Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Political Speech Protection for Churches
Freedoms' Alert ^ | Jan 2002 | Duane Motley

Posted on 12/26/2001 5:11:12 PM PST by The Mayor

A growing number of pastors have become fearful of speaking in their churches about government, legislation or politics. Most pastors do not know the laws about what they can and cannot do in their church or pulpit. The current, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) law is vague in some areas concerning this. The Federal government is attempting to clarify this confusion.

The current IRS law classifies churches as 501(c)3, nonprofit organizations. A 501(c)3 classification grants churches their tax exempt status and permits those making contributions to the church, and not receiving goods or services or benefits from their contribution, to deduct their contribution when calculating their federal and state income taxes.

The confusion about what churches can and cannot do, without violating their tax exempt status dates back to 1954. Senator Lyndon Johnson inserted the political ban in Section 501(c)3 of the IRS code in a floor amendment to the revenue act of 1954. No one held hearings or developed Congressional records for the need for this ban.

In the IRS codes relating to 501(c)3 organizations it states, "No substantial part of activities consisting of carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation". Note that this does not forbid churches or other 501(c)3 organizations from activities of carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation. It states that a church may not expend a substantial part of a church's activities to do these things. The church can promote propaganda or attempt to influence legislation, to some degree. The confusion comes because the law does not explain how much activity the church can contribute to these two things.

The IRS code specificlly states that the church cannot endorse or oppose a political candidate. They cannot contribute money to a candidate nor endorse a political party. The IRS code very clearly defines these limits. In the past, a pastor could state from the pulpit which candidate he was supporting, as long as he clarified that it was his position, not the church position.

A few years back an IRS ruling determined that a pastor could no longer state his position, even though he made it clear that it was his personal position and not the church's. Current interpretation is that pastors cannot use the pulpit to voice support or opposition of candidates.

In reviewing IRS tax court cases, one must come to the conclusion that it is safe for a church to spend up to 10% of their annual resources on legislative activity. This is not political activity. This will not exceed the "substantial amount" established by the IRS. If a church spends 10 to 15% of their annual resources on legislative activity, they will probably subject themselves to an IRS audit or review. At somewhere around 20%, the IRS will state that the church has exceeded the "substantial amount" classification. I personally do not know of any church that gives even 1% of their budget to legislative activity. Churches should have no concern about taking a position on legislative issues that will affect them or about lobbying for those issues, as long as they do not get near the 20% mark.

There is another section of the 501(c)3 IRS code which non-profit organizations, such as New Yorkers Family Research Foundation (NYFRF), may opt for an (H) option. This is not available to churches. Under the (H) option the organization has the same tax status as a church, but can clearly spend up to 20% of it's annual resources for lobbying activity-not political activity or campaigning.

Congressman Phil Crane of Illonois introduced the Bright Line Act of 2001, to clarify the confusion regarding 501(c)3 status. The purpose of this bill is to clearly define what churches can and cannot do in the area of lobbying and political (campaign) activity. Congressman Crane agrees that various pieces of legislation and candidates in public office certainly affect churches. He beleives churches should have an impact on legislation that will apply to them and on elected officals who will make those decisions. Other Corporations can and do spend money campaigning and lobbying on matters that relate to their businesses.

Congressman Cranes legislation says that a church will get the (H) option that is already available to other non-profit organizations. It eliminates the substantiality test. The bill specifically states that a church may not make lobbying expenditures in excess of an amount equal to 20% of their gross revenue, in any particular year. The bill futher states that a church may devote up to 5% of it's gross revenues on behalf of, or in opposition to, any political campaign or candidate for public office. The bill also states that the aggregate limit of grassroots lobbying and campaigning cannot exceed 20% of the churches gross revenues in any year.

Under this bill a church can spend %5 of it's annual revenue in a given year on campaign related activities and 15% on lobbying activities. Alternatively, the church can spend all 20% on lobbying and nothing on campaigns.

Congressman Cranes bill is HR2931. Mr Crane introduced the bill and is currently seeking co-sponsors for the legislation. You should contact your congressperson and ask them to co-sponsor Mr Cranes bill. There is the possibility that congress will act on this legislation before the end of 2001.

Congressman Jones of North Carolina introduced another bill that is that is similar to Mr Cranes. This legislation, HR 2357 is entitled "Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act".

This very brief bill states, "No substantial part of the activities of which is participating in, or intervening in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." The bill does not define what "substantial part of the activities" means. This leaves churches with the same confusion as the current law. The only improvement is that this legislation does not prohibit lobbying or campaigning activities.

A church can be involved in the publishing and distribution of statements, and in the political campaign of a candidate for public office as long as the contribution is not a substantial part of the church's activities. This bill does not clearly define the amount of lobbying activity that the bill allows churches, nor does it give an amount of political campaigning a church can do, other than to say "not a substantial part" which is not defined.

HR 2357 may cause more pastors to do less than they do now, for fear of violating the IRS codes. It provides no clear distinction as to what a church can and cannot do. Most religious leaders and legal minds that deal with religious freedoms favor HR 2931, the Crane bill.


TOPICS: Editorial; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
Duane Motley is a Retired Pastor and spends all of his time in Albany lobbying the New York State Legislature, he brings to the legislature the Christian points of views. Duane also runs New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms and NYers Family Research Foundation. We need more people like Duane all across the country.

His Newspaper is Freedoms Alert, it is a monthly publication, in it you can read articles like the one above, and the voting record of all the senators and assembly members. His organization is an asset to all the churches in New York.

1 posted on 12/26/2001 5:11:12 PM PST by The Mayor (RusJulT@aol.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Mayor
If Christians would obey the Bible injunction to be subject to all the ordinances of government, and not seek special government privilege there would be no, "freedom of speech," issue. So long as churches seek tax-exempt status, they should not be allowed to say anything of a political nature, since their politics are wrong.

Why is it that Christians believe they can defy the teachings of their Bible without any evil consequences?

Hank

2 posted on 12/26/2001 5:22:29 PM PST by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Hank Kerchief
Hank, you are reading the Bible all wrong. Don't know where you got that nonsense, but it's not in there!

If I were you I'd change churches, because whoever taught you that has put you on a one-way trip to perdition and the outer darkness.

4 posted on 12/26/2001 5:33:24 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
If Christians would obey the Bible injunction to be subject to all the ordinances of government, and not seek special government privilege...

Where does it say that?

Also, the current impositions by the IRS date only from 1954, when LBJ got restrictions on 501(c)3's inserted into the Code in order to shut down his opponents in Texas. The Constitution has NOTHING to do with the current presumption that clergy and churches should keep their mouth shut about baby-killing, etc.

5 posted on 12/26/2001 5:36:29 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: alien2
I've been saying for the longest time now that no church should permit the IRS to have any jurisdiction over it.

The IRS hangs over the head of churches all the time, "say the wrong thing and we will pull your exempt status". I guess it's OK if it's Hitlery blabbing in an inner city church.

6 posted on 12/26/2001 5:38:41 PM PST by The Mayor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Why is it that Christians believe they can defy the teachings of their Bible without any evil consequences?

The Bible tells us that we should follow the rules of the government, I beleive we should as long as they are governing in the context of the Bible, being of moral character, I ask who in government fits this description?

7 posted on 12/26/2001 5:42:37 PM PST by The Mayor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: alien2
Do you think it was appropriate for Clinton and Gore to speak from the pulpits of black churches?
8 posted on 12/26/2001 6:07:17 PM PST by JD86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7,KitKat,Benson_Carter,Weatherman123
Ping....
9 posted on 12/26/2001 6:20:40 PM PST by The Mayor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Thinkin' Gal ;veronica;dennisw;TrueBeliever9; Prodigal Daughter; Zadokite;babylonian;Jeremiah Jr...
FYI..
10 posted on 12/26/2001 6:24:28 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Mayor
A few years back an IRS ruling determined that a pastor could no longer state his position, even though he made it clear that it was his personal position and not the church's. Current interpretation is that pastors cannot use the pulpit to voice support or opposition of candidates.

What about political candidates speaking from the pulpit on Sunday morning?

11 posted on 12/26/2001 6:31:54 PM PST by JD86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
In the past, a pastor could state from the pulpit which candidate he was supporting, as long as he clarified that it was his position, not the church position.

A few years back an IRS ruling determined that a pastor could no longer state his position, even though he made it clear that it was his personal position and not the church's. Current interpretation is that pastors cannot use the pulpit to voice support or opposition of candidates.

Someone needs to tell the African-American clergy in Chicago, Detroit, NYC, etc.

12 posted on 12/26/2001 6:43:29 PM PST by Hagrid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The Mayor
Yeah but alot of churches supported Bush's faith based funding scheme, One must be careful what one wishes for...
13 posted on 12/26/2001 6:44:09 PM PST by ProudGenXLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hagrid
And Buffalo..the Clintons milked the inner city churches here with the "help" of politically ambious "Pastors"
14 posted on 12/26/2001 6:47:00 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ProudGenXLibertarian
Isn't it interesting that an institution that claims tax-exempt status would also be the recipient of tax revenue funded programs?
15 posted on 12/26/2001 6:47:04 PM PST by JD86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: The Mayor
Hmmmm, my Bible says that Jesus is the head of the church not the IRS.

I must have gotten one of those Bibles that has been mistranlated!

16 posted on 12/26/2001 6:50:32 PM PST by TexanaRED
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Why did all those clintinoid black churches get away with blatant political meetings and numerous WH visits for "healings?" Whatever they wanted to do and say seemed to me to be "protected." Our church, on the other hand, was specifically told that political leanings, speeches or meetings of any kind were prohibited. To disobey meant the IRS was to be contacted immediately. Double standard or what?
17 posted on 12/26/2001 6:57:33 PM PST by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paulus Invictus
Last election I ran for office, there were members of my church that didn't even know I was running cause the pastor is afraid of even saying the word politics. Two years ago my wife, myself and a few friends got together 60,000 flyers from the Christian Coalition to be handed out at the local churches, all they were, were flyers saying where the candidates stood on issues that were important to the community like abortion, death penalty, homosexuality etc.... The churches including mine were afraid to put them out...
18 posted on 12/26/2001 7:05:42 PM PST by The Mayor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The Mayor
The churches including mine were afraid to put them out...

My church puts them out and the Sunday before any major election usually has a sermon talking about the responsibility of Christians to vote for candidates most likely to stand for Christian values. Parties and candidates need not be mentioned; their positions are already known to anyone with a brain and their positions are there on the flyers for the rest.

MM

19 posted on 12/26/2001 7:16:32 PM PST by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
Duane has spoken at our church many times, he is a great speaker, that also goes for his Assistant Tom Stiles. We as a church support NYCF with contributions, it's very frustrating when we can't get the pastor to talk issues.
20 posted on 12/26/2001 7:23:12 PM PST by The Mayor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson