Fair enough. Let’s say they’re not going to be sending out enough people to provide a workable enforcement mechanism.
Is the law actually rarely enforced, or are there just very few violations? I know that there are at least a few enforcements in recent memory, like when a church lost its status for running a newspaper ad urging people not to vote for Bill Clinton: Bramch Ministries v. Rossotti, 211 F.3d 137 (2000), or when Jerry Falwell lost his tax exempt status retroactively for two years for diverting church funds to a PAC.
I don’t think the idea is for the groups to enforce the law - just to find cases they can use to push the government to enforce it, or strike it down. Rather like the situation described in the OP.
But Whack-a-Mole is quite right - all sides do this kind of thing. The NRA publishes lists of the candidates’ positions on gun control Anti-abortion groups do the same on abortion (as do pro-abortion groups on the other side).
It’s a fine line between “such-and-such is our position, and here is a list of candidates who agree with us” and “vote for So-and-so”.
Regards,
Shodan
There are over 4 million 501(c)(3) non-profits in this country (a few million more if you include those small enough they don’t have to file for status). The law is simply not enforced.
The NRA has two separate organizations. Donations to the NRA are charitable. Donations to the NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action) are NOT. While their stance list might blur the line, the NRA also has a strong true political arm.
The same is true of the ACLU (donations to which are not charitable) and the ACLU Foundation (which are). This sort of bifurcation seems pretty common for interest groups.
It’s also common for larger apolitical non-profits where there’s strong incentive to remove fundraising efforts to the foundation side. You’ll see a lot of Goodwill Foundations in urban locations, since it’s hard to separate out the financials between retail income and financial donation income.
Maybe, but it appears that the IRS is still willing to do at least some symbolic enforcement on rare occassions, and the Courts of Appeal are upholding it when they do. If the local parish minister openly advocates or strongly, strongly wink-wink hints that one should vote for a certain candidate, he’s generally preaching to the converted and nothing comes of it because nobody wants to start a tempest in a teapot, particularly when there’s no recording of what was actually said. That’s a bit different from the church recording it themselves, mailing it to the media and relevant authorites and double-dog daring anybody to do a thing about it. It’s kind of like how the vast majority of speeders on the road at any given moment won’t be ticketed, but that doesn’t mean I’ll go unpunished if I blow the doors off of a state trooper with my horn blowing while flipping him the bird.
Well, you’re quite the pendant.
I hate to broach the subject, but did you mean pedant?
The NRA is a 501(c)(4), not a 501(c)(3), organization. It is a non-profit, but it is not tax exempt. NARAL (to give a specific example of a pro choice group) is also a 501(c)(4) organization. They have to pay taxes and donations to the NRA and NARAL are not tax deductible.
Churches are 501(c)(3) organizations They have different rules. They’re tax exempt and donations made to them (and other 501(c)(3) organizations) are tax deductible. And they have greater restrictions on their activities. The churches in the OP seem to want the benefits of 501(c)(3) orgs, but not be subject to the restrictions placed on those types of organizations.
Absolutely - sorry if I gave off a different impression. My point was only that 4 million organizations are a lot to keep track of and enforce with any real semblance of consistency or predictability.
Actually, it’s those small preaching-to-the-choir churches that end up in trouble, because a) they seem to be more likely to make statements from the pulpit that are in violation of their status and b) they’ll do it often enough to get someone in the congregation (or someone in the community) to come and record it occurring (or at least report it to the IRS, who sends someone out).
Well, maybe. But it’s also the equivalent of someone making egregious and blatant errors on their tax return, and the IRS sending them a letter stating, “Hey - we know what you’re doing. Don’t do it again.” Because that’s what’s going to happen - there’s absolutely no way the IRS is going to yank the tax-exempt status of hundreds (thousands?) of mainstream churches and risk a MAJOR political backlash. That’s most likely another motivation on the part of these churches - to give them ammunition to say, “Obama hates Christians, and his administration is openly attacking us and our right to free speech”.
It’s been over three hours–don’t leave us hanging!
Check your messages, maybe he gave you a ring.
And they are going to date and mail that letter so it gets to the Pastors in the afternoon mail on November the 7th.
I don’t see so much an effort at “resolving uncertainty about enforcement”, which they could have challenged during any administration in the last couple of decades, as rather an attempt to pull the “Help, help, I’m being oppressed!” card on the current one.
Sorry, it was a throw-away comment that I thought some might recognize. It was an intentional corruption of pedant.
Another tightly argued thread by Bricker. (No sarcasm: the argument was disciplined.)
Huh. I guessed otherwise.
I tend to be a fan of constructive ambiguity. If it’s a big deal, the issue will be pressed and the courts will work things out. If it’s not a big deal, there’s no need for bright lines. Most mainline churches didn’t have a problem with this state of affairs for 50+ years.
If there’s a real problem, then it is something that is worth taking a risk on. Otherwise not. I don’t support the actions of these troublemaking pastors. I can, however, live with them and acknowledge their right to press the issue. It’s the way the system works. Intermingling of church and state tends to the detriment of both. I liked the 50 year standoff. Now that the ceasefire is over, we’ll have to deal with it.
Politically connected? Are you saying that enforcement of this has been uneven? I don’t have a problem with thin enforcement of rules that have a solid basis. It gives the national interest option value, which is a plus. I also don’t have a problem with “Making an example” of someone. It tends towards cost-efficiency.
I knew that-thus, my “broach” response. 
Sure. But consider for a longer moment the precise meaning of “cost efficiency” in this context. Do you make an example of a struggling pastor in a minority neighborhood, or a pastor of a megachurch, whose fight will include a cadre of lawyers with the time and the money backing to bury the IRS in paper and move the fight into the court system?
The decision to proceed on a “cost-effective” basis has, as an unintended consequence, the greater risk for those without resources to fight. I say that’s an undesirable state of affairs.
I had not considered that angle: good point. I guess I would distinguish between 2 sorts of challenges to the law. If the law was broken inadvertently, then your example is troubling. If it was done intentionally, but without the plan of pushing the case to the appellate level and beyond, then your example is troubling as well.
But if you’re going to make a test case of something (eg Griswold v Connecticut according to Robert Bork’s SC testimony) then methinks you better get the big guns lined up ahead of time. Heck, if it’s a perfect test case, the big guns will come to you - consider Gideon v. Wainwright (cite: Anthony Lewis).
IANAL, but I suspect you could give multiple troubling examples outside of my test case scenario.