IRS warns churches against campaigning

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It wouldn't be contrary to doctrine if the cause the parishioner is working for is against Church doctrine.

I think I misstated....

I was speaking about the cause itself being against church doctrine.

 

[cardaway]

At publication time--the list of candidates, questions, and their responses or lack of response is noted. There is no endorsement. But parishioners then have a list of questions that were important to the diocese and communities and the responses so that they can vote their conscious. Each candidate was given equal opportunity to respond. It is a shame that more don't take the time to respond.

B/c it does make them look silly that "we" weren't important enough for them to courtesly respond.

Silly? I don't blame them for not responding if they are not fishing for your churches support. Much more likely to harm them than help them.

 

[JudicialTyranny]

Then let them pay taxes like every other institution and then they can say exactly what they want, whenever they want. As long as they pay no taxes the government has every right to set standards for their behavior, as the government sees fit.

So freedom of speech has a price? Hmmm.. Didn't see that in the Constitution.

If citizens pay no taxes (for example, if you qualify for the Earned Income Tax credit and pay no taxes - and in fact get refunded everything you paid plus more), do they lose their right to free speech also?

BTW, it is often Democrats that campaign in African American churches.

 

[ead79]

I'm sure this sort of church campaigning happens on both sides of the aisle.

We used to attend a church that said everything except which candidate to actually vote for--it really rubbed me the wrong way. We now attend a church that does not endorse any party or candidates. Generally the election isn't mentioned at all, other than perhaps in a prayer that the Lord will strengthen and help whoever wins the election.

I don't feel that church is the appropriate place for political campaigning. I hope the IRS enforces this fairly on both sides of the political aisle.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Silly? I don't blame them for not responding if they are not fishing for your churches support. Much more likely to harm them than help them.

But it is an entire diocese--who has people who vote many different ways.

Some of the questions are actually pretty benign. Refusing to give the time of day? Makes you look like an a$$.

 

[Gary M]

This thread is mainly about churches, but the not-for-profit also applies to others. The NAACP comes to mind. If a school, group, government(state & local), etc. receives federal funds or are tax exempt, Uncle Sam will and does set standards you must follow to continue on the gravy train. A few years ago the Feds told the states they must set the legal drinking age at 21 or you will lose federal funds. I believe it was highway funds, but I'm not sure.

If a church or other not-for-profit group wants to preach politics then pay taxes and they will not be bothered.

 

[cardaway]

So freedom of speech has a price? Hmmm.. Didn't see that in the Constitution.

It's not about the Constitution. Tax free status is something that is given based on rules. Break the rules, lose the status. They can say or do anything they want.

 

[cardaway]

Some of the questions are actually pretty benign. Refusing to give the time of day? Makes you look like an a$$.

Then they certinaly wouldn't be any different than what the candidate had already previously said. No matter the questions it still would be a situation where they have more to lose than gain. You say ***, I say fool if they responded.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Then they certinaly wouldn't be any different than what the candidate had already previously said. No matter the questions it still would be a situation where they have more to lose than gain. You say ***, I say fool if they responded.

That's what I was thinking. If the candidate wouldn't gain any support by answering the questions, better to ignore it and not answer them at all, I would think.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

But you are assuming thousands then wouldn't vote for you...what if they just might?

 

[eclectics]

So freedom of speech has a price? Hmmm.. Didn't see that in the Constitution.

If citizens pay no taxes (for example, if you qualify for the Earned Income Tax credit and pay no taxes - and in fact get refunded everything you paid plus more), do they lose their right to free speech also?

BTW, it is often Democrats that campaign in African American churches.

If you had bothered to read the entire thread before commenting you would have seen that I later said I used a poor choice of words and phrasing in that post to get my point across.

 

[cardaway]

But you are assuming thousands then wouldn't vote for you...what if they just might?

The risk/reward factor is no where near acceptable IMO. While it could go well, it also could explode into a total mess if the church decided to share the responses.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

So freedom of speech has a price? Hmmm.. Didn't see that in the Constitution.

Straw man. Nobody's free speech rights are being taken away. Tax exempt status is not a right guaranteed by the constitution. Therefore, the government can set limits on that status.

 

[goofygirl]

How does the IRS define "campaigning"? In the case of All Saints, the rector was coming out against the war- not saying "Vote for Kerry!"

And what if the rector writes a column in a local paper where he voices his opposition to Bush's policies? (This the case with MY rector, btw). Can the IRS come after him for this?

I think this policy is ridiculous. Is the IRS going to plant spies in every church now? Is it going to be like, "watch what you say beacuse Big Brother is watching."??

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The risk/reward factor is no where near acceptable IMO. While it could go well, it also could explode into a total mess if the church decided to share the responses.

But they post all responses--even those that may be contrary to the church. Some do respond who may be polar opposite to the church wants.

It is merely an information sheet. Not an interrogation.

 

[Laurajean1014]

They hit the tree and missed the target:

I like the idea that churches lost their tax exempt status, but then you have lobbyist organization. How will they stop that?

 

[eclectics]

How does the IRS define "campaigning"? In the case of All Saints, the rector was coming out against the war- not saying "Vote for Kerry!"

And what if the rector writes a column in a local paper where he voices his opposition to Bush's policies? (This the case with MY rector, btw). Can the IRS come after him for this?

I think this policy is ridiculous. Is the IRS going to plant spies in every church now? Is it going to be like, "watch what you say beacuse Big Brother is watching."??

It's basically unenforceable. One solution would be to have a relook at church's tax exempt status and adjust it somehow so the churches can actively endorse candidates if they so choose and the government gets some fair tax revenue. But will this erode the already shaky separation of church and state? Does any country actually tax their churches?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

but then you have lobbyist organization. How will they stop that?

Ban all lobbyist organizations?

 

[NewJersey]

Our church does something nice...actually it is our diocese.
They get a list of all the candidates for whatever. They make a valiant attempt at contact each candidate with a list of questions. The candidate can choose to answer or not.

At publication time--the list of candidates, questions, and their responses or lack of response is noted. There is no endorsement. But parishioners then have a list of questions that were important to the diocese and communities and the responses so that they can vote their conscious. Each candidate was given equal opportunity to respond. It is a shame that more don't take the time to respond.

B/c it does make them look silly that "we" weren't important enough for them to courtesly respond.

On the surface, I agree that it's a good idea but I really don't see, in some circumstances, how that would even matter. Let me play the Devil's advocate if you will. Say in 2004, all churches around the country did that. Now, do you think that Bush feels like it would make a difference in some of the churches that Kerry spoke in and were outspokenly in favor of him? And I highly doubt some of the born again and Evangelical churches would really care what Kerry had to say, even with a pamphlet in front of them. Maybe I'm being a pessimist and stereotyping, but I think sometimes it'd be a total waste of time. But maybe not all the time...

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Maybe I'm being a pessimist and stereotyping, but I think sometimes it'd be a total waste of time. But maybe not all the time...

True...

But I guess I would expect that if a constituent or someone on behalf of the constituent asks a question..they deserved more than to be ignored.