1 Is the issue churches or tax-free institutions?  I think Planned Parenthood endorses candidates.  Likewise unions.  NARAL?  Could be wrong, but I don't think these organizations pay taxes

And just to be totally racists, black churches have skated on this thin ice for years and have gotten away with it.

Just saying.

2 I encourage everyone to read this series by a pastor who examines the issue in some detail.  It's worth noting that the 501(c)3 provision against such activities by churches was added as an amendment by Lyndon Johnson, and there was no debate over its merits.  While it's been calcified by various lawsuits over the years, the rule itself is hardly based in deep constitutional thinking by the Congress.

3 Scott -- they sure have. The lefties all wink-wink, nudge-nudge them about it.

On the other side, see what trying to enact social engineering through the tax code gets you? Sure, we want people to give more to charity, so we... make it a tax deduction. How about just cutting the damn tax, and let people decide how (or if) they would like to help their fellow man. Anytime you have a situation where more and more regulations and decisions and crap has to be piled on to make a system more "fair," it's a strong indication that the system is flawed at the bottom, not that it just needs fine tuning.

The real problem is that we have a government that taxes organizations (corporations, potentially churches if they don't toe the line, etc.) in the first place, even though all of the money that those organizations take in has already been taxed once, at least.

4 Brian Ledbetter reminds me to clarify something:

Churches don't have to actually incorporate and file for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. They are tax-exempt merely by being 501(c)(3)-eligible. However, to keep that tax-exempt status, whether they’ve filed or not, they must not engage in certain activities.

5 Among other things, they must not devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation and they must not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.
Unless it's on behalf of a Democrat or in opposition to a Republican. Wright will never be investigated. Farrakhan will never be investigated. Any Clinton can get in any Baptist pulpit in America.
The ADF wants to create a method of making tax-deductible contributions to political campaigns
Why should churches be left out, anyway? Amnesty International contributions are tax-deductible. PBS and the UN are tax-funded, for cryin' out loud. I'm already using tax dollars to support political campaigns that I don't even agree with.

6

I don't foresee any sanctions on the lawyers, here. 

Attorneys are now and then sanctioned for filing a specious lawsuit, but in this case the lawyers would actually be *defending* against an IRS investigation and the withdrawal of this-or-that chuch's tax exempt status.  

So, this wouldn't be quite the same thing as filing a frivolous claim.  These clowns / preachers have a right to counsel, after all, and somebody's got to be their lawyer.

Constitutional test cases (even sure losers this one) are also looked upon with decent favor by the courts.  Federal judges consider it a treat to get to opine on Con law issues, anyway.

7 Maybe this is a red herring.  Have the courts come out against politics from the pulpit, and then use that judgment to hammer all of the churches that endorse anyone that does it?

K

8 I think the tax-exempt status of churches and the entire system needs to be dropped - too much control over churches by the state for my comfort.

9

And just to be totally racists, black churches have skated on this thin ice for years and have gotten away with it.

Skated thin ice? Don't you remember Reverend Wright's sermon/campaign speech for Obama where he called Hillary a racist with a husband who was 'riding dirty, doing black people like he did Monica'.

10 How many Churches have Democrats held "rallies" at?

I kinda agree with the ADF on principle.  As long as you had a -D after your name, you and your "church" could get away with just about anything.

11 I was always under the impression that churches were tax exempt for that whole "taxation without representation" issue.  In other words, the churches weren't to be given a say, politically (to avoid 1st amendment problems), so they wouldn't be taxed either.

Once they decide to petition the government (by supporting a candidate or legislation), then they need to be taxed.

Otherwise, it's representation without taxation, which is just as egregious.

12 I agree that this is going full retard, but I'm not sure how else they'd get standing to take this to court if there's no investigation.  Simply bring suit should be thrown out since there's no actual matter at controversy.  Judges aren't supposed to hand out advisory opinions.

I don't have a problem with saying that if you want to be tax exempt you can't engage in political activity.  It's not chilling, remember, the default is that political speech is not tax exempt.  If you want the benefit, you have to pay the price. 

I would like to see it applied even handedly though.  Also, still waiting on that unicorn farm.

13 The reason ADF has to go to such lengths to provoke a lawsuit is because the IRS has only rarely revoked a church's tax-exempt status because of political activity. The IRS really doesn't want to open that door and so hasn't pursued churches that vigorously.

14

The reason ADF has to go to such lengths to provoke a lawsuit is because the IRS has only rarely revoked a church's tax-exempt status because of political activity. The IRS really doesn't want to open that door and so hasn't pursued churches that vigorously.

Which explains why the "churches" of the Left get away with it, from the "rainbow coalition" to nuclear freeze movements. Seriously, Gabe, sauce for goose, sauce for gander. I don't blame the ADF one bit.

15 We also want contributions to churches to be tax-deductible (in order to encourage such contributions).But we don't want contributions to political advocacy to be tax-deductible.

So, freedom of religion is to be encouraged, but political speech is to be discouraged.  Is the First Amendment really that schizophrenic?  Oh, wait, McCain-Feingold...

Never mind.....

16

I think there is a different agenda - just like above. 

Remember how many times John Kerry stood in the pulpit of a black church? 

I think this is an attempt to get the lines drawn.  If these churches get slammed, then the other churches doing the express advocacy thing must get slammed, too.

 

If they don't, then they have precedent to do as they will. 

 

 

 

 

17 I think this is an attempt to get the lines drawn.  If these churches get slammed, then the other churches doing the express advocacy thing must get slammed, too.

That's my read on it as well - a sort of civil disobedience to force equality of the law.  While it's true that churches rarely get their tax-exempt status revoked, there are instances of fines and investigations by the IRS due to such political speech.  I think what the ADF protests here is that far too often, it's conservatives that aren't allowed to get away with such things.

18 Maybe you guys aren't as familiar with the ADF as I am. This is not a backwards attempt to get the law applied fairly. This is a genuine attempt to see that the law isn't applied at all.

They genuinely believe that churches deserve to be tax exempt and that they deserve to participate as advocates for or against political candidates.

19 Maybe you guys aren't as familiar with the ADF as I am

Argumentum ad verecundiam? Come on, Malor...we may not be law grads, but they're not exactly a super-secret organization.

20 Why is it the two or three most vocal (You can put anything in here.) organizations in this country have to be so embarrassing?

 That's why.

21

<i>If churches want the benefits that come from being 501(c)(3)-eligible, they must behave according to rules established by Congress and the IRS.</i>

 

You mean by Lyndon Baines Johnson, right?  Because until he changed the rules, there were  no such restrictions in force in the USA.

22 Is the First Amendment really that schizophrenic?

Yes. No. Yes. No.  Wait what?

23

<i>Otherwise, it's representation without taxation, which is just as egregious.</i>

Representation applies to individuals. No corporate enitity, whether taxable (like General Electric) or tax-exempt (like a church), gets to vote in elections.

I say do away with the ban on politicking. How many organizations are breaking it, anyway? My local United Way is up at the state legislature every damned year advocating for in-state tuition for illegal aliens, but when they come to my workplace begging for dough they never tell us about that.

Just require every tax-exempt organization to mail a letter to its members/donors every year detailing its precise political activities.

Revocation of tax exempt status is used as a weapon against freedom of religion and speech in more ways than you think. Barack Obama's racist church is free to be as racist and political as it wants, but Bob Jones University, a religious university, had its tax exempt status revoked for supporting racist policies.

24

Maybe you guys aren't as familiar with the ADF as I am. This is not a backwards attempt to get the law applied fairly. This is a genuine attempt to see that the law isn't applied at all.

Can the law be applied fairly?

Why does this remind me of bogus "Campaign finance reform" where some donations and political speech are okay but others are not?

And it seems to me that in both examples, the best "reform" is to allow anyond to donate what they want, so long as it is fully disclosed.

 

25 Oh, and why should political speech not be tax exempt, too? What the hell is so dirty about contributing to a political campaign?

26 Can the law be applied fairly? Clearly, not by the federal government.

27 Yeah, but isn't MoveOn.org a tax exempt advocacy group? They are tax exempt under Section 501c4 of the Internal Revenue Code. "To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare" Churches should simply change to a "social welfare organization" to keep their tax-exempt status. Problem solved! Churches whether left or right-wing should be able to explain to their congregation which candidates are more in-line with their religous views. Problem is 75% of churches would be endorsing Republican candidates (pro-life). I don't see how MoveOn can get away with pushing their left-wing agenda & keeping their tax-exempt status, yet churches are 'muzzled'. What's good for the good is good for the gander.

28 >Problem is 75% of churches would be endorsing Republican candidates (pro-life).

Problem? I see no problem. Yeah, the hypocrisy is ridiculous. Why single out churches when political advocacy groups (on both sides of the aisle) get away with endorsing a specific political party.

MoveOn.org is a front group started by Hillary and all it does it attack Republicans. MediaMatters is another front group. I think they are tax exempt as well. MoveOn was a 527 group but now they are a 501c I believe.

Both sides stretch the tax exemption laws & get away with it. But it does seem unfair to me that churches are singled out.

29

Declaring that clergy have a constitutional right to endorse political candidates from their pulpits,

Well they do, don't they? I mean, the government can't stop them... just tax them.

Taxation is not (technically) a punitive measure. It's not like a judge sentances you to "pay taxes".

For that matter, to sue, they have to first be actually prosecuted. Who the hell is gonna do that? There's blatantly political shit going on in churches all around the country and nobody starts smacking taxes on them...

That's like me wanting to sue to challenge a jaywalking law, so I started jaywalking (to get standing). Only problem? 6,382 jaywalks and a fractured femure (due to vehicle collision) later, I still haven't been actually ticketed for it, and still have no standing.

Unless I'm trying to sue the government to actually enforce it's laws and arrest me.

30 I think you're right, Entropy. That's what I meant when I said the IRS doesn't go after churches lightly. Actually, that's probably why ADF is making such a ruckus about this--going to the Washington Post, trying to get as many churches as possible to do this all on one day. They're daring the IRS to come after them so they can sue and put the law to (another) court battle.

The IRS can either ignore them and not investigate (which would probably make ADF happy in the short term...until everyone forgets about this stunt) or it can revoke their tax exempt status (which also would probably make ADF happy in the short term...at least until they got their asses kicked in the courts).

The reason I called this shit-stirring is because there are proper ways to have the laws changed. Call your senator. Call your representative. They're trying to provoke the IRS so they can sue and change the law that way. Isn't that what conservatives complain about so bitterly when environmentalists and gay activists do it?

Two wrongs do not make a right. "They did it first" only works for kindergartners.

31

Well, Gabe, there are some valid legal arguments.

Not legislative ones, but legal ones, to be bickered.

You can't enforce laws unequally. If they can't enforce the law universally at all, and some people get off left and right, that is an issue for the courts to say "Hey, this violates equal protection so we gotta strike it down". It's not the legislatures place to say what violates equal protection but the courts - that is the whole reason they have power to strike laws down.

If it violates the first ammendment right, ditto (although I don't think it does). Or the seperation of church and state (no).

They have half a point on the whole equality before the law thing though. Alot of groups that aren't suppose to be political and are tax-exempt are so blatantly political, they not be verbally admitting guilt and daring the IRS, but they are just as brazen as if they had, anyway.

Were I the IRS I wouldn't even bother. I'd overlook them same as all the other shit I'm allready overlooking, their 'dare' be damned, and continue not enforcing the law I allready wasn't really enforcing anyway.

32 Entropy, the claim that these laws are enforced unequally is spin created right here in this comment thread. I'm amused by the contortionist justification some commenters are trying.

Consider the arguments made here: "the ADF is really doing us a service because once these churches are sued, they can prove that treatment is unequal and the result will be equal treatment for all. That's their plan all along." Well, okay. Except, of course, that they dared the IRS to sue them with their "Pulpit Initiative." They can't very well claim unequal treatment unless other churches are doing the same.

The fact is, these laws are hardly enforced at all. That's not unequal treatment.

The ADF claims to be seeking First Amendment remedies, not Equal Protection remedies. At least, according to the WaPo quotes and their website.

33

They aren't allowed to pimp parties or politicians but they can push issues.

And give me a break. We all know what the party platforms are.

If you're pushing the pro-life issue, you really may as well be pimping McCain. If you're pushing the pro-choice issue, you really may as well be pimping Obama.

(I think that makes me racist)

Anyway, if they actually try to enforce this, it's a valid point. Because they really don't enforce this at all. Who do we think we're kidding?

34

Entropy, the claim that these laws are enforced unequally is spin created right here in this comment thread. I'm amused by the contortionist justification some commenters are trying.

Well, not it's not. Or yes it is. I don't know.

All I'll say is, cuz I don't know much about this, if this law is actually enforced anywhere, anytime, it's enforced unequally.

Because it's never enforced, no matter how brazen. And I've seen brazen. To the extent I'll say it's (un)enforced equally, it's because I've never actually seen it enforced at all. Anywhere. Anywhen.

The ADF claims to be seeking First Amendment remedies

Well I don't really see how they can figgure that, that's dumb of them.

35

The ADF claims to be seeking First Amendment remedies

The way I originally read that, they aren't saying it violates freedom of speech (it doesn't), but freedom of religion. Which has become something of a tangled mess.

Because, under the current system, religious organizations are entitled not to pay taxes.

So, I'd guess, they're saying that just because their religion is expressly political doesn't allow you the right to deny them their entitled tax breaks.

Like what if someone started "The 1st Church of Barrack Obama"?

(seriously. Not sarcasm, I mean literally).

Would they have to speak of 'The One Who Shall Not Be Named' or pay taxes?

Would that then be a violation of freedom of religion?

I'll say - probably not. And I really don't even care if it is...

But the lawyers and politicians have done gone and fucked it all up so bad allready, it's really a crap shoot anyway. Depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. Which only really His Majesty, Lord Kennedy can say with any sort of finality.

36

Moron-bloggers strike again!  A feature of the American judicial system well-known to non-morons is that you generally need standing to bring a suit, especially a constitutional challenge.  Just as Levy and Gura had to shop around to find a plaintiff to try and fail to register a gun in DC to get to DC vs. Heller, anybody who disagrees with IRS regs on church speech is going to have to step up and get slapped down to get standing to challenge.  That's not fraud, that's their only recourse.  A long-standing (though little mentioned today) principle in America is that an un-Constitutional law is no law at all.

Neither does the fact that you personally support the IRS on this make it fraud.

Lastly, the elephant in the room that neither you nor the Washington Post mentions is liberal churches.  Does anyone really want to assert that IRS non-profit regs are enforced equally against liberal churches who have liberal politicians speak at the pulpit and whose pastors receive walking around money to bring voters to the polls?  Is there any plausible scenario of those regs being enforced equally?  If not, better to upset a moron's delicate sensibilities rather than have two different laws for two classes of people.

37  No kidding that's dumb of them. That's why I wrote this post.

As far as I know, the only major litigation on this point is Church at Pierce Creek.
 Pierce Creek took out a full-page ad lambasting Bill Clinton in 1992, just before the election. In 1995 the IRS revoked their tax exempt status (the first time that had ever occurred in all the decades since the tax exempt rules were created). They sued, claiming First Amendment violation. They lost in the district and the appeals court. The Supreme Court denied cert.

38 When it comes to churches and politics, the rule should always be, "Pay to play."  And that is why the Obama's old church, the TUCC, should have its tax exempt status revoked.

39 I think it's an excellent idea for churches to renounce their IRS exemption and pursue political goals. Just imagine if the church paid its fair share of taxes - you wouldn't have to go to heaven to see streets paved with gold!

40 I believe that when churches were made tax exempt, the idea was that the power to tax is the power to destroy.  Churches pay taxes on everything except the church buildings themselves, and their income.  Any building not used for religious purposes is taxed, as is the parking lot.  Earlier this year, the IRS sent a letter to conservative churches telling them not to promote any candidates, but they will NEVER proceed against a liberal church.

41 I have no problem with prohibiting churches/religious organizations from spending money to promote political candidates or issues (excepting expenditures on advocacy which fits their mission, such as Catholics buying ad space to promote life issues without mentioning political candidates or legislation) if they enjoy 501 (c) (3) status.

The issue here is different from that, though.  The "civil disobedience" is to be merely speech from the pulpit.  This involves no expenditures - the pastor will be paid the same if he reads the phone book for his sermon (with results not dissimilar for many).

If the government can grant or deny tax exemptions based only on what is SAID from the pulpit, than it exerts effective control over what may be said there.  It is difficult to accept this control in light of the 1st Amendment protections of speech and free exercise of religion.

42

cheap oakley cheap oakley

pandora uk pandora uk

cheap nhl jerseys cheap nhl jerseys

nhl hockey jerseys nhl hockey jerseys