Should a church keep tax-exempt status if it goes political?

Great Debates
1

A bill is soon to be up for a vote in Congress doing away with the ban on established tax-exempt churches participating in political activities (endorsing candidates from the pulpit, putting their funds into advertising for specific bills, putting donations into political campaigns, etc.).

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/09/04/worship/index.html
(sorry for that link, which if you don’t subscribe only offers an intro sample of the article): I’m trying to find a free news story about this issue)

What do people think about this?

It does seem crippling to offer churches, which are organizations like every other that can come to their own opinions about what is important for them to advocate and fund, a choice between political silence or losing their tax-exempt status.

Then again, it would make religions different from non-profits in general, which seems unfair on its face (special privaleges for special people). And a lot of religious people don’t WANT their churches telling them what to think about politics, or funneling their donations to candidates they aren’t even going to vote for. Of course, if they don’t like it, they can always go and join another church, or if the church is member run, vote out a leadership that engages in such activities.

Would people be comfortable in allowing all non-profit groups to put speech and effort into political lobby?

What about speech vs. money? It does seem a little extreme to prevent pastors from speaking their minds on politics, when they speak their minds on moral issues all the time. But the money rationale seems different. So would it be okay to simply require that tax-exempt orgs not fund political efforts, but let them speak their minds. Or is speech too wrapped up in funding (since pastors, after all, are paid employees of the churches that are supposed to represent it).

There’s also some question of this being one of those “win-win” issues for the Republicans bringing the bill to a vote. The public, most of whom wont take any time to find out what is actually at issue, will hear only the rhetorical charge that is anti-religion (entirely despite the strong support of many religious people for the ban), and punish the Democrats if the bill isn’t passed, while if the bill is passed, the Republicans please the people pushing for the bill, and most everyone else wont even notice.

2

A church? Acting political? Say it ain’t so!

The sponsor of this bill is presumably not a Catholic (or maybe he’s a disgruntled Catholic) and pissed off about nearly 2000 years of Papal politicking.

It soulds like he’s just annoyed that the churches in his own district are supporting his opponent. If so, it’s a damn petty reason for a constitutional challenge.

3

Not exactly an unbiased site, but more specific info is here:
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/cong13.htm

4

Churchs can already speak their mind on issues- telling members they should support pro-life candidates, or ones who are in favor of school vouchers , etc. They just can’t support particular candidates- no endorsing members to vote for candidate X because he’s for school vouchers.

5

Back in College, I did a project on church involvement in politics and talked to different pastors & political activists. The Christian Coalition’s voter guides for Washington State made a big impression on me.

The CC (a religious nonprofit) asked candidates a lot of leading questions – “Do you oppose partial-birth abortions? Do you support the freedom of choice in education that vouchers would provide?” They then picked and chose for each candidates which answers to print. A Democratic candidate who opposed vouchers and opposed dilation-extraction abortions would have printed under her picture, “Opposes free choice in education,” whereas a Republican candidate with the same positions would have printed, “Opposes partial-birth abortions.” As bad, Democratic candidates often had no picture, or their picture would be significantly smaller than a Republican’s picture.

The guide was very clearly slanted to favor some candidates over others. It was distributed to churches right before the election, so that maligned candidates wouldn’t have time to complain about its biased coverage.

And the CC encouraged churches to let Republican candidates preach a guest sermon.

Given these things, I think the CC ought to fall under tax guidelines for political advocacy organizations, not religious organizations. They’re both religious and political, but that doesn’t mean they should get the religious tax-dodge: if they do, it creates an incentive for all political organizations to claim a religious component, and that’s silly.

The question of whether a pastor can preach politics from the pulpit is more difficult. Some of the pastors I spoke to were vehement that this should be forbidden: they saw it as an abuse of position. The pastor is, for many folks, the one who tells you what God expects of you, tells you how to keep your immortal soul in good standing. If the pastor tells you to vote for a specific candidate, it may carry with it the authority of God and the hint of brimstone if you’re defiant.

On the other hand, there’s the whole freedom-of-speech issue: if a church’s religious beliefs make it clear that voting for a specific candidate will defy the divine, isn’t it the pastor’s duty to tell the congregation?

I lean toward disallowing any political endorsement from the pulpit, and feel pretty strongly that political candidates shouldn’t have access to the pulpit.

Daniel

6

I must agree. Churches being tax-exempt is already something of an issue for me, and if they’re using their authority to attempt to sway elections, it really isn’t acceptable at all.

Not that I believe this bill has a ghost of a chance of passng, as churches will do exactly what it intends to try and combat to stop it.

7

I’m not an accountant, but…

My current understanding is that there’s no way for me to tax-deduct a donation to a political campaign. I can tax deduct donations to a religious institution.

So, if this passes, it will basically allow me to tax deduct political contributions by funneling them through a religious institution.

For example, if this law passes, and I want to tax deduct a contribution to AIPAC, the American Israel Lobby, I would just donate to my synagogue and they would donate the money to AIPAC (currently not allowed).

This seems to completely circumvent the whole can’t-deduct-political-contributions law. Either get rid of the law, or keep it, but don’t give the leaders of religious institutions special status to circumvent the law.

On the other hand, it seems repressive to disallow a salaried rabbi from telling his congregants not to vote for a particular candidate because the candidate is anti-semitic.

Any accountants here? Am I ignorant?

8

Just to clarify: What’s being discussed here is a current provision of U.S. tax law (and not directly the First Amendment’s establishment of religion clause) which bars churches from engaging in political activity (e.g., endorsing candidates) on pain of losing their tax-emempt status. In general, all tax-emempt non-profit organizations, not just churches, are now barred from engaging in political activity.

The bill which has been introduced would reverse current policy, and allow churches to engage in political activity (of the “endorsing or contributing to candidates” sort, not just the “issues advocacy” sort) while maintaining their tax exemption.

9

Oh! I’m sorry, I didn’t read it clearly enough. Must have been early.

In that case, I could definately see this at least making a lot of headway. Especially with candidates that benifit a lot from churches, such as fundamentalist Christians, etc. I can’t exactly see any real good reason for churches to be tax-exempt in the first place, and if they’re becoming political, that just gives me more reason to want to maintain the status quo.

And if it gives churches greater room to try and directly affect who gets elected, I can’t see it as being a good thing.

10

“Emempt”, by the way, is…um…ah…a special legal and accounting term that means “exempt”, but is more official and stuff. Use it frequently to impress all your sophisticated friends!

11

One wonders if this bill is meant to include black churches having Jesse Jackson giving stump speeches from the pulpit during his campaign for President.

Regards,
Shodan

12

Well, under current law, black churches are supposed to be prohibited from engaging in political activity under pain of losing their tax-exemption. Such groups as Americans United for Separation of Church and State have filed complaints with the IRS against black churches for crossing the line in endorsing or supporting Democratic candidates.

Under the proposed bill, as far as I can tell black churches could openly endorse and contribute money to candidates.

13

Shodan, your example raises an interesting question. As I said, I think churches shouldn’t be allowed to hand the pulpit over to candidates (at least, not if they want to remain tax-exempt).

However, what if a candidate is already a preacher, already gives sermons from pulpits? Should he have to avoid the pulpit during his candidacy? Should Pat Robertson not be allowed to yabber on the 700 Club when he makes his presidential runs?

I’m inclined to say that a candidate should be allowed to keep his normal pulpit while campaigning; if he is a travelling preacher, he should be allowed to continue travelling and preaching. However, I’m afraid that might be open to abuse.

What do folks think?

Daniel

14

My $.02: Churches should pay taxes like any other business. That would make this a non-issue. Of course, any church proceeds that go to charity would be a tax deduction for the church.

15

Debaser: This touches on the larger issue of the fact that a “charity” can be tax exempt if its purpose is educational, scientific, or religious.

It ain’t just churches that get to be tax-exempt, all organizations with a religious purpose can be tax-exempt.

16

I, too, don’t see why a church should be tax-exempt, whether or not it engages in politics.

It bothers me that I have to pay more taxes so that religious people can get government assistance to pursue their own view of the order of things. Surely this should be against the constitution.

17

That depends on whether churches fall under the category of “business” or not. Public charities are not typically considered to be a “business,” in the usual sense of the term.

18

I don’t think churches should be tax exempt at all. I do think that their charitable activities should be tax deductible.

19

Charities are already tax-exempt.
However, religious institutions are as well, whether they engage in any substantive charity or not. The difference is that almost all churches are non-profits who’s assets go not to shareholders, but rather towards serving a particular mission. The question is if they are treated exactly like all other non-profits. In my opinion, they should. And if churches can funnel their endowments into political hucksterism without losing their tax exempt status, then so should every non-profit.

However, there is something very troubling about quasi-public funds going towards the promotion of private candidates. In a certain way, I feel like my tax dollars (which must needs be higher if certain other “special” people get exempted from paying) are going towards paying for the advertisement of things and candidates I may not support.

However, while one might say that there is something a little strange about giving tax breaks to groups of people who get together to discuss their common ideas and beliefs ONLY when those beliefs are religious, it’s a weirdness enshrined in centuries of tax law, treating religious activity as mostly beyond the ken of government to tax or regulate. The question is: how much can religious activity change before the old rules become in need of some rethinking?

20

It’s my understanding that the tax laws currently distinguish between the status of the church, and of religious-based lobby groups. If a church wants to lobby on a particular issue, it can set up a separate non-profit org to raise funds and use them to lobby, but which is subject to the same tax regime as any other lobby group. So I don’t see the need for the amendment.

To illustrate the difference: the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn teaches that the Invisibility is an intrinsic characteristic of the Pink Unicorn, and all of the faithful, as a moral obligation, should oppose any efforts to reduce the Pink Unicorn’s sacred Invisibility. Since the Church is preaching religious based morality to its members, it qualifies as a tax-exempt religious group.

But now suppose that the Church finds out that Congress, concerned about a possible Romulan invasion, is going to start work on a de-invisibliser project, which will strip invisibility from anything that is currently invisible. Such a device might strip the Pink Unicorn of her sacred Invisibility. If the Church started to raise funds to lobby against that proposal, and to campaign in favour of the Status Quo Invisibility Party, it would lose its tax exemption. Instead, the members of the Church can set up the Pro-Invisibity PAC, raise funds, and lobby to defeat the pro-visibility forces. As long as the PAC is completely separate from the Church, not surreptitiously under the Church’s control, finances and organization separate, then the Church’s tax-exempt status is maintained.

In other words, the tax system currently respects the separation of church and state. When the churches are concerned with issues of morality, religious belief, etc., the government recognizes that in the tax laws. But when the members of a church want to intervene in the political process, they’re subject to the same rules as anyone else.

(And in response to the argument that tax exemptions favour churches, bear in mind that famous line, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.” Arguably, tax-exemptions for religious groups are a recognition by the government that they should stay away from the internal affairs of churches. I could see an argument being constructed that taxing churches for their religious activities may be an unconstitutional interference with religion.)