[gdani]

ANY irs rule as applied to religious establishments is blatantly UN-CONSTUTIONAL on its face, reread the First and in may sink in...and that means the rule needs to be to be gone.

You are entirely wrong. The IRS regs affect all 501(c)(3) organizations, not just churches.

The restriction is not unconstitutional because incorporating as a 501(c)(3) is voluntary. (Or, in a church's case, it can opt out).

Churches & other non-profits are free to electioneer all they want if they incorporate differently, set themselves up as a PAC, renounce their 501(c)(3) status, etc. Because they have these options, no court would ever rule the IRS regs are unconstitutional.

Why do you think the ACLJ, etc hasn't sued yet? Answer: Because they know they'd lose.

[dirtboy]

The restriction is not unconstitutional because incorporating as a 501(c)(3) is voluntary.

Exactly. McCain-Feingold IMO is unconstitutional because it is not voluntary, gives little recourse to its restrictions and also fails equal-protection tests by granting an exemption to the news media. One can debate as to whether churches should be allowed to politic from the pulpit and still get tax-exempt status for their charitable activities - and, like you said, many organizations separate those out. But there is nothing in the First Amendment that discusses tax exemptions.

[aspiring.hillbilly]

No, no, no,,,, you just don't grasp this issue. The "whole concept" of government regs affecting churches or Establishments of religion in any way, be they voluntary or not--is UN-Constutional, by virtue of the "make no law" clause. Make no law means just that, Congress cannot make rules, either for churches to accept or to opt out. The lower courts are not addressing the constitutionality of the rules themselves, only applying the written rules. There should be no options for churches to even deal with, the fact that these exist at all runs afoul of the "make no law" clause...