Shall we gather at the river? Not in Virginia!

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Munch

But it’s not just religious organizations that get tax exemptions - it’s all 501(c)(3) groups and a handful of others. And those groups get to influence elections just as much as religious organizations do. Hell, that’s the whole *purpose * of the tax exemption (well, partially).

Spoken like someone who doesn’t work for a 501(c)(3) organization :).

[

@IRS

](http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html)
To be tax-exempt as an organization described in IRC Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) and none of the earnings of the organization may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Churches are under these rules, but they stretch them quite a bit. Again, according to the IRS:

@IRS

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code that are exempt from federal income tax are prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office. Charities, educational institutions and religious organizations, including churches, are among those that are tax-exempt under this code section.

These organizations cannot endorse any candidates, make donations to their campaigns, engage in fund raising, distribute statements, or become involved in any other activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to any candidate. Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violate the political campaign prohibition of section 501(c)(3).

Whether an organization is engaging in prohibited political campaign activity depends upon all the facts and circumstances in each case. For example, organizations may sponsor debates or forums to educate voters. If the debate or forum shows a preference for or against a certain candidate, however, it becomes a prohibited activity.

So, for example, it’s mighty questionable whether a church should be (lemme pull a wild theoretical example out of thin air here) issuing press releases during an election year that they’ll deny communion to pro-choice political candidates.

The flip side of that is that it gets mighty oogy when the government appears to be telling a church that it can’t speak out on moral issues: it appears to be unconstitutional interference in religious matters.

I’d just as soon allow churches to say whatever they want, while removing their tax-exempt status.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Ah, shit. Any mod feel like fixing my unforgiveably shitty coding? I’d be mighty grateful!

Meanwhile, here’s the link to the basic 501©(3) description, and here’s the link warning churches about campaigning. And I’ll preview this message to make sure it works.

Daniel

[jeevwoman]

@E-Sabbath

Well, if they allow swimming, they pretty much have to allow the service, far as I can tell.

Sucks to be Mr. Ranger.

I am the most avid supporter of the separation of church and state that I know, and I agree with **E-Sabbath ** on this one. If kids can dunk each other in the water, then I don’t really see the difference in the baptisms. Were they violating any of the park’s rules (ie public drinking, having their dogs offleash, etc)? If we could ban everyone from swimming whom we found offensive, the shores of Lake Michigan would be nearly empty. I guess I am not getting the distinction. What am I missing?

[capacitor]

I have to hand it for gobear for the OP.

The state does have an compelling interest in ensuring safety of the people using the park. But banning baptisms was a bit far.

The state could, for example, require trained lifeguards or paramedics to look over the baptisms. They could be among the members of the church.

[Munch]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Spoken like someone who doesn’t work for a 501(c)(3) organization :).

Actually, it’s spoken like someone who is receiving a master’s in non-profit management.

I understand the confusion you’d have with the given tax code text you quoted, but note the specific use of the word “candidate”. A priest can tell the congregation to “vote pro-life” but cannot say to “vote for George Bush”. The director of Citizens for a Brighter Dayton (made up for the purposes of this argument) can tell its membership “vote for John Smith”, and can tell them “go tell everyone you know to vote for John Smith”, and can actually tell non-members to “vote for John Smith” just so long as they don’t spend 10% of their annual expenditures (and have filed for inclusion in the 1975 exemption law).

Sorry for the lack of cites - I’m at work, and my books are at home. I’ll try to get to a computer this weekend.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Munch

Actually, it’s spoken like someone who is receiving a master’s in non-profit management.

D’oh! My apologies, and I appreciate the schooling.

My original point remains, however. The guidelines around influencing elections are famously fuzzy, especially for churches. Although I’m not doing my master’s in 501(c)(3) management, I did a research project in college in 1996 on the Christian Coalition’s voter guides, and the IRS’s response to them: they were skirting extremely close to the line of what’s permissible, and many churches, by inviting candidates to speak from the pulpit, were probably crossing over the line. The Christian Coalition’s interference in elections ended up torpedoing their chance at tax-exempt status.

A church therefore has three choices, as far as I can tell:

1. Even though the church considers (for example) abortion to be murder, they may not allow Joe Jesus, R-Rhode Island, to give a sermon on the matter at their pulpit during campaign season. This prohibition smacks of government interference in the church’s freedom of religion.
2. The church, despite its huge opposition to abortion, must give an equal invitation to Stan Satan, Democratic candidate for office, to give a sermon at the pulpit, notwithstanding Stan’s support of abortion rights. This is an even worse government interference.
3. The church may choose to abandon its tax-exempt status and then do whatever it wants.

I’d just as soon see all churches go for item #3. If they want tax-exempt status, let them achieve it based on charitable works, and let them separate their charitable works from their legislation-influencing and election-influencing works.

Daniel

[Munch]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

D’oh! My apologies, and I appreciate the schooling.

Hey, no big deal. You expect tax codes to be the exemplar of clarity? I should also have pointed out the “substantial” bit in your original quote - for organizations that don’t opt into my vaguely referenced 1975 law, you can spend an insignificant amount of resources on lobbying and such. For several decades, the IRS didn’t want to define “substantial,” and said that a good guideline would be 10-15% of expenditures (but don’t hold them to it). Final authority still resides with the IRS, though.

My original point remains, however. The guidelines around influencing elections are famously fuzzy, especially for churches. Although I’m not doing my master’s in 501©(3) management, I did a research project in college in 1996 on the Christian Coalition’s voter guides, and the IRS’s response to them: they were skirting extremely close to the line of what’s permissible, and many churches, by inviting candidates to speak from the pulpit, were probably crossing over the line. The Christian Coalition’s interference in elections ended up torpedoing their chance at tax-exempt status.

That’s a whole 'nother beast. What you have there is essentially a PAC (Political Action Committee - your typical lobbying organization/political party), which classifies as a 501©(2). They can accept donations, but they aren’t tax exempt. What they wanted to do was file as a 501©(4), your basic religious organization, which *is * tax-exempt. That’s an extremely dubious thing to do, to say the least.

Great example though. I’m going to forward it to my old professor to use as a possible case study. We used one involving a Sierra Club clone that was fairly unhelpful to the topic.