What If They Really Are Witches?
The Los Angeles Daily News today tells a creepy story of a government out of control that is using the IRS to conduct a "witch hunt for churches." Churches are apparently being investigated, and even threatened with loss of their tax-exempt status, for making financial contributions to candidates running for political office in Los Angeles.
The churches allege that they are being persecuted and prosecuted unfairly, not because of the gifts themselves, but because in many cases they are making those gifts to candidates who stand publicly against the Bush administration.
Here's the problem with this however: Under the Internal Revenue Service tax code, contributions to political candidates by nonprofits - including houses of worship - violate a prohibition against political campaign activity.
It's against the law.
No ifs, ands, or buts.
If you have non-profit status, you can't write a check to a political candidate, no matter their party. And the churches are doing exactly that.
Does this law still make sense today, given the nature of work that non-profits do, and how entwined in the political process they must be to do what was once government work? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But it's the law. Lawmakers can change the law or enforce the law, I don't care. But they can't ignore churches that are acting like no such law exists.
The churches allege that they are being persecuted and prosecuted unfairly, not because of the gifts themselves, but because in many cases they are making those gifts to candidates who stand publicly against the Bush administration.
Here's the problem with this however: Under the Internal Revenue Service tax code, contributions to political candidates by nonprofits - including houses of worship - violate a prohibition against political campaign activity.
It's against the law.
No ifs, ands, or buts.
If you have non-profit status, you can't write a check to a political candidate, no matter their party. And the churches are doing exactly that.
Does this law still make sense today, given the nature of work that non-profits do, and how entwined in the political process they must be to do what was once government work? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But it's the law. Lawmakers can change the law or enforce the law, I don't care. But they can't ignore churches that are acting like no such law exists.
posted by Trent Stamp at 1:34 PM
7 Comments:
Great point. It should not be up to the IRS to determine whether to put the kibosh on political speech by 501(c)(3)s. If people don't like the law, they should lobby congress, rather than pressuring the IRS to be selective about whom it enforces the law against.
What is more relevant to this story is the politicization of law enforcement. There is concern that the IRS is indeed being selective in choosing upon whom it enforces the law. The religious groups under investigation in L.A. supported candidates who are against the Bush administration. What about the evangelical groups who have committed identical infractions in support of Republicans? They too should face the same scrutiny and legal action. Moreover, many of these evangelical churches influenced campaigns not with dollars, but with words from the pulpit. Tax exempt status for religious groups requires that they refrain from naming a candidate for their congregations to support. Reports suggest that such violations occurred often, but the IRS has been slow to investigate. The IRS must investigate and enforce all of these infractions without regard for political affiliation. Fat chance of that happening with Neo-Conservatives in charge.
Dear Anonymous,
Your post sounds like hit and run bomb throwing. Where are the facts? Tell me who you have heard do this?
My mother and grandmother watch religious televsion and have for years. Consequently, I hear the preachers-especially the top 10-15 on a regular basis-read-ad nauseum- and I have NEVER heard any of them ever mention a particular candidate by name (or any particular political party) in reference of who to vote for.
Dear Anonymous ,
Just to be fair, during the presidential campaign Al Gore , Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson and others of the same political persuasion spoke at churches. When evangelical churches spoke out against George Bush, were they not influencing campaigns, not with dollars, but with words? Because you do realize that this was also going on. Let's be fair.
Separating religion from politics is essential as intertwining them is bad for both. Our founding fathers understood this and it has made religion flourish without being dependent on political canidates and political canidates not being dependent on religion to be biased in thier favor.
Michael says:
Dear Trent,
You are quite right the flaunting the law is not the proper meathod.
This law was enacted by Lyndon Baines Johnson the sentor from Texas, to stop Churches from speaking about about a very corrupt Democrat, him. So it is not a Bush thing. IRS does not have any place to censure the speach of Churches, even if this law exists, it is a violation of the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,..." So the party who is flaunting the law is the IRS, not the Churches.
U.S. Representative Walter B. Jones (R-NC) is sponsoring H.R. 235, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, inorder to remove the effect of the Law. For nearly 200 years churches were involved in the processes as they should be as they are made up of who? Americans.
more on this:
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2852/1/41?TopicID=2
Having a candidate speak at a Church is well within the rules. Having voter registration dives is within the rules if all are registered regardless of party.
Opening meeting space for a particular candidate's activists might edge over the line unless you had the same policy for all.
Actively campaigning and organizing for one candidate or party to the exclusion of others moves you from 501c3 to 527 at the very least.
Everyone has free speech, but 501c3 is taxpayer supported speech, and that has responsibilities and rules that should not be broken or enforced in a partisan manner.
Gray areas abound in such things, but the case in LA is not as egregious as using partisan opinion to toss folk out of the Church, or having official partisan voting lists.
Post a Comment
<< Home