Comments for: “Tax Facts: IRS Reminds Churches About Rules Governing Political Activity”

I’m not a religious leader, but I have been a Humanist Celebrant, a legal secular equivalent to minister, rabbi, etc. Though currently not certified due to financial hardship, I still made it a point to understand the tax laws regarding politics as applied to me in my capacity as a Humanist Celebrant. It was simple enough: I’m allowed to speak out freely and clearly on political issues; I cannot endorse or oppose any political candidate or campaign/party, nor even allow the appearance thereof.

Some people mistakenly believe this distinction between issues and candidates is a “fine line”, or there’s a lot of “grey area” involved. Nonsense. For instance, if I’m opposed to a certain tax measure a candidate has a position on, I can talk all I want in official ministerial capacity on the merits/deficiencies of the proposal involved. All I need to do otherwise is refrain from any reference to the candidate or her/his party. But as long as I’m representing myself personally only, then the candidate/party is fair game. It’s my responsibility to make that clear.

congress shall pass no laws….freedom of speech. 501[c][3] is in violation of the 1st amendment.

Not really, if the churches are so desperate to speak out for a political candidate, let them. All they have to do is give up their tax exemption first. Then no problem. Care to be the first to do that voluntarily?

USA rocks, it’s been awhile since you’ve appeared here under that guise.

I agree with D. Let the religious organizations pay taxes, then they can sponsor any candidate they want.

USA Rocks can’t seem to grasp the concept that favors from the government (i.e., tax exempt status) come with strings attached. Those strings are absolutely constitutional, because these churches voluntary accept these restrictions when they accept that status.

Of course, we all know, this is just another example of the liberal elite’s “persecution” of christians.

It always comes down to the same complaint, churches are penalized with loss of exemption if they endorse a candidate. Quite wrong of course. The natural and default state of churches would be that of a taxable institution. Churches do have the option of voluntarily giving up their ability to endorse candidates in exchange for acquiring an exemption.

Personally, I can’t say I really do like the exemption concept. Too messy for my taste. Just treat them like any other entity, no better, no worse.

I am aware that eliminating the exemption could thrust churches right into the political arena, but they seem to be there anyway, ignoring the law while reaping the exemption benefit.

My guess is that most modern churches have evaluated the cost-benefit analysis. Oddly, the decision of churches seems to be to protect the money rather than pursue more godly critical social and political issues.

“…can’t seem to grasp the concept that favors from the government (i.e., tax exempt status) come with strings attached.”

Can I sell back my right to free speech [endorsing or opposing candidates for public office] for tax exemption? I think I will if I can; my money does more for me than any ‘meddling’ in elections I do.

D and Jax
i do believe that mega churches with tons of money layin’ around should be forced to give up their 501’s.#1 if they have money layin’ around they’ve not doin’ thier job. and #2 lotta times that money turns into personal wealth, which i believe is not the intent of 503’s or the the purpose of churches to be in. the mom @ pops, the nieghborhood churches, are the ones most times can’t exsist without the 501’s. it’s these churches i feel do the bulk of GOD’S work.thus 501’s do restrict their free speech. jax, whata mean under this quise?

USA rocks, what do you propose? Churches who make more than XX amount of dollars pay taxes and all others get a free ride? Do you really think those megachurches would sit back and let that happen? Do you really think they would agree with you that the “mom and pop” churches are the ones really doing “god’s work”? How do you think they are able to bilk all of that money out of their gullible followers? By convincing them that it’s being used for “the Lord’s work”.

Sorry, but I think that if it applied to one, it would have to apply to all. Maybe all those mom and pop churches should get together and tell those megachurches to shut up and stop giving religion in American such a bad name.

RE: Just treat [churches] like any other entity, no better, no worse.

I’m a bit more accommodating than is Sky, but Churches get more than just tax breaks. Some of the mega churches run all sorts of services for their members, even auto repair shops, and all that goes in under the tax exemption. Some of them run day-care and nursing home facilities and receive exemptions from regulations that are designed to protect kids and old folks.

Personally, I would like to see these regulations applied just like any other facility. I would also like to see them taxed for any activity that is commercial in nature and not specifically religious.

The problem is the IRS says churches can talk about issues but cannot “directly or indirectly” endorse candidates ( http://blogs.pioneerlocal.com/religion/ ). So how does a pastor opposed to the war in Iraq, for example, preach about that issue this fall without indirectly supporting Obama? How does a pastor preach against abortion without indirectly supporting McCain?