Pastor challenges IRS regulations on endorsements

[beam me up scottie]

x-posted from LBN, credit goes to Zhade for catching it:

The Rev. Jody Hice fired a verbal volley Sunday in a battle that he believes will return the United States to its American Revolutionary roots.

From his pulpit at Bethlehem First Baptist Church outside of Atlanta, he urged his congregation to vote for Sen. John McCain and to not vote for Sen. Barack Obama.

He based his recommendations on McCain’s opposition to abortion and gay marriage and Obama’s support of those issues, Hice told the Barrow County church packed with about 400 listeners.

***

They may be moral issues, but Internal Revenue Service regulations say clergy cannot make public political endorsements to their congregations without risking the tax-exempt status of their house of worship.

Hice’s endorsement and argument is part of a coordinated effort by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian legal aid society. Its members hope the IRS will challenge one or more of the 33 pastors across the United States who did what Hice did Sunday. They hope to overturn the no-endorsement regulation in court.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/09/28/pastors_IRS_regulations.html

IRS Complaint Process For Tax Exempt Organizations


FS-2008-13, February 2008

The Internal Revenue Service gives serious consideration to complaints made alleging the abuse of the tax exempt status granted to certain organizations.

When reviewing filed complaints, the IRS carefully follows special procedures designed to assure the public of the IRS’s objectivity in the treatment of tax-exempt organizations. These procedures ensure that the IRS operates in an unbiased and appropriate manner and that its compliance programs are not improperly influenced by outside intervention.

***

Filing a Complaint

A referral of an exempt organization may be made by submitting Form 13909, Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form, downloadable from http://www.irs.gov .

Form 13909 and any supporting documentation may be submitted in a variety of ways. They can be sent via:

* Mail to IRS EO Classification, Mail Code 4910DAL, 1100 Commerce St., Dallas, TX 75242-1198,

* Fax to 214-413-5415, or

* Email to [e-mail].

http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=178241,00.html

[salvorhardin]

1. Americans United has taken action on this

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today filed complaints with the Internal Revenue Service about six churches whose pastors endorsed candidates from the pulpit during a mass defiance of federal tax law last Sunday.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Religious Right legal group in Scottsdale, Ariz., urged pastors to defy federal tax law by endorsing or opposing candidates during a so-called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” Sept. 28. Under the IRS Code, churches and other 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups may not intervene in elections.

“These pastors flagrantly violated the law and now must deal with the consequences,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United.

Continued Lynn, “This is one of the most appalling Religious Right gambits I’ve ever seen. Church leaders are supposed to tend to Americans’ spiritual needs, not behave like partisan political hacks. I urge the IRS to act swiftly in these cases.”
More: http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=10055

[beam me up scottie]

2. In the 2004 election,

my neighbor (single black mother) was given a list by her church.

The most important issue then?

Keeping gay people she didn't know from getting married, of course.

[salvorhardin]

3. If you see something like that, report them to Project Fair Play

Project Fair Play is a branch of AU that was launched in 1996 to educate both clergy and voters about tax exemption and political activity. Furthermore, they file complaints with the IRS when there's egregious violations. So if you see something like that, definitely report them. AU has the money and legal guns to pursue stuff like that.
http://projectfairplay.org/report

Although, to be honest, it sounds like your neighbor's church was within the law by only discussing issues and not endorsing a candidate (although we both know the intention was clear -- that good church members would vote for the "right" candidate).

Here's the basic facts:

Houses of worship may
* Discuss public policy issues.
* Sponsor non-partisan voter registration and encourage voting as good civic behavior.
* Sponsor candidate forums as long as all leading candidates are invited and a broad range of issues is discussed.
* Urge congregants to communicate with candidates and make their concerns known to them.

Houses of worship may not
* Issue statements endorsing or opposing candidates.
* Donate money to a candidate.
* Offer church space to one candidate and refuse it to another.
* Sponsor rallies for candidates in church.

[beam me up scottie]

5. Yeah, they know just how to skirt the law.

Just like the business owners who get their instructions from 'christian workplace' websites, I'm sure they know exactly what they're doing.

[salvorhardin]

6. I know. It's really frustrating.

And who knows what kind of social pressure goes on outside the church. Plus many of the "issues sheets" these churches hand out repeat verbatim the worst kinds of lies and distortions.

But at least a good number of churches run afoul of the law (see http://projectfairplay.org/churches-reported-to-irs) and I think we're going to see more idiots like those in your OP.

[beam me up scottie]

7. Did you notice how many of the churches on that list were busted for supporting Democrats?

Things that make you go hmmmm...

[salvorhardin]

8. Oh, it's clear that this sort of thing goes on in both parties

For what it's worth though, I went back and counted. I copied the list to a Google Doc, then color coded each item. Red for Republican influence, Blue for Democratic influence, and Yellow (tan) for Unknown/Indeterminate influence. The results I got were:
45 instances of influence by/for Republicans
30 instances of influence by/for Democrats
10 instances of influence by/for Unknowns/Indeterminates

Although, I think the majority of the Unknowns would count toward Republican influence if I were to look up the candidates/people involved. You can view the document at: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df2x2wbx_22fdtrvffj

[beam me up scottie]

9. Nice job!

I guess I'm biased, I assumed left leaning churches would be much less likely to attempt to directly influence their members.

Just went back for a second look, wouldn't the second entry be considered Republican?

[salvorhardin]

10. Good catch. Corrected.

So the total is:
46 instances of influence by/for Republicans
30 instances of influence by/for Democrats
10 instances of influence by/for Unknowns/Indeterminates

That's still a substantially larger number of churches stumping for Republicans than Democrats, and like I said, I bet if we were to look at some of the Unknowns in more detail we'd find a good number of them were Republican influence(s/ed) as well.

I know one of the things that both Barry Lynn and Rob Boston (AU's Asst. Dir. Communications & Asst. Editor. Church and State: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Boston) tried to impress on us at last year's national meeting was that often times both clergy and candidates are ignorant of the law. I think when that's coupled with this insane pandering to the religious that we've seen by both the Democrats and Republicans in recent years (remember... Obama wants to EXPAND funding for faith based charities as well as reform), and the historical role that churches have played in U.S. politics I think it's incredibly tempting for candidates to want to speak to church groups. Furthermore, many of the clergy and churches really do want to help their constituents vote their conscience. It's not all about controlling people, even when the recommendations made are ethically deplorable.

I think we have to remember too that IRS laws regarding tax exemption don't just apply to churches, but any 501(c)(3). It would be as illegal for Center For Inquiry or FreeThought Fort Wayne (although we're not a formal non-profit yet) to specifically endorse or oppose a candidate as it would be for First Baptist Church of Fort Wayne. It's just that IRS tax exemption regulations violations by religious organizations are the easiest way we have for defending separation of church and state. Everything else either has to be argued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or as a Constitutional issue.

[skepticscott]

13. Exactly

The NAACP recently got a warning from the IRS about partisan activity that was potentially in violation of it's tax exempt status. It's by no means just conservative churches that are being targeted, they're just the most blatant violators of the rules (and of course, they use that to try to paint themselves as the poor persecuted Christians again).

I really do hope they challenge this law, because they will get knocked down hard and fast on it. The IRS knows that if they let tax exempts organizations engage in partisan politics, then every campaign from county commissioner on up can simply set up a dummy 501(c)3 to funnel all of their contributions through, tax free. And from a legal standpoint, any organization that challenges these rules will be smacked in the face with the fact that they have NO right to a tax exemption...no court in the land, no matter how conservative, will find otherwise. In accepting a tax exemption, they agree to certain restrictions, and if they don't like those restrictions, they can forego their tax exemption at any time.

[Synnical]

4. Prog Sec, too.

Some conservative churches have recently moved aggressively away from the Internal Revenue Service tax law which prohibits all non-profit organizations from taking part in partisan political activities.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Religious Rights legal group, has encouraged pastors to break the law by endorsing a presidential candidate from the pulpit. ADF hopes to provoke the IRS, then sue to try to overturn the 54 year old law specifying separation of church and state.

Both the IRS and Congress should take a strong stand against this activity by immediately withdrawing the tax exempt status of houses of worship that defy this Federal law, as well as sanctioning the ADF and investigating their possible violation of ethics rules.

I urge Congress to condemn this blatant violation of the separation of church and state.

Sincerely,

[cosmik debris]

11. Please clarify something for me.

You refer to IRS "regulations" and Synnical refers to IRS "tax law".

Is there a difference? Does the regulation carry the weight of law.

Is this just a word game and I'm making a big deal out of nothing?

[beam me up scottie]

12. I believe they have to follow the regs to be in accordance with the law. From the IRS website:

Exemption Requirements


To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

It looks like these pastors went WAY over the line, and did so on purpose, they want a showdown.