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 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?)
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My personal opinion is that either the IRS should enforce it uniformly and routinely, or it should be repealed.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
…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.
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”, 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.
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.
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.