What is the law about churches being involved in politics? Tax exempt status?

[UTUSN]

A church has been running wingnut political radio messages for years. Is it that they can do this so long as they don't name specific candidates, or what? The most recent "commercial" definitely advocated for "We need more Tea(Bagger) patriots in congress."

A couple of years ago I called IRS to find out how to report them and after being bounced around several times was told that it was a matter of free speech.


In today's newspaper a church with a Hispanic congregation was said to be declaring itself a TeaBagger ministry. Oh, and the minister is a naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Mexico. Yip, Stockholm Syndrome time.

[Booster]

1. Wow, that must be an intelligent group.

[LynneSin]

2. Here it is in an nutsell

Churches may campaign when it comes to issues because technically issues can be non-partisan. True issues like Choice tend to be republican vs. democrats but there are candidates that vote opposite of their party line.

Churches are allowed to announce an election is coming up and recommend to their parishioners to go out and vote. Many Churches also are voting locations since Churches tend to have plenty of parking and good access for handicaps. Some churches use this time as a fundraiser to sell baked goods during the election but I believe they cannot sell it in a room where the voting occurs.

I do not believe that a Church (or synagogue or mosque) may endorse a candidate or party; they could lose their non-profit status. Some of the larger churches can create a PAC group that is independant of the church. I know that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson both had PAC groups and as long as they were working on behalf of the PAC they could scoot around the 'no endorsing candidate/party'

[slackmaster]

3. Their tax-exempt status permits them advocate on issues, but not to endorse or favor a candidate...

...or party.

I have some experience dealing with churches and other non-profits, and I am sorry to report that cheating is rampant and not confined to any particular viewpoint.

One of the most common ways they violate their tax-exempt status is to hold a "candidate forum" for the candidates running for a state or local office, and conveniently forget to invite the leading Democratic candidate (or invite only the Democrats, which I saw the San Diego LGBT Community Center do once, etc.)

The most recent "commercial" definitely advocated for "We need more Tea(Bagger) patriots in congress."...

...In today's newspaper a church with a Hispanic congregation was said to be declaring itself a TeaBagger ministry. Oh, and the minister is a naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Mexico. Yip, Stockholm Syndrome time.

I don't see any obvious tax code violation in eihter situation.

[hfojvt]

4. well the tea party is not a specific party

but rather an ideology, then churches can talk about it, because it is about issues rather than parties or candidates. They may be on the edge, since the tea party mostly seems to be an extreme wing of the Republican party, but probably the IRS is gonna (and should) err on the side of free speech.

[UTUSN]

5. O.K., thanks, all. But I'm still fuzzy. They can be wingnut but not partisan. O.K. n/t

[KT2000]

6. I know some churches

in my community preach that Obama is the devil. How they can maintain their tax exempt status is beyond me.

[gratuitous]

7. Generally speaking

Tax exempt entities can say anything they want about issues, which are very broadly defined. This is a double-edged sword, in that often a tax exempt entity might tell its contributors to vote in accordance with the entity's policy on, say, abortion. When there is a race involving one candidate against women's health and one in favor of women's health, it would appear that the entity is making an endorsement, but the rules as they stand now say it's acceptable.

On the other hand, if this exception were closed, then practically anything would be seen as speech on an issue, including such staples of tax exempt entities as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and housing the homeless. Practically any position could be interpreted as a political issue, warranting an investigation, possible prosecution, and so forth.

When it comes to a named candidate, however, tax exempt entities are not allowed to make a direct endorsement. Responsible entities understand and accept this limitation; a number of very conservative entities, however, seem determined to breach that limitation and invite some kind of re-examination of the rule. This could be for any of several reasons.

My guess is that they are trying to get an allowance for entities to run ads along the line of "God says vote for Candidate Conservaschmuck, or face His Holy Wrath." However, the far more likely outcome is a reaffirmation of the rule, and loss of their own tax exempt status. In which case, they will "win" by being able to whine about how persecuted they are to anyone who will listen.

[dawg]

8. The government, and most liberals, have bent over backwards to be tolerant of this ...

If anything, we try to live by a turn the other cheek philosophy. But many churches abuse this mercilessly.

Personally, I believe churches have a valid function and "mission" to carry out. And alienating half the population over political matters is not helpful.

[jwirr]

9. When this comes to a head and people begin to realize how the

rw churches have suckered them it is the church that will lose. In fact many have already left the church membership. Then hopefully those rw churches will crawl back in their respective holes and shut up.

[markpkessinger]

10. The IRS is very selective and inconsistent in its enforcement of this prohibition

On the Sunday before the 2004 presidential election, a sermon was preached at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, CA, by Fr. George Regas, rector emeritus of the parish, against the war in Iraq. Fr. Regas cast the sermon along the lines of a Presidential debate, with George Bush on one side, John Kerry on the other, and Jesus as the moderator. There's a pretty decent summary of the matter on Wikipedia. From that article:

On the Sunday before the 2004 Presidential election, Rector emeritus George Regas preached a sermon opposing the Iraq War. The premise of the sermon was a debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry moderated by Jesus Christ. In the sermon Regas supposed that, "Jesus , 'Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster.'"<2>

Complaints about the sermon led to an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) into whether the sermon voided the church's tax-exempt status as a prohibited political endorsement. The church has responded by claiming that the IRS is selectively enforcing the rule by not pursuing actions against conservative churches. In response to the investigation, Rector Ed Bacon gave a sermon called, "Neighbor Love is Never Neutral."<3>

In September 2006, the IRS issued a summons against All Saints demanding that the church turn over documents related to the controversial sermon. All Saints Church's response was that the IRS was violating the church's First Amendment rights and that the Church would challenge the IRS's actions in a summons enforcement proceeding in the United States Federal District Court. The church then established a charitable fund to raise money for its legal defense.

The Pasadena Star News reported that All Saints would remain defiant against the IRS. Rector Ed Bacon asserted that political activism was "in the DNA" of the church.

Result of IRS investigation

On September 25, 2007, CCH reported in Federal Tax Day:

On September 10, 2007, the IRS notified the congregation that it was closing its investigation. The IRS determined that the sermon was political campaign intervention. It offered no explanation as to why the sermon violated the ban on political intervention. The IRS also did not indicate if it intended to impose excise taxes under Code Sec. 4955 on the church or its officers. However, it did not revoke the church's exempt status.<1>

According to the Pasadena Star News, the IRS told church officials that the sermon constituted an endorsement of a candidate. Rector Ed Bacon demanded that the IRS apologize and that the IRS be investigated.<2>

The Rev. Ed Bacon stated:

While we are pleased that the IRS examination is finally over, the IRS has failed to explain its conclusion regarding the single sermon at issue. Synagogues, mosques and churches across American have no more guidance about the IRS rules now than when we started this process over two long years ago.<1>

The Church's legal counsel has asked the IRS for a clarification of the decision, and for assurance that the IRS did not act under pressure from the White House. The Church has also requested that the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) examine the IRS's investigation.<3>

Here is the link to the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Saints_Episcopal_Church_%28Pasadena,_California%29

[Igel]

11. Is it partisan? Is it electioneering?

If neither, it's fine. Issues, good. Churches routinely bash politicians. If there's an election Really Soon it's frowned up and dangerous. This far out, doesn't matter. "Partisan" when there's no election in the offing and you're talking about a public figure is a funny sort of term.

Note that bashing the president isn't a right or left issue. Some churches bash both: My old church railed mercilessly against Carter--then Reagan, then Bush I.

Others despise (R) presidents; others (D) presidents. Some go on a case-by-case basis, or issue-by-issue.

[UTUSN]

12. It sure sounds partisan and electioneering to me, but my bureaucrats don't agree. n/t