Can churches promote political candidates?

[tryreading]

There was a story on The News Hour today about complaints submitted to the IRS on the political activity of two churches in Ohio. The complaints were the idea of a reverend of an Ohio church who disagrees with their actions, and signed by a number of other churches.


In a challenge to the ethics of conservative Ohio religious leaders and the fairness of the Internal Revenue Service, a group of 56 clergy members contends that two churches have gone too far in supporting a Republican candidate for governor.

Two complaints filed with the tax agency say that the large Columbus area churches, active in President Bush's narrow Ohio win in 2004, violated their tax-exempt status by pushing the candidacy of J. Kenneth Blackwell, who is the secretary of state and the favored candidate of Ohio's religious right.
The clergy members said the churches improperly held political activities and allowed Republican organizations to use their facilities.

The goal of the challenge is "for these churches to stop acting like electioneering organizations," said the Rev. Eric Williams, pastor of North Congregational United Church of Christ. "I don't want to harm or demonize these churches. I want these churches to act legally."
...

Describing himself as a centrist, he said his worries also apply to churches that endorse Democratic candidates and invite them into the pulpit. He said: "I think that's problematic, as well. That's something people shouldn't do."

The Columbus complainants point to IRS investigations of a liberal California church and the NAACP in asking whether the tax agency is being sufficiently aggressive in the Ohio case. Lerner, the IRS official, said she could not confirm or deny that the agency has begun an Ohio investigation.

In Pasadena, Calif., the IRS is examining the tax-exempt status of All Saints Church because its former pastor delivered a sermon that criticized Bush on the Iraq war and Republican conservatives on social policy two days before the 2004 election.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5170124



This is a brief explanation of the IRS statute:

The Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Those section 501(c)(3) organizations that are private foundations are subject to additional restrictions that are not described in this fact sheet.

What is Political Campaign Intervention?

Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention. Distributing statements prepared by others that favor or oppose any candidate for public office will also violate the prohibition. Allowing a candidate to use an organization’s assets or facilities will also violate the prohibition if other candidates are not given an equivalent opportunity.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html

 

[jfuh]

Church has no business in politics, and politics has no business in Church. Plain and simple.
However it seems that both dems and repubs don't understand this simple law in the first amendment and have to corrupt the church by showing it's in thier best interest. Which is why we have so many bible thumpers today.
Hate to break it to you, but you needn't pay taxes for your church because you do not participate in state affairs. Church is better reserved for the spiritual world, not the human world. Leave that to the academics.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Sure they can. They just give up their tax exempt status if they choose to do so.

 

[Thorgasm]

I have no idea why churches have tax exempt status anyway.

 

[tryreading]

Sure they can. They just give up their tax exempt status if they choose to do so.

But in this example, they don't want to do that. They want to have what they call their 'freedom of speech' and their tax exempt status too. This involves taxpayers funding churches to endorse candidates illegally. I don't want to pay them to break the law.

 

[alphamale]

The 56 clergy members are all liberals - their problem is ideology, not tax exempt status. However, a few churches may have gone over the line in supporting Blackwell. It is not clearcut because to my knowledge none of them ever said "vote for Blackwell". They gave him an award for support of their values. Liberal/left clergy have long been involved in politics - now they've become born-again religion-politics seperators because of the effectiveness of religious conservatives. The conservative churches had it correct before - give their congregations pahmphlets with the political views of candidates - then they'll know whom to vote for.

 

[Thorgasm]

But in this example, they don't want to do that. They want to have what they call their 'freedom of speech' and their tax exempt status too. This involves taxpayers funding churches to endorse candidates illegally. I don't want to pay them to break the law.

Of course they don't want to give up that status. Either they should give it up or give atheists tax exempt status. :mrgreen:

 

[tryreading]

The 56 clergy members are all liberals - their problem is ideology, not tax exempt status. However, a few churches may have gone over the line in supporting Blackwell. It is not clearcut because to my knowledge none of them ever said "vote for Blackwell". They gave him an award for support of their values. Liberal/left clergy have long been involved in politics - now they've become born-again religion-politics seperators because of the effectiveness of religious conservatives. The conservative churches had it correct before - give their congregations pahmphlets with the political views of candidates - then they'll know whom to vote for.

No pamphlets either. They can register voters, but can't campaign for anybody.

Left and right clergy have long been involved in politics. But in this case, liberal or not, the pastor is complaining about lawbreaking.

 

[tryreading]

The 56 clergy members are all liberals - their problem is ideology, not tax exempt status. However, a few churches may have gone over the line in supporting Blackwell. It is not clearcut because to my knowledge none of them ever said "vote for Blackwell". They gave him an award for support of their values. Liberal/left clergy have long been involved in politics - now they've become born-again religion-politics seperators because of the effectiveness of religious conservatives. The conservative churches had it correct before - give their congregations pahmphlets with the political views of candidates - then they'll know whom to vote for.

Shows that the pamphlet with a candidate's views is illegal:

Voter Education, Voter Registration and Get Out the Vote Drives

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are permitted to conduct certain voter education activities (including the presentation of public forums and the publication of voter education guides) if they are carried out in a non-partisan manner. In addition, section 501(c)(3) organizations may encourage people to participate in the electoral process through voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities conducted in a biased manner that favors (or opposes) one or more candidates is prohibited.

Example 1: B, a section 501(c)(3) organization that promotes community involvement, sets up a booth at the state fair where citizens can register to vote. The signs and banners in and around the booth give only the name of the organization, the date of the next upcoming statewide election, and notice of the opportunity to register. No reference to any candidate or political party is made by the volunteers staffing the booth or in the materials available at the booth, other than the official voter registration forms which allow registrants to select a party affiliation. B is not engaged in political campaign intervention when it operates this voter registration booth.

Example 2: C is a section 501(c)(3) organization that educates the public on environmental issues. Candidate G is running for the state legislature and an important element of her platform is challenging the environmental policies of the incumbent. Shortly before the election, C sets up a telephone bank to call registered voters in the district in which Candidate G is seeking election. In the phone conversations, C’s representative tells the voter about the importance of environmental issues and asks questions about the voter’s views on these issues. If the voter appears to agree with the incumbent’s position, C’s representative thanks the voter and ends the call. If the voter appears to agree with Candidate G’s position, C’s representative reminds the voter about the upcoming election, stresses the importance of voting in the election and offers to provide transportation to the polls. C is engaged in political campaign intervention when it conducts this get-out-the-vote drive.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html

 

[ALiberalModerate]

They can promote political candidates all they want. They just have to give up their tax exempt status if they do. Could be a problem though for some of those mega-churches otherwise known as the all white suburban tax exempt country clubs.

 

[128shot]

They can promote political candidates all they want. They just have to give up their tax exempt status if they do. Could be a problem though for some of those mega-churches otherwise known as the all white suburban tax exempt country clubs.

why do they have to evoke their tax exempt status if they run their political mouths? Serious question, is that part of the law book or something?

 

[tryreading]

They can promote political candidates all they want. They just have to give up their tax exempt status if they do.

Right. Of course a minister himself can promote a candidate if the promotion is his own, and completely separate from his church. Here are two examples of the proper behavior from IRS 1828:


Minister A is the minister of Church J and is well
known in the community. With their permission, Candidate T publishes
a full-page ad in the local newspaper listing five prominent
ministers who have personally endorsed Candidate T, including
Minister A. Minister A is identified in the ad as the minister of
Church J. The ad states, “Titles and affiliations of each individual
are provided for identification purposes only.” The ad is paid
for by Candidate T’s campaign committee. Since the ad was not
paid for by Church J, the ad is not otherwise in an official publication
of Church J, and the endorsement is made by Minister A in a
personal capacity, the ad does not constitute campaign intervention
by Church J.


Minister C is the minister of Church L and is well
known in the community. Three weeks before the election, he
attends a press conference at Candidate V’s campaign headquarters
and states that Candidate V should be reelected. Minister C does
not say he is speaking on behalf of his church. His endorsement is
reported on the front page of the local newspaper and he is identified
in the article as the minister of Church L. Since Minister C did
not make the endorsement at an official church function, in an official
church publication or otherwise use the church’s assets, and
did not state that he was speaking as a representative of Church L,
his actions did not constitute campaign intervention attributable to
Church L.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Of course the particular minister at the church in question on this thread is not operating the above ways.

 

[alphamale]

No pamphlets either. They can register voters, but can't campaign for anybody.

Left and right clergy have long been involved in politics. But in this case, liberal or not, the pastor is complaining about lawbreaking.

I wasn't clear enough - I meant pamphlets with the views and public statements of all candidates in an election.

 

[jfuh]

I have no idea why churches have tax exempt status anyway.

Simple, they got tax exemption because of the establishment clause. Government can not intervene with church matters. Tax collection is a very big governmental intrusion.
So I sometimes wonder, what happens when a church catches fire? Technically the fire department can not intervene.:shock:

 

[jfuh]

No pamphlets either. They can register voters, but can't campaign for anybody.

Left and right clergy have long been involved in politics. But in this case, liberal or not, the pastor is complaining about lawbreaking.

Churches are allowed to register voters?:shock: That seems very very very borderline.

 

[jfuh]

They can promote political candidates all they want. They just have to give up their tax exempt status if they do. Could be a problem though for some of those mega-churches otherwise known as the all white suburban tax exempt country clubs.

I don't know about anyone else, but those mega churches that are televised? all I see is one giant cult. Some idiot smacking ppl with his jacket like a whip and says they're blessed? The person hit then starts falling and looks as if s/he see's god or some bs. Superstition is dangerous.

 

[jfuh]

why do they have to evoke their tax exempt status if they run their political mouths? Serious question, is that part of the law book or something?

Yes, it very much is part of the tax laws.

 

[tecoyah]

I voted yes....because of the way this poll is worded....Yes...they can and do.

 

[Caine]

Churches need to STFU about Politics... fo real, word up.


I don't think JEEEEEEEEESUS said support George Dubya in the bible.

 

[tryreading]

I wasn't clear enough - I meant pamphlets with the views and public statements of all candidates in an election.

Yep, they can do that.

 

[tryreading]

I voted yes....because of the way this poll is worded....Yes...they can and do.

I guess you're right. Churches can promote political candidates if they give equal time to all those running in a race. They can't promote a political candidate or party.

 

[tryreading]

Churches are allowed to register voters?:shock: That seems very very very borderline.

As long as they are non-partisan about it:

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are permitted to conduct certain voter education activities (including the presentation of public forums and the publication of voter education guides) if they are carried out in a non-partisan manner. In addition, section 501(c)(3) organizations may encourage people to participate in the electoral process through voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, conducted in a non-partisan manner.

 

[jfuh]

As long as they are non-partisan about it:

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are permitted to conduct certain voter education activities (including the presentation of public forums and the publication of voter education guides) if they are carried out in a non-partisan manner. In addition, section 501(c)(3) organizations may encourage people to participate in the electoral process through voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, conducted in a non-partisan manner.

:lamo, is that even possible?

 

[tryreading]

:lamo, is that even possible?

A voting drive doesn't have to be about a candidate or party, it can just be a system to have people apply for voter regristration cards. And the education part can simply be instructions on where to go to vote, and how to use the ballot machines.

 

[jamesrage]

There was a story on The News Hour today about complaints submitted to the IRS on the political activity of two churches in Ohio. The complaints were the idea of a reverend of an Ohio church who disagrees with their actions, and signed by a number of other churches.

I beleave that churches have a responsibility of informing their congregation which canidate closely matches their values.Campaign comericials and politicians often have a way of distorting the facts and what issues they stand for.Of course I know almost every liberal(not every liberal) wants to silence the churches so that they can flood the country with their immorality.I know how freedom if speech only applies to leftwing liberal nonsense.