vehicle for political contributions. Being able to deduct your political contributions makes them better vehicles for political donations. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/106 "2012-09-24T20:58:11Z")
> [@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. Bricker I just saw the video. You can’t POSSIBLY agree with this guy’s interpretation of the law (or even the situation). ---
**Author:** ![Gerald\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Gerald\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gerald_II)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/107 "2012-09-24T21:03:18Z")
> [@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. It’s the dumbing down of society. A lot of these churches promote socially conservative beliefs and yet don’t think the congregation can connect the dots and find out which party is socially conservative. They don’t want people to think for themselves, they want to tell people what to think. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/108 "2012-09-24T21:12:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Correct. My only position here is that a rule which is never enforced, but held out as a possible penalty, is an untenable state of affairs. So you’d be as fine with the IRS finally enforcing the law and penalizing those churches that do use their pulpit to endorse specific candidates as with the law being struck down and allowing churches to endorse whatever they want while still being granted tax exempt status. You just want to know one way or the other? Me, I don’t think this grandstanding by the pastors will come even close to offering a solution. I’m not sure Christian Echoes needs to be revisited, nor that the IRS has the gumption to actually enforce the law. Even if the court decides this, I really don’t see a change for the positive happening anytime soon. Churches will still try to get around the rule, even if constitutional, and the IRS will still refuse to strictly enforce it. We’ll be back where we are right now. For me, I’d rather see the pastors spending the millions they are going to spend on lawyer fees, court costs, and potential fines doing stuff like feeding the poor or building houses for the homeless. But that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![Gerald\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Gerald\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gerald_II)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/109 "2012-09-24T21:12:34Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Bricker I just saw the video. You can’t POSSIBLY agree with this guy’s interpretation of the law (or even the situation). I’m watching that video right now. The guest on the show is saying that churches can’t speak out against homosexuality because it’s considered too political even though it’s Biblical as well. I’ve seen many videos of pastors condemning homosexuality so I think this guy is trying to mix lies with truth in order to gain support for this. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/110 "2012-09-24T21:12:42Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Question: does separation of Church and State go both ways? It depends on the situation, whose special interests are involved, who greases the right palm, what will get the votes, etc etc etc. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/111 "2012-09-24T22:04:18Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > If churches can act as tax-exempt PACs…then all PACs will eventually re-organize as churches! As was mentioned upthread: they’ll just add a word or two to their charter – “National Abortion Rights Action League and Church” – and float a supertanker through the loophole. > Meanwhile, anybody remember the [Bush Administration trying to yank the tax-exempt status from a church when the pastor gave a sermon](http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/07/local/me-allsaints7) on “Peace?” Bush took that as an “anti-war” statement, which would be explicitly political, given we were at war. > > (Actually, I never did hear how that one played out. What was the final resolution?) The wiki page appears to show that the IRS considered them to be in violation, but that there was nothing done about it either. > **[All Saints Episcopal Church (Pasadena, California)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Saints_Episcopal_Church_(Pasadena,_California))** > > All Saints Church is an Episcopal church located in Pasadena, California and part of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles. The current building is the third home for activities of this church. > The church has a reputation of being one of Southern California's most liberal churches and one of the largest Episcopal churches in the country. Reported average attendance is 429 (2023). Former Rector Ed Bacon said that political activism "is in the DNA of the church." > In 1980, All Saints was listed b... This is a good example - the church preaches peace. When we are at war, does that violate IRS rules? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/112 "2012-09-26T18:43:50Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > So you’d be as fine with the IRS finally enforcing the law and penalizing those churches that do use their pulpit to endorse specific candidates as with the law being struck down and allowing churches to endorse whatever they want while still being granted tax exempt status. You just want to know one way or the other? “Fine” is a bit much. I’m not really sure which I favor as a matter of public policy. I just know I don’t favor the current situation in which the law exists but is routinely not enforced. As someone said above, it creates a situation in which only the gutsy or the politically connected can violate the law with impunity. ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/113 "2012-09-27T16:07:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Fine” is a bit much. I’m not really sure which I favor as a matter of public policy. I just know I don’t favor the current situation in which the law exists but is routinely not enforced. As someone said above, it creates a situation in which only the gutsy or the politically connected can violate the law with impunity. So, you’d favor installing systems in all cars to make sure that everyone who speeds, even a tiny bit, is caught and fined? Or repealing speed laws entirely? Surely any lawyer has to have long ago come to grips with the idea that there is no law that is ever fully enforced or enforceable. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/114 "2012-09-27T16:22:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Fine” is a bit much. I’m not really sure which I favor as a matter of public policy. I just know I don’t favor the current situation in which the law exists but is routinely not enforced. As someone said above, it creates a situation in which only the gutsy or the politically connected can violate the law with impunity. You’re on the fence, not sure which you favor. Imagine you’re in charge of the IRS. Your lack of surety (sureitude? sureness?) is, I think, exactly what the IRS and the powers that be are feeling also. They don’t have the political gumption or the desire, to have the IRS strictly enforce the regulation. They also don’t want to have churches being able to throw their weight around politically, whether through endorsements for specific candidates or donating to political causes, or buying airtime. And the pastors certainly don’t want to lose their tax exempt status. So we end up with lax (if any) enforcement and churches watching their step. I think your own unsureness is held by more people than not, and it results in this grey area in the law. And I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/115 "2012-09-27T16:48:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Fine” is a bit much. I’m not really sure which I favor as a matter of public policy. I just know I don’t favor the current situation in which the law exists but is routinely not enforced. As someone said above, it creates a situation in which only the gutsy or the politically connected can violate the law with impunity. …or anyone who has his parishioners under his thumb. Let’s face it; the only way this could be enforced is if members of the congregation are reporting it. I doubt Americans United for Separation of Church and State is going to be sending observers to Sunday Mass. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/116 "2012-09-27T17:51:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I doubt Americans United for Separation of Church and State is going to be sending observers to Sunday Mass. Why would you doubt it? I can see them sending out somebody to try to find a case they can sue someone over. Charles Krauthammer wrote a brilliantly funny article about the ACLU doing something like this, called “[On Manger Patrol with the ACLU](http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1361740.html)”, and their experiences looking for people to object to Nativity displays on public property. It didn’t always go smoothly, but that is the sort of thing they need. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/117 "2012-09-27T18:20:53Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Why would you doubt it? I can see them sending out somebody to try to find a case they can sue someone over. > > Charles Krauthammer wrote a brilliantly funny article about the ACLU doing something like this, called “[On Manger Patrol with the ACLU](http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1361740.html)”, and their experiences looking for people to object to Nativity displays on public property. It didn’t always go smoothly, but that is the sort of thing they need. Way back in the mists of time while in college I worked part-time as a receptionist at a Planned Parenthood office (not health center). I was very clearly instructed on not answering any questions about who PP supported in the next election. People opposed to PP would call asking for such things in the hopes of getting their tax-exempt status removed. I was surprised at this and thought it was much ado about nothing but as it happened we would get calls asking that fairly regularly. In short, both sides play these kinds of games against each other. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/118 "2012-09-27T18:22:27Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Meanwhile, anybody remember the [Bush Administration trying to yank the tax-exempt status from a church when the pastor gave a sermon](http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/07/local/me-allsaints7) on “Peace?” Bush took that as an “anti-war” statement, which would be explicitly political, given we were at war. That article does a really poor job of communicating the IRS issue at hand. In fact, many in this thread continue to show confusion as well. The issue isn’t “being political” that threatens a non-profit’s tax-exempt status (ANY non-profit, not just churches), it’s the explicit endorsement or condemnation of a political candidate. All Saints Episcopal didn’t specifically condemn George W. Bush on the eve of the election, but certainly used sufficient language to be clearly sending a message that Bush’s specific policies were under attack, and linking those policies to the Bush’s candidacy. The IRS’ policies on this are sufficiently vague for a reason - there’s a lot of subjectivity and judgement calls in these cases. To say, “well, we didn’t specifically endorse or condemn a specific candidate” just isn’t going to cut it. Prediction: The IRS will issue a press release before October 7 reiterating the guidelines that all 501(c)(3) organizations must abide by to maintain their tax-exempt status, including a clarification on the difference between a political statement and a candidate endorsement. All churches that proceed with the October 7 plan will receive a “cut that shit out” letter from the IRS. A small handful of churches (I’ll go with 4) will lose their exemption, probably from having already received a similar letter in the past. Confusion will still reign as people continue to not understand what “tax-exempt” means. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/119 "2012-09-27T18:23:32Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Your lack of surety (sureitude? sureness?) Certainty. \ ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603/120 "2012-09-27T18:34:31Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Well, the moment they make endorsing a political candidate a permissible activity for a church, you will see superPACs, party PACs and even candidate committees replaced by churches as the primary funding vehicle for political contributions. Being able to deduct your political contributions makes them better vehicles for political donations. I think the IRS doesn’t do anything more than write a stern letter until churches start acting like PACs. Stand up on your pulpit, endorse whoever you want to all the parishoners within earshot, here is your stern letter. Start collecting money to buy radio or TV time, start openly hosting fund raising events, good bye tax exempt status. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pastors-will-challenge-irs-rules-prohibiting-political-endorsement/635603.md?page=7)