Topic: Rick Santorum Coming To A Church In My Town

[andrewclunn]

So you're telling me that this:

So tax free = no political speech, but taxpayer funded doesn't?  Alright, now find me the place in the Constitution where it says that.

That would be the 1st Amendment.

... was not you stating that the 1st Amendment states that tax exempt entities are not allowed to express political positions?  Also, that might be really tough to prove since it's was over a hundred years later when an income tax was first put in place.  You know, you could just admit that you were wrong.

[Chew]

So you're telling me that this:

So tax free = no political speech, but taxpayer funded doesn't?  Alright, now find me the place in the Constitution where it says that.

That would be the 1st Amendment.

... was not you stating that the 1st Amendment states that tax exempt entities are not allowed to express political positions?

Right. As previously stated, that was me jerking your chain. I know churches have lost their tax free status for engaging in certain activities. But that is about the extent of what I know about churches and tax free status. Hence, I asked a question.

  Also, that might be really tough to prove since it's was over a hundred years later when an income tax was first put in place. You know, you could just admit that you were wrong.

I always admit when I'm wrong as anybody who has spent any time on this forum knows.

[Jeremy's Sea]

So you're telling me that this:

So tax free = no political speech, but taxpayer funded doesn't?  Alright, now find me the place in the Constitution where it says that.

That would be the 1st Amendment.

... was not you stating that the 1st Amendment states that tax exempt entities are not allowed to express political positions?  Also, that might be really tough to prove since it's was over a hundred years later when an income tax was first put in place.  You know, you could just admit that you were wrong.

But it's not what was said explicitly in the original Amendments but the spirit of them as interpreted by the supreme court right? So if the supreme court found it constitutional to speak at a publicly funded venue but unconstitutional in the spirit of the laws  to speak in a church then we have two situations that seem to be somewhat similar and yet are interpreted differently.

The question marks are not sarcastic, I'm asking to be challenged in my understanding since I'm no law person expert...

[andrewclunn]

Oh I see.  There was a serious discussion going on.  You made a joke that insinuated that I was ignorant of the first Amendment, even though you knew it had nothing to do with the argument.  Well I guess my bad for not getting the joke.

EDIT -
That was in response to Chew.

[andrewclunn]

jeremy.c.

I have never believed in judicial review and attempted to present the contradiction of restricting tax exempt entities while not restricting tax funded ones.  I have no concern for the Supreme Court's interpretation of a document that makes clear sense on its own.

On a personal note, my mother is a lawyer and my father is a pastor.  I have never known two professions more dedicated to upholding bullshit in all my life.

[Jeremy's Sea]

jeremy.c.

I have never believed in judicial review and attempted to present the contradiction of restricting tax exempt entities while not restricting tax funded ones.  I have no concern for the Supreme Court's interpretation of a document that makes clear sense on its own.

Okay, I can dig on the personal opinion, i was just advancing why it's a generally accepted practice.

On a personal note, my mother is a lawyer and my father is a pastor.  I have never known two professions more dedicated to upholding bullshit in all my life.

lol

[Neon Genesis]

Oh come off it.  How often did Clinton use faith for political self promotion and visit churches?  Seriously, having a speaker is now unconstitutional when it's a church inviting them?  Oh no, universities are publicly funded and so is NPR and PBS!  They'd better not have political figures and politicians speak on their campus / programs!

/end angry rant about skeptics and atheists selectively interpreting freedom of expression to advocate for/against specific political and religious figures and position.

Clearly you either didn't care or just missed it when Desert Fox said he first complained about this when Al Gore was running.  But yes, we evil godless liberals only ever persecute Christians when they're conservative and we're out to force our secular values on  everyone.  You finally found out us out!  What was your clue?  The Illuminati symbols on our cars?  What are you?  A fundamentalist or something?

So tax free = no political speech, but taxpayer funded doesn't?  Alright, now find me the place in the Constitution where it says that.

http://ffrf.org/faq/state-church/churches-and-political-lobbying-activities1/

Churches and other nonprofits are strictly prohibited from engaging in political campaigning. This prohibition stems from the requirements of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”).

An organization that qualifies as “tax-exempt” under Section 501(c)(3) is one that devotes its resources to educational, religious, scientific or other charitable activities, and that complies with a number of other rules, including the prohibition on political activity. In exchange for agreeing to fulfill certain public purposes and following the rules for 501(c)(3)s, these organizations do not pay taxes on their income and contributions received by them are tax-deductible by their donors. Churches are recognized as 501(c)(3) organizations, although under the law, they do not have to get specific approval from the IRS to be tax-exempt under 501(c)(3), unlike other charities.

In order to remain tax-exempt under 501(c)(3), churches must abide by strict guidelines that prohibit election activity. The Code states in relevant part that 501(c)(3) organizations cannot “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” I.R.C. Sec. 501(c)(3). Thus, as a 501(c)(3) organization, churches are strictly forbidden from supporting or opposing a candidate for public office. To do so jeopardizes their tax-exempt status. Churches cannot engage in any of the following activities under the federal tax law:

    Cannot endorse or oppose candidates for public office
    Cannot make any communication—either from the pulpit, in a newsletter, or church bulletin—which expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a candidate for public office
    Cannot make expenditures on behalf of a candidate for public office or allow any of their resources to be used indirectly for political purposes (e.g., use their phones for a phone bank)
    Cannot ask a candidate for public office to sign a pledge or other promise to support a particular issue
    Cannot distribute partisan campaign literature
    Cannot display political campaign signs on church property

Under current law, churches, as well as other 501(c)(3) organizations, may engage in nonpartisan campaign activities, primarily consisting of voter education. Thus, they may organize and coordinate nonpartisan get-out-the-vote and voter registration drives; sponsor nonpartisan candidate debates or forums, so long as all legally qualified candidates are invited to appear and wide spectrum of issues are covered; educate all candidates on issues of public interest; and create legislative scorecards or voter guides. All of these permissible activities must be done on a nonpartisan basis. A 501(c)(3) entity should not even tacitly express favor or disfavor of a particular candidate.

FFRF has received many complaints about church leaders expressing political opinions and endorsing certain candidates either as part of a Sunday sermon, in a church newsletter, in a robocall, or in some other communication from the church. While leaders of churches or religious organizations may express their opinions on political matters as individuals, they are precluded from making “partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions of the organization.” Rev. Rul. 2007-41, 2007-25 I.R.B. (June 28, 2007). To report violations to the IRS, see "How to Complain" (at end).

[andrewclunn]

Avoid the spill over NG.  I went on an, "EVIL LIBERAL!!!!" rant in another thread.  Also note the question in the OP:

Is this constitutional for them to invite presidential candidates?  Doesn't that count as endorsing a candidate?

Unconstitutional is very different from illegal.  I am aware that the legality may be in question (though I think it's BS that it is) but that wasn't the question being asked.

[Chew]

Oh I see.  There was a serious discussion going on.  You made a joke that insinuated that I was ignorant of the first Amendment,

Not at all. I know you know US law very well.

even though you knew it had nothing to do with the argument.  Well I guess my bad for not getting the joke.

I should have waited for you to exit angry rant mode first. You said "/end angry rant..." but you didn't use brackets so I guess you were still in angry rant mode.

So back to my question: What does the law say about churches' tax free status and political activity?

ETA: Thanks, NG.

[Neon Genesis]

Avoid the spill over NG.  I went on an, "EVIL LIBERAL!!!!" rant in another thread.  Also note the question in the OP:

I guess you were just joking then when you said

end angry rant about skeptics and atheists selectively interpreting freedom of expression to advocate for/against specific political and religious figures and position.

And I know what the opening says.  I typed it.

[andrewclunn]

Oh I guess I did do an angry rant here as well.  My bad... wait, if you already knew about the law, then why did you ask?   Oh you are good sir.  I'll have to come back when sober.  For now, I run.

 

[Neon Genesis]

I asked because I wasn't sure if a church inviting a presidential candidate to come speak at their church counted as endorsing the candidate or not.