Pastors May Defy IRS Gag Rule

[Diraker]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121029464937179517.html?mod=special_page_campaig n2008_leftbox

Gonna just copy paste it here because I think the link is a temp (as in it changes as news gets printed).

Legal Group Urges
Ministers to Preach
About Candidates
By SUZANNE SATALINE
May 9, 2008; Page A5

A conservative legal-advocacy group is enlisting ministers to use their pulpits to preach about election candidates this September, defying a tax law that bars churches from engaging in politics.

Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz., nonprofit, is hoping at least one sermon will prompt the Internal Revenue Service to investigate, sparking a court battle that could get the tax provision declared unconstitutional. Alliance lawyers represent churches in disputes with the IRS over alleged partisan activity.

The action marks the latest attempt by a conservative organization to help clergy harness their congregations to sway elections. The protest is scheduled for Sunday, Sept. 28, a little more than a month before the general election, in a year when religious concerns and preachers have been a regular part of the political debate.

It also comes as the IRS has increased its investigations of churches accused of engaging in politics. Sen. Barack Obama's denomination, the United Church of Christ, has said it was under investigation after it allowed the Democratic presidential candidate to address 10,000 church members last year. Last summer, the tax agency said it was reviewing complaints against 44 churches for activities in the 2006 election cycle. Churches found to be in violation can be fined or lose their tax exemptions.

The section of the tax code barring nonprofits from intervening in political campaigns has long frustrated clergy. Many ministers consider the provision an inappropriate government intrusion, blocking the duty of clergy to advise congregants.

Alliance fund staff hopes 40 or 50 houses of worship will take part in the action, including clerics from liberal-leaning congregations. About 80 ministers have expressed interest, including one Catholic priest, says Erik Stanley, the Alliance's senior legal counsel.

"The government should not be telling the church what it should or should not be saying," says the Rev. Steve Riggle, senior pastor of Grace Community Church in Houston, who hopes to take part in the Alliance effort. Mr. Riggle says he told his congregation from the pulpit, before the Texas primary in March, that he was supporting former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee for president. "As a pastor, a private citizen, I can speak for myself. The IRS cannot quench my voice," he says.

In recent years, attempts by members of Congress to change the law have failed. "Tax exemption is a benefit, and it comes with conditions," says Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a nonprofit that has filed more than a dozen complaints in the past year with the IRS, accusing nonprofits of tax-code violations. "So if any pastor out there feels he is gagged or can't speak on partisan politics...forgo the tax exemption and say what you want."

In 1954, Congress made it illegal for nonprofits, including churches, to endorse or publicly oppose political candidates or to intervene in candidates' elections, although they are free to take sides on issues. Only one church has challenged this, unsuccessfully. The U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia ruled in 2000 that the IRS didn't violate constitutional rights when it revoked the tax-exempt status of Branch Ministries of Binghamton, N.Y., which had bought newspaper ads opposing Bill Clinton's candidacy.

Some legal scholars are hoping for a new test case. Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, says a church might make a successful claim that the federal government is burdening the free exercise of religion and cannot do so without a compelling state interest.

Write to Suzanne Sataline at suzanne.sataline@wsj.com

I say bring it on! Some churches already de facto pimp for certain candidates. I'm in favor of taxing churches anyway (at least taxing them regarding endeavors not related to non-discriminatory charity work). Also this is a story about the ADF (Alliance Defense Fund). We've talked about them here before.

At least the people I know and people around where I live, I think they'd be offended if their priest or pastor said that they should vote for a certain somebody. As in, "only proper christians vote for .....". Yeah, that'll fly.

So should churches (and people officially representing their particular church) be allowed to (and keep their tax exempt status) explicitly advocate for a particular candidate?

Later I will post a link describing the IRS and tax exemption stuff but RL calls for now.

[Roxie]

yes, no, maybe so

[Mutt]

Churches using their sermons and pulpit to endorse, or opposed political candidates should have their tax exempt status removed.

A pastor talking privately to individuals in his congregation should be allowed to, just like anyone else does.

Of course being tax exempt in Canada is a pretty big thing simply due to the heavier taxation here.

[Slak]

At least the people I know and people around where I live, I think they'd be offended if their priest or pastor said that they should vote for a certain somebody. As in, "only proper christians vote for .....". Yeah, that'll fly.

So should churches (and people officially representing their particular church) be allowed to (and keep their tax exempt status) explicitly advocate for a particular candidate?

Later I will post a link describing the IRS and tax exemption stuff but RL calls for now.

Uhh no. Blanketing a church because of the things one pastor says in a pulpit? Thats asinine. There are a lot of groups, activities and organizations that fall under a single churches umbrella and the preacher in the pulpit (or one of the several...) does not have a role in every single one. Punishing a whole group for the actions of a few individuals? oooook. The US gov does not need to babysit grown adults.

[Mutt]

Then why should that church get the major benefit of being tax exempt?

[Diraker]

Tax exemption is not a right.

[Slak]

The U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia ruled in 2000 that the IRS didn't violate constitutional rights when it revoked the tax-exempt status of Branch Ministries of Binghamton, N.Y., which had bought newspaper ads opposing Bill Clinton's candidacy.

If you can prove that a church is in collusion with a political party then sure. But IMO trying to nab churches in which the pastor or w/o might go on a political diatribe in church is none of the governments business.

A church has every right to practice and preach w/e the hell it wants to INSIDE of the church. When a church however starts campaigning for an official (as a church with church funds and with church support ie not some loney) then sure you can take away their tax exempt status. However, this reeks of a witch hunt in which people are trying to get churches in trouble for what is said inside of a church. Which IMO is none of a governments damn business (within reason).

[Diraker]

Since the issue is tax exemption is certainly is the governments business. If they weren't tax exempt than absolutely the church could say whatever they want about whatever candidate they want.

And I 100% agree with the idea of holding other tax exempt organizations to the same standards as churches however the ADF is requesting that churches preach about candidates because, I dunno, they think that for some reason churches deserve special treatment.

eta: hey and even though it's not indicated you edited a bit...not a problem just that my post was addressing what was edited. Anyway I think we mostly agree on churches but the story is regarding the ADF's request for churches to force the issue by directly violating their tax exemption agreements.

[Slak]

A church shouldnt overtly support a candidate outside of a church, but its dangerous letting the government dangle carrots in front of churches like this.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Not all churches have lots of support, and I imagine quite a few rely on tax exemption to provide some of the community programs they have. You are right that tax exemption is not a right, but then again it was not a right derived to the government in the original 10.

In either case, its got a lot of potential for an interesting supreme court case, guess ill have to wati and see.

[Gnioss]

A church shouldnt overtly support a candidate outside of a church, but its dangerous letting the government dangle carrots in front of churches like this.

I agree. Remove tax exempt status altogether.

[Slak]

ya, except then there would be trouble between the first amendment and the sixteenth. With a conservative court, good luck with that.

[Diraker]

I'm finding the carrot comment to be odd. Maybe I am misunderstanding but IMO the First Amendment is a reason why religion has flourished in the U.S. The First Amendment is not only the secularists best friend but it's a religionists best friend as well. And I'm not just talking about the free exercise clause. The establishment clause makes sure that the government doesn't endorse one religion and this provides the room for other religions to gow. The government is fairly hands off regarding religion (and visa versa) and this creates an environment which allows religion to prosper. It's sort of ironic depending on how you think about it.

Anyway it seems to me that the ADF (and maybe Slak, although I admit I am a bit confused) are making it seem as though churches freedom of expression is somehow being infringed on. But IMO this idea just doesn't hold any water because to revoke a privilege is not infringing on anyone's rights, at all.

[Slak]

No Im not saying that at all, but the carrots (in this case tax exemption) are dangerous when a lot of strings are attached to them. IMO its analogous to states rights in which a state technically can override federal law in specific instances, but doing so could risk federal funding (funding that many states need).

Churches and many non-profit organizations rely on tax exempt status for many of the activities that they carry out. The good of this is that those organizations (religious or not) provide programs and aid that the government does not. While its nice to pinpoint this onto religious organization due to the nature of religion getting quite easily mixed in with politics, its dangerous in that this case could offer government an easy and arbitrary way of determining which organizations merit tax-exempt status ergo indirectly promoting various organizations over others. Of course, small organizations that can't afford the tax to be active will suffer the most. It can also be used as a means of censoring discussion of important issues that may affect a church or organization.

As far as tax-exemption being a bonus, fiscally taxing these organizations is just plain bad economics. They provide a service to their communities and only in rare and extreme cases should a tax be assessed.


Found an article about this in 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/25/irs_cites_charities_political_activity/

By Mary Dalrymple, Associated Press | February 25, 2006

WASHINGTON -- IRS exams found that nearly 3 out of 4 churches, charities, and other civic groups suspected of having violated restraints on political activity in the 2004 election did so, the agency said yesterday.

Most of the examinations that have concluded found a single, isolated incidence of prohibited campaign activity.

In three cases, however, the Internal Revenue Service uncovered violations egregious enough to recommend revoking the groups' tax-exempt status.

The majority of charities and churches followed the law, but the examinations found a ''disturbing" amount of political intervention in the 2004 elections, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson said.

''It's disturbing not because it's pervasive, but because it has the potential to really grow and have a very bad impact on the integrity of charities and churches," Everson said in an interview.

The tax agency looked at charities, churches, and other tax-exempt organizations referred to the IRS for potentially violating laws that bar them from participating in or intervening in elections, including advocating for or against any candidate.

Those referred to the IRS represent a tiny fraction of more than 1 million tax-exempt organizations organized under section 501(c)(3) of the tax law.

The IRS examined 110 organizations referred to the tax agency for potential violations; 28 cases remain open.

Among the 82 closed cases, the IRS found prohibited politicking and sent a written warning to 55 organizations and assessed a penalty tax against one group. Those organizations included 37 churches and 19 other organizations.

In the three additional cases in which the IRS recommended revoking tax-exempt status, none of the organizations were churches. The agency did not identify the three.

The IRS found tax violations unrelated to politics in five cases. Examinations of the 18 remaining groups did not turn up any wrongdoing.

In some cases, the IRS found flagrant violations of the law. In others, charities did not understand their obligations. Many activities fall into an ambiguous area that requires closer scrutiny of context and timing.

''There are very few places where you can draw bright lines," Everson said. ''People have to think about this."

Among the prohibited activities, the examiners found that charities and churches had distributed printed material supporting a preferred candidate and assembled improper voter guides or candidate ratings.

Back to my point, Im against what the ADF is trying to do because it does not make fiscal sense, and in general what would be applied to churches would be applied to every non-profit organization.

[Soulein]

I don't think we should hold entire churches responsible for the actions of a single minister, however no responsible religious organization should be conducting those sort of activities. Although I haven't been to mass in a year and change, if I were attending, I would challenge them on this sort of behavior.

[Diraker]

I am not advocating for IRS agents to be inside every church spying revoking tax exemption from churches at the slightest mention of a candidate. A genuine accidental slip up shouldn't be reason for revoking tax status. I tried to use words like "officially" and "explicit" to describe the politicking I am referring to. I am however trying to bring to people's attention how the ADF is pushing the issue. The ADF is willing to risk other people's churches tax exempt status for their own agenda. IMO it would be unfortunate if a small church followed the ADF's suggestion, lost their tax status, and ended up going under. It would be a shame if, for example, a church's soup kitchen activities could no longer be done because some preacher thought it was a good idea to listen to the ADF.

I do however like the notion of the ADF bringing this into the national spotlight (hence my original "bring it on" comment). There are many good reasons why churches receive too many benefits in regards to their tax breaks. I'd love for these issues to get into the collective consciousness of the American public. For example, the deal was that churches could do religion and charity work for the tax exemptions...seems fair to me. However these days some churches take advantage of the situation and have entire tax free malls, concerts, T.V. programs, etc. These tax free church run business ventures get the benefit of being tax exempt and directly compete with private non tax free businesses.

[Slak]

Ya I defiantly agree with that.

[Diraker]

Just an update since Sept. 28th was last Sunday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26930425/

All told, 33 pastors in 22 states were to make pointed recommendations about political candidates Sunday, an effort orchestrated by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund.

Copies to be sent to IRS

The conservative legal group plans to send copies of the pastors' sermons to the IRS with hope of setting off a legal fight and abolishing restrictions on church involvement in politics. Critics call it unnecessary, divisive and unlikely to succeed.

Congress amended the tax code in 1954 to state that certain nonprofit groups, including secular charities and places of worship, can lose their tax-exempt status for intervening in a campaign involving candidates.

Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said hundreds of churches volunteered to take part in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." Thirty-three were chosen, in part for "strategic criteria related to litigation" Stanley wouldn't discuss.

[Cinnabar]

Churches should not be tax exempt for any thing other than funds related to charity activities. Since they are, however, they should definitely be penalized for using their hold over people to influence the political process.

[Mutt]

Yup

[Diraker]

Yeah, that's why I am sort of glad that the ADF is pushing the issue. Although since the courts are so stacked with Bush appointees though, from like Liberty (Pat Robertson) University and stuff, the ADF might be able to push the issue all the way to the Supreme Court. I bet the ADF are hoping for a McCain victory and a McCain SCOTUS nomination by the time their case makes it up to the higher courts. Or maybe the ADF's ploy was a bust that had very little traction and even less media play. And again, IMO it's a shame if some poor pastor got suckered into this and losses his church. But also IMO there are asshole pastors who deserve to reap what they sow.