home

Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Republican Candidates?

by TChris

The IRS recently warned an Episcopal church in Pasadena that its "political activities" -- consisting of anti-war sermons -- placed its tax exempt status in jeopardy. How will the IRS respond to complaints by clergy members about two Ohio churches that have promoted the political campaign of a Republican running for governor?

In their complaint, the clergy members contend that the two Columbus-area churches, Fairfield Christian Church and the World Harvest Church, which were widely credited with getting out the Ohio vote for President Bush in 2004, have allowed their facilities to be used by Republican organizations, promoted the candidate, J. Kenneth Blackwell, among their members and otherwise violated prohibitions on political activity by tax-exempt groups.

The churches say they promote values, not candidates, but candidates benefit directly from the churches' work.

For example, the Fairfield County Republican Party Central Committee met at Fairfield in March to fill a precinct vacancy. Churches are permitted to lease their facilities for political purposes so long as they charge market rates. Carl Tatman, the committee chairman, said that it did not pay rent for the space. "The church was nice enough to volunteer the space as a donation," he said.

< Omar Khadr: At 15, an 'Unprivileged Belligerant' | Codey Commutes Life Sentence >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#1)
    by swingvote on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 06:19:54 AM EST
    It would be nice if we could get politics out of the churches, and the churches out of politics, altogether.

    You seem to lack historical context. This is hardly the first time the IRS has gone after politically active churches. This article from 1998 comes to mind: IRS Muzzles Free Speech This article attempts to provide a history of the issue: Election Year Political Activity and the Separation of Church and State it indicates that any activity that can be construed as "partisan" is grounds for having the church's tax-exempt status revoked. I've been trying to find statistics on the issue to see if the IRS really does tend to prosecute churches that oppose the current administration more than those that support it, but my sense is that the real issue here is that campaign finance laws make it possible to complain to the IRS when a church supports a candidate or issue that you don't like - so any church or minister that takes a politically unpopular stand is at risk.

    justpaul, It would be nice if people would treat religious organizations the same way as any other and not single them out for exclusion from the public sphere.

    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#4)
    by Johnny on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 06:31:13 AM EST
    JP I agree with you on this one. But it might be easier to just tax them and let them come out of the closet, as it were, on their political games.

    Johnny, Should we tax the NAACP as well? They're far more politically active than any church.

    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 06:34:57 AM EST
    Does this mean that the Rev Al and the Rev Jesse Show must become the Al and Jesse Show? (Exit stage let.)

    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#7)
    by swingvote on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 06:49:36 AM EST
    MH, Tax them like any other organization and require them to play by the same rules as everyone else and I could live with that. But I would still rather see God's ministers focus on God's message and politicians stay out of church and religion altogether.

    My mother is a local politician who is endorsed by many of the African American ministers in her district. They handle it beautifully. All candidates who attend church are introduced or acknowledged throughout the year. The more you visit the more often you get introduced. It isn't a violation of the tax code for ministers to endorse a candidate as long as they do so as an individual and the "church" as an entity does not endorse. I hear lots of stories of churches in violation of this, but then I live in the Bible belt. I would love to see this more strictly enforced with all 501c3 organizations as well.

    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#9)
    by swingvote on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 07:03:00 AM EST
    SuthnDem, In the age of McCain-Feingold, what is a minster's personal commendation worth in terms of "in kind" contributions?

    Not a darned thing as far as I know. I'm not aware that any endorsements from individuals are considered an in-kind donation.

    My only experience with the NAACP is locally and they do not endorse candidates or slates of candidates. They do, however, have massive got-out-the vote campaigns. I can only speak from local experience.

    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#12)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 07:38:12 AM EST
    Churches should be taxed (in as much as I can endorse taxation of anyone) like every other organization. I shouldn’t be asked (actually forced, really) to subsidize their police and fire protection, water and sewer, other utilities, and so forth.

    But I would still rather see God's ministers focus on God's message and politicians stay out of church and religion altogether. yes, because we all know that ethics and morality have no place in politics.

    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#14)
    by swingvote on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 07:50:48 AM EST
    [Y]es, because we all know that ethics and morality have no place in politics. We do? All of us? I had no idea. I mean, I knew that Ted Kennedy felt that way, but I never would have imagined all of us know that. Then again, some of us don't necessarily think that too many churches are themselves paragons of ethics and morality. I can think of a some priests who shouldn't even dare to utter the words. But on the whole, MH, I would say that no, morality does not necessarily belong in politics (although ethics does). I don't look to politicians for moral guidance, for the obvious reason that few, if any, of them have any morals whatsoever.

    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 08:58:02 AM EST
    1) The NAACP is not a church, apples meet oranges. 2)
    campaign finance laws make it possible to complain to the IRS when a church supports a candidate or issue that you don't like
    Actually it is separation between church and state (see 'constitution'.) Churches are tax expempt, for that they have to eschew endorsing candidates. I personally would like churches to be treated like everyone else; tax them.

    Sailor, Once again you are factually challenged. For IRS purposes churches are considered 503c corporations - just like the NAACP. It is because they are 503(c) corporations that they are forbidden from advocating particular political candidates, just like the NAACP. The imaginary "separation" clause of the constitution does not enter into it. There is nothing in the constitution that limits the political rights of churches.

    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#17)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 11:25:13 AM EST
    There is nothing in the constitution that limits the political rights of churches. Of course not. It's in the tax code. Just because it isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't the law. I think the tax-free status of churches is an affront to the First Amendment, since it puts the government in charge of deciding what is a church and what isn't. Deciding that one organization is a "church" and another is not is clearly an establishment of religion.

    I am all for removing all tax exemptions for churches. For one, if the US is to compete globally, we need to educate our children. There are federal standards that each state must adhere to, however, the public education system is primarily funded by localities via real estate taxes. Since there is a church on just about every corner, it surely would level the playing field somewhat if churches paid their fair share. In addition, most churches are big money makers, whether it be through "donations, or tithings" its still big money. Eliminanate both the deduction for charities and we will see how charitable folks are, or is the charitable reason for giving is locally getting something back but on a smaller scale than Jack Abramhoff. In my town we have giants in the scam such as pat robertson. I wont spend the energy investigating, but you would be hard pressed to convince me that the church, university, tv station, his south african mining corporation are not awfully convuluded. I say tax everything, reduce the rates to equal the amount collected now. I do not advocate giving the governments, fed, state or local more money to spend, just want to see them collect it fairly and from all entities. While I am at it why doesnt every federal building have solar panels and wind generators producing clean energy on them. what could it cost, 200 billion and nobody dies. And what happened to the Windfall Profits tax, oh I know, the lobbyist got the laws changed in order for the profiteers to be exempt. They are all theives, but the sadder note is we as a people accept that. i dont.

    just for the record, (my record) religion is politics. religion is like minded people that join together to promote a common belief and agenda. how different is that from a political position or party. none that i can see. the churches just had lobbyist at our governments conception. i am not in favor of taxing what one thinks or feels, just what one does especially when concerns money. again, not to give the State, where it be fed state or local more money, but just to include all in the collection of that money.

    Of course not. It's in the tax code. Repack, I think you missed my point. I understand the taxcode - in fact I made reference to it when I explained that the IRS treats churches like any other 503(c) corporation. My point was that Sailor's claim that the "separation of church and state" prohibits churches from making political statements is nonsense. Moreover, treating a church identically to every other non-profit corporation does not put the government in the position of deciding who is a church and who is not - just the reverse. For tax purposes, and for political purposes, there is no difference between the Mormons and my astronomy club.

    dbrown134, Are you in favor of taxing donations to the NAACP? How about the Salvation Army? The IRS cannot single out religious groups and tax them differently from other nonprofit corporations - that would be a violation of the first amendment.

    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:11:09 PM EST
    Michael Heinz, I'm all for taxing everyone according to their means, the NAACP, Salvation Army, whomever. That really is the only way to make the system equitable and unbiased. But "according to their means" is the problem we have in America. Taxation is a genuine burden only to those who have the least. If it is going to be a burden at all, it should be one we EACH share equally according to our means.

    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:20:07 PM EST
    Repack - Good point. As a secondary consideration it would allow the churches to support who they want in any way they want.

    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#24)
    by Johnny on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 03:08:07 PM EST
    Yes michael, tax them. They are going to pursue specific political agendas in any event, they are (as PW said) using publically funded police etc. As per your statement on morality and ethics, I am LOL over here...

    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#25)
    by Sailor on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 03:27:28 PM EST
    As much as I hate to admit it, mainly due to the insulting manner, Mike Heinz ( and Repack) is correct in that it is in tax code and not bill of rights. On the other hand:
    I understand the taxcode - in fact I made reference to it when I explained that the IRS treats churches like any other 503(c) corporation.
    1) No one understands the tax code;-) 2) I'm not sure why claiming dependents is an issue here. Perhaps you meant 501(c)3? Once again, I was wrong in my premise.

    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#26)
    by Sailor on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 03:27:29 PM EST
    As much as I hate to admit it, mainly due to the insulting manner, Mike Heinz ( and Repack) is correct in that it is in tax code and not bill of rights. On the other hand:
    I understand the taxcode - in fact I made reference to it when I explained that the IRS treats churches like any other 503(c) corporation.
    1) No one understands the tax code;-) 2) I'm not sure why claiming dependents is an issue here. Perhaps you meant 501(c)3? Once again, I was wrong in my premise.

    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 03:30:31 PM EST
    nonprofit corporations? You mean to tell me the Catholic Church, or whatever travesty Pat Robertson shills for, isn't profiting? I'm not buying.

    Sailor, Ow! Hoist by my own petard! Yes, I think you are correct. kdog - For legal purposes, each (I think) diocese of the Catholic church is a non-profit corporation. And I'm willing to bet the IRS and various DAs go over their returns very carefully; especially with all the lawsuits right now. Yes, a lot of money goes through their hands, but a lot goes through the hands of the ARC, the Ford Foundation and other non-profits. The CEO of the American Red Cross, for example, made $2 million in "compensation" in 2002, which caused a big scandal when people heard about it. I'd say the only religious "group" that turns a profit is the televangelists. There's a reason people used to say "as poor as church mice".

    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 03:59:54 PM EST
    I hear ya Mike, but the Red Cross thing is kinda what I'm talking about. I'm still not buying. The church mice might be poor, but the bishop ain't.

    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#30)
    by roy on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 04:40:06 PM EST
    The church mice might be poor, but the bishop ain't.
    I think the bishop pays taxes though. As I understand it, anybody who draws a salary within a non-profit organization (church, NAACP, whatever) still pays personal income tax on that salary. Funding the Red Cross CEO's vacation might not be what donors had in mind, but at least it's taxed.

    Re: Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Rep (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 05:21:57 PM EST
    He's taxed on his small salary, not his "room and board".

    Roy is correct - income earned through a non-profit is still income. There are ways to finagle that, however - by reducing pay and, instead, providing a company car or other non-cash perks.

    kdog, Heh - I should point out that it is legal to do the same for employees of regular companies as well; my company once paid my rent for several months as part of an expense account - like a long term version of staying in a hotel during a business trip.

    UPDATE TChris, the answer to your question "Will the IRS Investigate Churches that support republican candidates" may be Will IRS Investigate Churches that Support Republican Candidates? | 34 comments (34 topical)