Religious Right Pushes Churches to Openly Defy the Law and Campaign for Tea Party

[Joanne98]

As organizations that claim tax-exempt status, churches cannot directly intervene in elections. A religious right group is trying to change that.
August 8, 2010 |
Photo Credit: Jasmic LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Tea Party and the Right headlines via email.
Petitions by Change.org|Get Widget|Start a Petition » When South Dakota gubernatorial hopeful Gordon Howie put out a call for pastors to endorse him from the pulpit, the Rev. H. Wayne Williams was quick to respond.

Williams, pastor of Liberty Baptist Tabernacle in Rapid City, endorsed the Republican candidate during a church service on May 16.

An ecstatic Howie, the self-professed “Tea Party” favorite, quickly issued a press release praising the action.

“Last week, Howie challenged South Dakota churches and their pastors to become more politically active in the stretch run to the June 8th primary election, urging pastors to endorse candidates and advocate specific issues from the pulpit,” read the Howie media statement. “Reverend H. Wayne Williams, Pastor of Liberty Baptist Tabernacle in Rapid City, became one of the first to accept the challenge, adding an official endorsement of Gordon Howie for Governor to a message delivered during his Sunday night services.”


http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/147771/religious_right_pushes_churches_to_openly_defy_the_law_and_campaign_for_tea_party_and_other_conservative_candidates/

We need to TURN in every single church that does this to the IRS!

[hobbit709]

1. Dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x552634

[Bitwit1234]

2. Before I got that far in your

post I wrote down the info and I am going to send it to the IRS tomorrow. And I am going to request that I get all communication about this from them in the future. I want to make sure they follow through.

[66 dmhlt]

3. Good. You'll be glad to know that AU ...

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (www.au.org) sent a letter to the IRS in early June.

For reference, here is the appropriate mailing address:

Lois G. Lerner,Director
Exempt Organization Division
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20224

Another person you may want to consider:
Catherine E. Livingston
Deputy Associate General Counsel (Exempt Organizations)

Here's a copy of AU's letter:

http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2010/06/letter-to-irs-re-liberty.pdf

[unblock]

4. if i'm not mistaken, there's an easy loophole:

i'm pretty sure that the pastor/priest/church official can deliver the sermon and then call up selected members of the congregation who wish to say a few words. THOSE MEMBERS can then endorse political candidates without jeopardizing the church's non-profit status because the church can always say that officially, the church isn't endorsing anyone and that was just one member expressing his own views. of course, the church knows/trusts to whom to give time on these topics.

naturally, it's all done with a wink and a nod and the congregation knows who the quasi-official lay spokespeople for the church on political matters is, but officially it would be really hard to prove something.

[starroute]

5. They're actively looking for a Supreme Court case

Hoping for a follow-up to Citizens United, I guess -- but in this case, I don't see how they can have any hope of getting it.

The issue isn't whether churches can promote candidates but whether they can do so and also enjoy a tax-exempt status as non-profit charitable organizations.

There's no way I can see that a court could rule that a church should enjoy the same tax status as other charitable non-profits but not be subject to the same limitations.

And to claim that churches should be naturally tax-exempt just because they're churches would be to create an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

On the other hand, if they're trying to push this as a matter of free speech, it would seem they're asking for a ruling that it's unconstitutional to provide tax-exemption to any organizations at all -- because that amounts to a form of coercion intended to restrict their freedom of speech.

So the best I can conclude is that this is really some sort of covert libertarian attempt to do away with non-profits in general -- which the right tends to see as an insidious leftie plot, anyway -- and to con the religious right into doing their dirty work for them.

I know that's pretty tinfoil -- but if anybody has a better explanation, I'd like to see it.

[felix_numinous]

6. K & R

[qb]

7. I'm all for it, provided they are forced to pay their fair share of the taxes.

[felix_numinous]

8. Churches passed the rubicon

long ago when they become politically active. I think going after their tax exempt status is important, but they still have the opportunity to launder/transfer money into related non profit organizations.

I think they are breaking laws when they preach about usurping the Constitution, that is treason.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

9. If a church practices politics but retains tax-exempt status

this benefits its members by enabling them to donate as much to the church as they like (no limits on that) and then deducting the "tithe" from their taxes as "charitable deductions," which they can't do with political contributions.

During the 2004 election a Pasadena Unitarian church got into trouble with the IRS because the topic was "what would Jesus do" regarding the Iraqi war. It was seen as a political statement in favor of Kerry, even though neither candidate was mentioned by name.

Let the churches participate all they want -- just take away their tax-exempt status and join the rest of us. And that includes the taxes the mega-churches avoid while sucking up community resources (police, fire, utility maintenance, etc) paid for by our property taxes.