The IRS's attempted crackdown on a liberal church that in 2004 preached Jesus would support Kerry over Bush could have broad ramifications, as reported in the Washington Post:
Religious leaders on the right and left have expressed fear that the dispute could make it more difficult for them to speak out on moral issues such as gay marriage and abortion during the midterm election campaign. …
Under federal tax law, church officials can legally discuss politics, but to retain tax-exempt status, they cannot endorse candidates or parties.
I think Americans are taxed too much for nonproductive (and, often, counterproductive) government schemes. And I'm ok with truly charitable organizations, whether faith-based or not, getting a break for serving the public good (such as operating soup kitchens and otherwise helping those in need who are not being helped by behemoth government bureaucracies). But why should organizations that want to take part in partisan political battles get special treatment just because they are religiously oriented?
25 Comments for “IRS vs. Politicking Churches”
posted by Randy R. on
Why should ANY religious organization be tax-free? At this point, I think they should all be taxed, and then let them say whatever the hell they want.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Why should government be taxing the income of any institution — political or non-political? Or any individual for that matter?
While the IRS is around, I support holding churches to the same rules as everyone else, but this is also another example of how government censors us and erodes our Constitutional rights through its existing tax policy. These sorts of things, along with campaign “finance reform” which abridge our right to speak freely and openly in all media about the issues which count most around election time, are eroding our democratic discussion and silencing debate just as surely as if the First Amendment didn’t exist at all.
posted by jomicur on
Randy R., I couldn’t agree more. When the founding fathers decided we don’t tax churches they meant, in a very literal way, that we don’t tax the property the little red church building stands on. And I suppose I could live with that, if it comes down to it. But they most certainly did not intend that the stock and real estate portfolios of the Catholic and Episcopal churches should be tax-free, or the agricultural business of Jerry Falwell (he claims that the irrigation systems and such that he sells are based on “Biblical principles” and are therefore untaxable, and the IRS lets him get away with it). When I encounter one of the right-wingers who want to abolish separation between church and state, I always tell them I agree, since that would enable us to tax them–and to sue them for fraud and malpractice. I’ve yet to meet one who thought that’s a good idea. If religious income were taxed, Pat Robertson would be in a different business by this time next week.
posted by Jorge on
I wouldn’t reduce churches to “charitable” organizations or simple “institutions.” Churches are important to the social and moral fiber of this country and its people. Their role in fostering the spiritual and moral growth of communities and individuals makes them more important than other secular organizations. When churches also perform charity work, it’s no contest.
It’s more than right that the government recognize the good that churches do in some way. Recognizing the importance of churches is obviously not unconstitutional, but the ways the government can do so are limited to methods that don’t single out any one religion for special treatment. The 1st Amendment is there for a good reason.
I suppose there are other possible things we could do, but tax exemption makes sense to me. I like how we can use this same benefit to recognize other secular organizations that still serve the public good in compelling ways, while also discouraging the politicalization of churches as something harmful.
posted by CLS on
You seem to have it wrong. The church in question did not preach that Jesus would support Kerry over Bush. It stayed away from all endorsements. It merely said that they believed Jesus would not support Bush’s war policies which is a different matter. I don’t presume anyone knows what Jesus thought or didn’t think as no reliable record of his beliefs exists. But they did not endorse any candidate.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I wouldn’t reduce churches to “charitable” organizations or simple “institutions.” Churches are important to the social and moral fiber of this country and its people. Their role in fostering the spiritual and moral growth of communities and individuals makes them more important than other secular organizations. When churches also perform charity work, it’s no contest.
That’s gobbledegook. Churches are neither no more, nor less, useful than any other private group — charitable or otherwise. They should receive no special dispensation nor be targeted for special persecution.
posted by Greg Capaldini on
I may have this all wrong, but isn’t the IRS trying not so much to eliminate the powers and privileges of churches and such, but more particularly to limit the financial resources of candidates for public office? I guess I could benefit from a clarification as to whether political support groups are/can be/should be tax-exempt in general.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
The problem is consistency. During the Proposition 22 campaign to keep marriage between a man and woman, Focus on the Family had a long list of churches that had donated to the campaign. And I personally attended a church called Church on the Way that supported it and the Senators who wrote it and urges it’s congregation to call up said politicians to ensure it’s passage.
I called the Alliance Defense Fund this morning to find out why they haven’t come to the defense of All Saints.
I put in a call to All Saints, (haven’t heard yet if they’d accept the help of the ADF), just to check out who their counsel was, if any.
The Alliance Defense Fund has even been praised by Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly and the premiere defenders of Christians and the antidote for the ACLU.
To look at the ADF’s website, ALL Christians defending their free speech rights (as All Saints is saying) is what the ADF advocates.
And the ADF also advocates for Christian institutions who support anti gay policies, politicians and anti gay speech.
So it’s really not about Christianity and Christians in general…but the right kind of Christians and politics.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I still don’t see why certain forms of expression should be penalized with taxes. Perhaps someone should enlighten me as to why the IRS should have a role in determining the political content of private, voluntary associations of citizens on *any* issue.
posted by Jorge on
You have it backwards. Taxes are the given. Being free of taxes is a privilege.
If we were able to assign this benefit to an organization that took political positions, there would be a risk of a conflict of interest. A powerful organization with ties to a large number of people decides to endorse a political candidate, and all of a sudden they get a tax break. I think that’s the reason it was started. By making it impossible for social and cultural organizations to be rewarded or punished for their political decisions, they will operate in a system in which they have greater freedom to pursue the forms of expression they choose. “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”
You believe that taxing political organizations punishes them for expressing themselves, but taxing all political organizations removes the power to tax.
And you can see that it’s still not a perfect system.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Actually, accepting that taxes are “the given” means that you, by default, accept the IRS as the final authority on what points of view deserve being aired and what points of view do *NOT* deserve being aired.
By making it impossible for social and cultural organizations to be rewarded or punished for their political decisions, they will operate in a system in which they have greater freedom to pursue the forms of expression they choose.
I assume you are advocating taxing everyone then, which simply means that large organizations will be capable of expressing their own views, but smaller organizations will have so much of their funds taxed away that they’ll never be able to express themselves.
The same thing happened with other government tax-and-regulate schemes in the political speech arena such as “campaign finance reform.” The big, corrupt established political organizations had no problem following (and looping around) the campaign finance laws which were sold as stopping them — but Green, Independent and Libertarian candidates got fined and attacked by the authorities for “violating the new CFL.”
Getting the government OUT of the business of taxing private organizations and out of the business of deciding “who deserves to be heard” should be a top priority for people who support the Bill of Rights.
posted by Bobby on
Unitarians preach partisan liberal politics. Baptist preach partisan rightwing politics. So what? Religion has always been a part of politics. the abolition movement was religious in nature. Charities and education was mostly religious inspired. Harvard was founded by Jesuits.
I agree with Northeast. Getting the government out of taxing private organization is the right idea.
posted by SteveS on
It’s interesting to me that religion in politics was never a big issue, mostly not an issue at all, when it was dominated by Democrats in the big cities who campaigned by parish rather than precintct with the active and partisan involvement of Catholic priests. Nor has it been any cause for concern among those who express shock at such things when left wing demominations and their national leaders at the likes of the National Council of Churches routinely villify conservatives and support left wing regimes thoughout the world against US foreign policy.
But let the conservative Christians get political, now that’s shocking and a big cause for concern. The left has to organize groups like Barry Lynn’s and whip up a media frenzy against such involvement.
Now I don’t have anything against people of faith regardless of viewpoint getting into politics. The more people and the more interest groups that get involved the better for our country. But none of them should get a tax exemption for doing so…in fact, churches shouldn’t get them just for existing regardless of the political angle. And I might add, laws supporting religious practices like marriage have no place in our system either. What public/governmental purpose is served by subsidizing marriage? Advocates for same such marriage are missing the boat by asking for the same rights as straight couples. They should be asking “Why are there any special rights for marriage at all?”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Certainly right, Steve. Martin Luther King campaigned as a minister at church — the sorts of laws being proposed would have silenced him.
posted by Greg on
Bobby, Harvard was not founded by Jesuits. Boston College was. Harvard was founded by protestant minister John Harvard.
posted by Bobby on
So Steve, who deserves a tax exemption? The Humane Society actively campaigns agaisn’t hunting, I find that to be political. Should they pay extra taxes?
Greg, I stand corrected, but my point remains valid. There are plenty of great institutions that where founded by religious people. It is an insult to rewrite history to pretend that religion never played a role in this country.
As Northeast pointed out, without reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. There would have been no civil rights movement. Even Malcom X had his transformation from hoodlum to activist thanks to Islam.
In fact, most of the supporters of same-sex marriage come from the religious left.
Taxing religion will not bring us closer to a libertarian society at all. Taxes only end up creating black markets, crime, theft, and poverty.
posted by Jorge on
Actually, accepting that taxes are “the given” means that you, by default, accept the IRS as the final authority on what points of view deserve being aired and what points of view do *NOT* deserve being aired.
Not at all. I don’t agree with the way you’re framing it to begin with, but at least pin it on the legislature that tells the IRS what it can and can not do and the people who support it. The IRS is not some high and mighty arbitrary authority that came out of nowhere. It was created under our democratic system, and if we wanted to we could eliminate it or tell it to do things different. But the IRS is still around for you to scapegoat.
Accepting taxes as a given doesn’t necessarily mean accepting tax distinctions as a given. If the distinction between different organizations weren’t based on taxes, then you’d be complaining about some other authority you believed inappropriate, because it would be based on some other kind of reward. The point isn’t who makes the fine physics about some organizations being different from others. The point is that they are different, and this country has made a decision as to just how to mediate that. And treating all political organizations as part of one category is essentially ruling that all points of view with be treated the same way.
I assume you are advocating taxing everyone then, which simply means that large organizations will be capable of expressing their own views, but smaller organizations will have so much of their funds taxed away that they’ll never be able to express themselves.
I tend to be for progressive taxation. Look, I don’t have anything against new ideas, but I would ask that we do things better, not overhaul the good things we need to do.
Getting the government OUT of the business of taxing private organizations and out of the business of deciding “who deserves to be heard” should be a top priority for people who support the Bill of Rights.
But it’s not.
posted by Steve S on
“So Steve, who deserves a tax exemption? The Humane Society actively campaigns agaisn’t hunting, I find that to be political. Should they pay extra taxes?”
I’m not sure any group “deserves” a tax exemption. My concern is that I don’t want or trust the government to define what’s political and what’s not. So either give it to all advocacy organizations or none. There already exist available and politically neutral tests as to whether a group is non-profit and/or whether it has earned income. The IRS should make determinations based on those tests not the subjective test of whether a group is political. If the government must, it should tax profits and earned income, not speech supported by voluntary donations. Religious groups should face the same tests and not be granted exemption just because they’re churches.
posted by etjb on
On “Coalition Building”, what magical position do you want the state LGBT organizations to take?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
But it’s not.
Oh, I know. These days, the Bill of Rights is viewed as “inconvenient” for Republicrat politicians. It prevents them from launching their new programs to confiscate weapons, or silence critics, or torture prisoners, or detain people without charges indefinitely.
posted by dalea on
The easy way for the Humane Society or any other institution to avoid taxation is to spend all the money it raises. Call this ‘break even’, which is not a bad way to run things. I believe locally here the Humane Society is usually running a deficit. And it does pick up the work of animal control that the government would otherwise do.
posted by Bobby on
I’m not sure if I agree with break even. The NRA is careful wtih their money, and they also do charitable work. Some of the money goes to youth organization, other parts to hunting education, police officer training, political advocacy, etc. If you spend all you’ve got, you might not have it when you need it.
What is unfair is that while my contributions to the NRA are not tax deductible, what you give to the Humane Society is.
I’m not against the Humane Society, by the way, I just want all non-profits to be tax free. In the end, everything is political. If you have a homeless shelter, you’re gonna encourage your supporters to vote for pro-shelter candidates, you’ll engage in letter writing campaigns to get more funding, city help, and anything else that can benefit you.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
It’s so funny how inevitably, the same people who demand taxation (and tax increases) as a measure of civic duty also come up with 1,000 different reasons why they and their pet projects shouldn’t be taxed at all.
I tend to think taxation in general is bad news and anything which can be done to reduce it is a good thing.
Let’s make all nonprofit groups, political, apolitical, religious, or otherwise, completely tax-free, and match that massive tax cut with significant spending reductions. Once people can see it can be done without a single problem (other than some whining government unions), we can start the process anew in personal income taxes.
posted by Tim Hulsey on
In 2004, plenty of churches proclaimed that Jesus would have supported Bush over Kerry: Churches served as the foundation for Bush’s reelection bid. One church in North Carolina actually expelled a member for voting Democratic — they would later revoke the expulsion but the member did not return. The IRS threatened to revoke the church’s status over the incident, but ultimately did not investigate.
What the Clinton administration established, the Bush administration has now confirmed: Like everything else connected to our government, tax exemptions are fair game for partisan misuse.
posted by Bobby on
Tim, ever heard of the Council of Churches? They’re a LIBERAL religious group that pushes for the leftwing values they support (such as affirmative action, ending the war in Iraq, etc).
Let’s be fair here, people. When the Catholic Church had their members marching protesting the Vietnam War, you didn’t complaint nor did they get threatened to lose their tax free status.
Why is it that liberals want everyone to be like them?