Today's Wall Street Journal reports that Alliance Defense Fund is attempting to create a constitutional test case to challenge the tax code limits on church involvement in political campaigns. It is seeking 40 to 50 houses of worship to take part in a protest on Sept. 28. ADF is asking clergy to preach sermons on that day about candidates in the November election. Under the Internal Revenue Code, churches and other charitable groups can be fined or lose their non-profit tax status if they endorse or oppose political candidates.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
13 comments:
"a constitutional test case to challenge the tax code limits on church involvement in political campaigns"
There is no such "limit" on churches. None whatsoever. There is only a limit on tax-exempt institutions.
Any church or cleric is free to say absolutely anything, about absolutely anything (or anyone), any time they wish to do so. All they have to do is give up their tax-exempt status.
There is no such thing as a "constitutional right to a tax break." There is simply nothing "constitutional" for these theocrats to "test."
More here.
The same restrictions apply to secular nonprofits.
Interesting. Looks to me like the ADF is smoking wacky tabacky. Next year may find forty to fifty churches wondering what happened to their tax-exempt status. But if they're looking at the Constitution, they'll be looking in the wrong place...
Chimera is the one smoking bad weed. Don't you know the IRS had its bluff called twice and failed to react?
Once is revoked status from a church that exposed Bill Clinton's sins, and guess what? The revocation did not prevent the church from giving out tax exempt donations receipts and the IRS accepts them!
The other case is a liberal LA church on the other side of the political aisle. Same thing only the IRS backed down. The ACLJ knows when to strike.
Some say the anti-free speech law is illegal on its face. No court has ever taken the challenge.
The law was never voted on by the House or Senate. It was added by one man, LBJ, to get revenge for their sermons condemning his adultery. He was unworthy of public office they preached.
This was his dirty little attempt at censorship. Oh, are you surprised that the censorship was done by a democrat! I'm not.
Anon, the attached WSJ article says that Congress passed the law preventing non-profits from endorsing candidates in 1954. By my calculations, that would be the D.D.E. administration, not L.B.J's. Furthermore, the restriction was challenged in 2000, and lost.
Have other facts, or are you a typical wingnut spouting crap?
"Chimera is the one smoking bad weed."
Not a chance. It's pure, home-grown BC Bud, bud. Best green stuff on the face of the earth.
I'd offer you some, but you're not allowed to have any.
Tim wrote:
"Anon, the attached WSJ article says that Congress passed the law preventing non-profits from endorsing candidates in 1954. By my calculations, that would be the D.D.E. administration, not L.B.J's. Furthermore, the restriction was challenged in 2000, and lost."
1) The "Johnson Amendment" was inserted, without debate, in 1954 following LBJ's Senate campaign. It was rammed through by the "Master of the Senate" as political revenge. Anon is correct.
2) The 2000 decision of which you speak had ZERO to do with speech from the the pulpit, which is the basis upon which ADF will be challenging the constitutionality of the IRS code.
You're oh-for-two on this one Tim.
In Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983), the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the IRS bar against substantial lobbying by nonprofits. The Court held that tax exemption was a govt benefit, and that Congress had simply chosen not to subsidize lobbying out of public funds. The Court also noted that nothing prevents nonprofits from setting up a 501(c)(4) organization, a type which is allowed to lobby.
I hadn't realized this was such a cause celebre with the extreme right.
Anon wrote that the House and Senate never voted on the prohibition. From irs.gov:
In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates.
And I doubt the IRS will much care about the distinction Chet makes between an endorsement from the pulpit and a newspaper add. They'll certainly nail any church that takes this bait, and I think the courts will (again) uphold them. Wish Intrade sold futures on this one.
I think my batting's OK.
Just one other thought. If I ever had a pastor who deliberately risked the tax exempt status of my church in order to tell me how to vote, it would be the proverbial 'cold day in hell' before another dollar would go in the collection plate.
Regardless of all the legal opinions and judgments, I think tax exemption should not be a muzzle on anyone's free speech rights.
Maybe the church ought not participate in campaigns as a church--saying, e.g., "St. Mary's supports John McCain because' he's pro-life," just because all the members of that church may not agree and are entitled to their own free speech and votes. The church cannot speak for all its members --or can it?
changed my mind: If a church IS pro-life and pro-traditional marriage by DOCTRINE, why can't they speak out about candidates and issues????
In any case, the minister needs to be free to say, "We need to put pro-life people into office. Here's what I know about the voting records of our candidates and why I'll be supporting John McCain."
As it is, afr. am. churches routinely invite democratic candidates to speak --and keep their tax exemption. Therefore, that's probably why the ADF feels free to recommend this test of the law, though I think most churches are afraid to test the law. However, Clinton and Gore raised funds illegally at a Buddhist temple, did they not?
Any groups in the country should be able to engage in political free speech on their properties and from their leadership --whether or not they see fit to take a group position.
Tax exemption should not be used to buy political inactivity of a group --tax exemption is a realization that the church members are already tax payers and they use their churches' money to do much good in the community --first of all, for the people that attend, providing counsel, guidance, practical helps, of all kinds.
Most of the evangelical churches minister to many poor people in their midst --and help people to live on a higher plane than they might otherwise. The churches are thought to help many people live in peace --who otherwise might not.
The church-state separation is to keep the gov't out of controlling the churches and to keep the church itself from being the government. But the church people still have THEIR rights in representative gov't --the right to free assembly and to discuss WHATVEVER they WISH! And do whatever they wish in political arena.
As it is, now, I'm not sure most churches object to the restrictions--except when voter guides with factual voting history of candidates are disallowed as participating in a campaign --or when voter registration drives would be suspect.
The church should be allowed to help educate voters on the issues, the voting records of candidates, the church's doctrinal stand on current issues, any issues that affect the church's own interests (like tax exemptions), and to get out the vote and register voters.
I think this is allowed. What gets hairy is inviting candidates to speak. I think we should let candidates speak to the issues which we are doctrinally committed to --like pro-life candidates, pro-marriage constitution definition. Right to life amendment.
Post a Comment