IRS faces lawsuit for failing to enforce church electioneering ban

[SecularMotion]

The Internal Revenue Service was unable to suppress a lawsuit over its failure to audit thousand of churches that allegedly violated federal tax law by engaging in partisan advocacy.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman of the Western District of Wisconsin on Monday denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation against the IRS.

“If it is true that the IRS has a policy of not enforcing the prohibition on campaigning against religious organizations, then the IRS is conferring a benefit on religious organizations (the ability to participate in political campaigns) that it denies to all other 501(c)(3) organizations, including the Foundation,” Adelman wrote.

The Internal Revenue Code prohibits tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches, from intervening or participating in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/20/irs-faces-lawsuit-for-failing-to-enforce-church-electioneering-ban/

[BlueToTheBone]

1. About damn time. nt

[Berlum]

2. Just do it

The churches doing this are FUNDAMENTALLY anti-American. They are VIOLATORS of US law, and MORAL reprobates.

[pipoman]

3. I assume you include Sharpton's and Jackson's churches in that?

The reason they leave it alone is because there are so many churches on both sides of the isle that does this it could be a political disaster to screw with them..

[rurallib]

4. I think there is a major difference

I am not speaking as an authority.
My understanding is that the Sharpton etc. churches do not shill for a political party or specific candidates.
I also understand they can bring up issues as it relates to their religion. I know it cuts a fine point.

Churches on the right have brazenly crossed the imaginary line and campaigned from the pulpit for specific candidates and parties. Many pastors have openly and loudly defied any constraints.

[cbayer]

10. This is correct.

[DURHAM D]

5. At what church is Sharpton the pastor?

[cbayer]

9. Disagree with you here. The prohibition is against advocating for

specific candidates. Churches are allowed to advocate for political causes, and I think most of the liberal/progressive congregations are quite careful about this (though a couple have clearly crossed the line).

OTOH, some of the fundamentalist congregations formed a coalition last year to actively and publicly break the law about candidate advocacy. They made an event out of it, and the IRS did nothing.

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. What if you live in California, where issues regularly make it to the ballots?

I see little difference between endorsing a specific candidate and endorsing a specific proposition. In both cases, religious leaders exert their influence over a constituency to directly affect the outcome of a ballot.

[cbayer]

14. The rules concerning 501(c)3's prohibit advocating for specific candidates.

It is completely permissible to advocate for things like propositions. In fact, some are set up to do exactly that.

There is no prohibition against religious leaders exerting leverage for political purposes. They just can't do it for specific candidates.

The churches who openly violated this were telling their congregants to vote for Romney.

[meow2u3]

18. 501 (c) (3)'s also prohibit advocating AGAINST specific candidates

Between fundie churches and their "Pulpit Freedom" promotion and RW Catholic bishops hawking the "Fortnight for Freedom", those churches and/or dioceses are looking for trouble with the IRS. They explicitly ordered their flocks to vote Republican or risk going to hell.

The RW Catholic bishops and some priests threatened parishoners with denial of communion (excommunication without due process) if they voted for Obama.

Yet the fair thing to do is target the specific churches/dioceses that are flouting the law by revoking their tax-exempt status.

[Act_of_Reparation]

19. I understand what the rules say

I'm questioning whether the endorsement of propositions is in keeping with the spirit of the rules.

Frankly, I think there's a big difference between a religious leader saying "God says homosexuality is a sin" and "God wants you to vote for Prop 8."

[cbayer]

20. The IRS has made it clear that it is allowed. As I stated before, some 501(c)3's are

set up for the purpose of supporting things like propositions.

Were the rules going to be changed, they would have to be changed for all non-profits, and I'm not sure we really want to go there.

[Berlum]

11. There is only one safe assumption

and that is that I am walking the paths of wisdom and justice, as usual.

[truebluegreen]

17. Yes.

[hrmjustin]

12. Churches endorsing politicians or just preaching on the topics of the day are un-american?

[rurallib]

15. if they want to endorse they are supposed to pay

or at least that is my understanding.

[hrmjustin]

16. Yes if they endorse they have to pay.

[CrispyQ]

6. I love FFRF.

Sending them some bucks today!

[MotherPetrie]

7. Good.

[cbayer]

8. Excellent news and about time.

These organizations openly flaunted the rules, even publishing their intent to do so on the internet and in the press.

They thumbed their noses at the IRS and the IRS didn't even say a word.

It's time for them to do their job.