IRS Probes Church Over Obama Speech

[question everything]

Source: WSJ

By SUZANNE SATALINE
February 27, 2008; Page A10

The Internal Revenue Service is investigating the United Church of Christ, saying the denomination may have threatened its tax-free status by allowing Sen. Barack Obama to speak before thousands of members at a church conference in June.

A lawyer for the church denied that the denomination, or Sen. Obama, who is a UCC member, engaged in any political activity when he and others spoke before an audience of 10,000 at the church's 50th anniversary celebration in Hartford, Conn. A spokesman for the Obama campaign, Tommy Vietor, said the candidate "spoke to his church's convention about his personal spiritual journey....This was not a campaign event."

It is considered unusual for the federal agency to investigate an entire denomination. The agency has previously investigated individual churches and ministers who have made comments about politicians from the pulpit. In rare cases, churches have been fined or have lost their tax-free status. An IRS spokeswoman wouldn't comment on the inquiry, which the church disclosed by releasing a letter from the agency.

The 1.2 million-member religious body, which was formed with the merger of several Protestant groups, is considered a social-activist denomination. Federal tax law prohibits nonprofits from engaging in political campaigns.







Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120407186207094995.html

[uppityperson]

1. Oh give me a break. Frivolous. Bah.

[TrogL]

2. So go after every church a GOP politician has ever spoken at.

They'd all get shut down.

[Joe Bacon]

60. When is John Hagee going to get investigated by the IRS?

Probably the same time that Pat Robertson, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn and Paul the Closet Queen Crouch get an IRS visit too. Not holding my breath...

[davidinalameda]

3. I wonder if the IRS wants a heck of a lot of letters from pissed off UCC members

because that's what they're going to get if they keep this crap up

I'm fairly sure the members of my church wouldn't mind shooting off a few letters

[Journeyman]

4. Good for them. . .

I think all churches that engage in political advocacy or invite political operatives to speak before their congregations should be under intensive scrutiny. Those found in violation of the rules should and must lose their tax-free status. I can't see where what Sen. Obama did will be found to violate the UCC's tax status, but I welcome the investigation. That is, I welcome it provided the scrutiny is inclusive and non-discriminatory.

[fujiyama]

7. This is more of a political witch hunt

You don't see the IRS going after the hundreds of churches GOP politicians make speeches at do you?

This is clearly bullshit. I don't trust a single agency under this administration. The IRS is notorious for harassing the "little guy" and smaller players, while they almost always ignore the worst offenders. This is more of the same.

[Journeyman]

9. And did I say anything different?. . .

[flashl]

10. Not a witch hunt per se but lately more of a role of IRS during election cycles

During 2004 election, complaints were made after IRS sent letters to taxpayers urging them to vote for * because he would save them from more taxation. Never in recent memory has IRS used its letterhead to send an informational letter of this type to taxpayers during an election cycle.

[question everything]

19. Perhaps this can set a precedent to go after all the churches that deny communion

to Kerry, that call for their parishioners not to vote for the ones who support gay rights and women's right to privacy.

[Warpy]

5. Don't they have anything better to do with their time?

How about investigating the biggest tax free church scam this country has ever known, the Westboro Baptist Church?

I hope that one is first on the list if we ever get a reasonable, non conservative Democrat into the top office.

[Beregond2]

6. IRS

Remember, this is the same church whose ads were not allowed on TV because they were too "political." Meaning, they featured an inclusive, liberal message. They are happy to ignore blatant political activity by the fundamentalist yahoos, but let a liberal church get anywhere near politics, and it's "Katie, bar the door!" (to borrow a line from Letterman.)

[ixion]

8. and so the evangelical chruch where Delay spoke some years back at an event they called

"super Sunday"... do they lose their tax exempt status, too?

Do the churches who have spoken out in favor of the illegal invasion of Iraq, and supporting the CiC, do they lose theirs?

I mean, I'm all for separation of Church and State, but it should go both ways.

[skepticscott]

12. No, they don't

The restrictions on tax-exempt organizations apply only to partisan political activity. Churches and other non-profits are not allowed to promote the election or the defeat of candidates for political office or to support or oppose political parties. They are not restricted from speaking out on social issues like poverty or the death penalty, however.

[ixion]

14. having an elected official speak at your church is out of line

no matter what they're talking about. You're essentially drawing a semantic distinction here, as speaking to a church group about "social issues" is, in essence, campaigning.

[atreides1]

16. I thought it was a UCC Conference

He spoke at a church conference, and if that's the standard then the IRS better hire more investigators to investigate the Southern Baptitsts.

I understand that they have Republican politicians speak at their conferences.

[Critters2]

23. I think the problem was that he was running for office at the time.

If he were simply speaking as a sitting Senator, it wouldn't have been a problem. Churches, and other 501c3 orgs, can't endorse candidates.

[BrotherBuzz]

51. In January of this year, both Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton....

In January of this year, both Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke separately to the national gathering of the National Baptist Convention of America. In April 1996, when her husband, Bill Clinton, was seeking re-election, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, who is United Methodist, spoke before her denomination's quadrennial General Conference.

The IRS isn't investigating the Baptists or the Methodists, are they? :shrug:

http://www.ucc.org/news/obama-speech-in-2007-prompts-1.html

[woodsprite]

18. If a senator or other political figure is a church member

and keeps politics out of his talk, that should be allowed. We had a senator as a member of our church (he's since moved). He did fill in at the pulpit on occasion and he did teach Sunday school when his kids were little. I saw no problem with that. NOW, although I'd venture to say half our congregation is voting for him, when Barack Obama's campaign worker showed up at our church with a ton of flyers and campaign literature a few Sunday's ago, we turned him away and told him that to let him pass out that literature at our coffee hour after church would be a violation of the law.

[Critters2]

24. And you were right. Your Senator could speak as a sitting Senator

or member of your church. But not for the purpose of furthering his campaign. Churches are not allowed to endorse a political party or candidate.

[Critters2]

22. It's not semantic. It's legal. The law is clear. Churches can take stands on social issues

even on referenda, like gambling referenda or the death penalty. Where the law draws the line is at endorsement of parties or candidates. It's quite narrow, actually. And quite clear.

[ixion]

27. as soon as the government is involved, it is no longer a social issue, but a political one

I'm all for the government staying the hell out of social issues, at which point I'd be just fine with the Church taking a position on them. However, it IS a violation of Church and State if the the Church takes a stand on something in which the government is involved. Anything other than that opens a Pandora's box, as we see here now before us.

[Critters2]

28. No, actually, the law is clear. Churches may not endorse candidates or parties,

but are free to take stands on other issues, even supporting a specific side in a referendum. This is not my opinion. It's the law. I've been dealing with these issues for 21 years. I and my church can and have taken stands about gambling, school bond referenda, death penalty moratoria, etc. But I can't, in my role as pastor, endorse a candidate or political party. The law couldn't be clearer.

[ixion]

29. just because it's the 'law' doesn't make it right

it is technically a violation of Church and State.

[Critters2]

30. The courts haven't ruled that way, and they're the ones with the authority to do so.

When you get that federal court seat, you'll get to make the rules. Until then...

[ixion]

33. Then your church should be taxed like any other NGO

because once you take a political position, you cease to be a religious entity, despite the guise you put forth.

[Critters2]

35. What NGOS are taxed?

Churches aren't the only charitable organizations with tax-exempt status. Indeed, there's no special status for churches. They're tax exempt under section 501c3 of the IRS tax code, along with thousands of other non-profit organizations, religious and secular. Everything from churches to hospitals to advocacy groups are tax exempt under this section. And all of those organizations have the right to take social stands. None, however, have the right to endorse candidates or political parties.

You'll have to find some other way to restrict churches' free speech rights.

[ixion]

38. I'm not trying to restrict your speech whatsoever

I'm just saying that you shouldn't be able to have a business that doesn't pay taxes. And in many churches, advocacy for certain issues IS their business.

[Critters2]

40. And advocacy for issues is legal.

When churches or other non-profits do it. A good many non-profits are ONLY issues advocacy organizations. As long as they advocate issues without endorsing candidates, that's not a problem. If these orgs don't work for justice and peace, who will?

[ixion]

46. I truly believe in an organization working for peace and justice... I have no problem with that

I guess I have a problem with non-profit entities who make profits, though. I'm not saying that your church is like that, but you have to admit there are churches out there who take advantage of that and make millions.

[Critters2]

49. There aren't many churches "making millions".

When Grassley went looking for them, he found 6. Count'em. Six. And you would limit the free speech rights of thousands of churches (and other religious bodies? Or is it just Christians you don't like?) because of six bad actors.

Yeah, that seems fair. :eyes:

[ixion]

53. you keep saying I'm trying to limit free speech: I AM NOT

that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about organizations who claim to be religious that are nothing more than government organs. And in those cases, I simply think they should pay taxes like any other business. Free speech has nothing to do with it.

[skepticscott]

31. What is this "Church and State" thing?

that you keep referring to? Is it an actual written law, or just some principle you have in your mind? Clearly it doesn't refer to the First Amendment or to any court's interpretation of it, since allowing churches (or anyone else) to speak their opinions on social issues doesn't violate the law. What then?

[ixion]

32. here's a link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

It is, in fact, derived from the first amendment.

[skepticscott]

43. Uhhhhh, yeah

Thanks, I HAVE heard of the separation of church and state once or twice, but what do the principles laid out in the First Amendment have to do with churches being allowed to speak out on social issues? Allowing that violates neither the establishment clause or the free exercise clause, which I (apparently incorrectly) assumed that you understood, hence my question about exactly what Church and State principle it DOES violate and where that principle is written.

[ixion]

48. as far as I'm concerned, as soon as a chruch takes a position something where the government is

involved, they have become just another government functionary. The fact that they are a church, though, makes this very, very unconstitutional.

[skepticscott]

52. So you're saying

that even if they take a position exactly opposite to the government's they're still a government functionary? Could you possibly be more idiotic? And no, it ISN'T unconstitutional, but I see it's a waste of time to try to educate you about such.

[ixion]

54. all I'm saying is that any business should pay taxes

and chruches are MOST DEFINITELY a business deal.

[Critters2]

55. How so? nt

[ixion]

56. because churches sell a service

people come to the "chruch" store to feel better about themselves and their life, and the chruch provides them with soothing aphorisms, anecdotes and parables that have little or nothing to do with reality, and while they're pushing those anecdotes, they subtly tie in with current hot-button issues and convince people that the service's opinion is the One True opinion, thus telling them how they should feel about said hot-button issues.

If the church chose to remain purely philosophical, I would feel differently, but they don't. In general, churches are always trying to convince their customers that their way is the best way. Its GOD brand religion® is the best brand.

And then they ask for money.

[Critters2]

58. So, the fact is that you want to silence churches because you disagree with them.

God forbid you should tolerate people you disagree with. It's attitudes like yours that the founders were trying to protect religious speech against when they wrote the First Amendment. Thanks for proving 'em right!

[ixion]

61. Yet again you bring up silencing... that's not what I'm trying to do at all

so just quit trying to twist what I'm saying because you don't want to admit that institutionalized religion is a business like any other.

You are totally entitled to preach whatever you like. I am in NO WAY trying to limit what you tell the people who use your service. I'm simply saying that you should pay taxes like any other business.

[Critters2]

62. And again I ask, (and again, you'll ignore it), JUST CHURCHES,

or all 501c3 organizations? All non-profits are businesses--not for profit businesses. Yet you single out churches. Should all nonprofits pay taxes, or just churches? Please try to answer the question this time.

[ixion]

64. if they take a role in politics, yes they should.

I'm fine with churches and other non-profits being tax exempt as long as they remain apolitical. As soon as an organization chooses to enter the political realm by taking a stand on an issue which the state has pending legislation, or has legislated on previously, that organization is now acting as a de facto political body -- that is, a lobbying organization, of sorts, and as such should no longer qualify for tax exempt status.

Does that answer you question?

You hadn't asked the question previously that I can see, ergo there was nothing that I was ignoring.

[Critters2]

67. So, churches should take no stand on the death penalty, poverty,

health care, etc. What do you think churches are for, if anything?

[ixion]

68. okay... two part question...

1) churches should take no stand on the death penalty, poverty, etc?
- Not a formal stand, no. Not one that brings them into the public debate directly, unless they want to pay taxes like any other lobbying organization. For example, if a church wants to give aid to the poor, they can feed, clothe and house them. However they should not publicly enter the debate about poverty.


2)What do you think churches are for?
While I believe in spirituality, my opinion of institutionalized religion is not a good one. I blame mainstream religion for much of the social strife we experience, and for much of the death and destruction brought to our society. Churches -- not all churches but many -- tend to believe that their way is the right way and if you don't want to do it their way you're heathen scum and going to hell and therefore not worthy of human rights or human dignity. More wars have been fought in the name of one 'god' or another than for any other reason. It always amazed me that before going to battle both sides would pray. How very confusing that must be for god. The 'Church' (in the generic) has acted in conjunction with the State to bring about some of the most horrifying social policies: The crusades, the inquisition, prohibition, the so-called 'war on drugs', anti-abortion laws, and ultimately the so-called 'war on terror'. The church has acted as both catalyst and enabler for these things, so my impression about what they are good for is: not much. Mostly they seem to function as a means of control for the State, which is why I am so adamant about keeping them out of the conversation.

[Critters2]

71. You're right. Martin Luther King, the REV Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr

should've kept his mouth shut and spent his time visiting the sick and praying and what not. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Niemoller, and Karl Barth should've stood quietly by and the let the government, Nazi though it was, carry on with its work. The Quakers, Congregationalists and Unitarians had no business getting involved in the slavery issue or that underground railroad stuff. They should've sat quietly by while human beings were treated as chattle. The government knows how to handle these issues without the input of those nosy, annoying Christians.

Have you ever read a book?

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Critters2]

34. Apparently, ixion would like to silence churches altogether.

I'm not sure who would speak out on justice issues once that happened. But, apparently, the important thing is silencing religious people. Ixion doesn't understand that THAT would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

[ixion]

39. Not at all

I'm just saying that if you run a business, you should be taxed like any other business.

[Critters2]

41. The courts have ruled that non-profits are not "like any other business". nt

[skepticscott]

45. In any case

the restrictions on tax-exempt organizations participating in partisan political activity has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. The restrictions apply to religious and secular TEOs equally, and are intended to prevent political campaigns from using existing TEOs (or setting up their own) to launder campaign funds through tax-free.

[ixion]

47. and the Catholic church is one of the wealthiest institutions in the world because of rulings like

that, despite the fact that they don't work for peace and justice at all, just tyranny and fear.

[Critters2]

50. You don't know what you're talking about.

There are few more justice and peace-oriented organizations on the planet than the Franciscans, Paulists or Maryknolls. And why do you suppose those Jesuits were murdered in Central America in the 80's? For their wealth? No...they were working for justice for the poor and oppressed. What wondrous good have you done this week, that you get to sit in judgment?

There are good and bad in all human institutions.

[skepticscott]

26. It's not my distinction

it's a distinction made by the IRS. And I was referring to what people speaking as representatives of churches or religious denominations are allowed to say, not what can be said by others in their churches. Churches can legally allow candidates to speak and can hold candidate forums and distribute voter's guides, as long as they are not so blatantly biased for or against a particular candidate as to constitute a de facto endorsement. Just how much bias is too much is a matter of judgement, but having a candidate or candidates speak at a church is not per se a violation of their tax-exempt status.

[Demagitator]

11. Excellent...

Anti-semitic churches deserve IRS audits.

____________________________


I'm sure Obama agrees.:sarcasm:

[atreides1]

15. The UCC is Anti-semitic??

Please explain further?

[davidinalameda]

17. he won't

hit and run poster

[humbled_opinion]

70. Its a thinly veiled attempt at

The Louis Farrakan flap.... UCC's are no more anti-sematic then Catholic Churches are

[brentspeak]

44. Could you clarify that remark?

[santamargarita]

13. It's OK when they do it!

K&R

[underpants]

20. Outrageous

:kick:

[Critters2]

21. I was at General Synod, and was concerned about this at the time.

His speech was not terribly political, though I remember the standing O when he promised universal health care (don't get me started!). His campaign had tables set up all around the convention center, taking donations and volunteer contact cards. They clearly saw this as a campaign stop. It was also odd to me that during his speech everything else closed down--there were no other speeches, workshops, the exhibition hall was closed. You pretty much had two options--go to his speech or leave the convention center. His speech was the only time during all of GS that this was true, and I've never understood it. But it did guarantee a huge attendance at his speech.

So, yes, I had questions, but hoped national staff had planned it all in such a way as to avoid the appearance of anything improper. That said, though, it is also true, as has been pointed out, that this is nothing in comparison to Huckabee preaching or other conservative violations of church-state separation. It is true that progressives get taken to task for this more often. That means we either need to be more careful, or more willing to take the crap that comes with apparent violations.

Like this one.

[goforit]

25. Well, well, well....Poppy spoke at the Moonies and so did W/ Where is it on them

[Critters2]

42. If they weren't running a campaign at the time, it's not a violation.

The issue is that non-profits cannot endorse candidates. Sitting politicians can speak at these venues.

[Lars39]

36. Bush has a special televised message at every Southern Baptist Convention.

How is this any different? Besides coherancy.

[Critters2]

37. He's not running for office.

The issue is whether or not the UCC was endorsing Obama in his candidacy. If he had waited two years, and spoken when he was either a Senator or President but not campaigning, there'd be no issue. 501c3 organizations cannot endorse candidates or political parties. That is the issue.

[Zhade]

57. This atheist sees no violation here.

Did the church leaders themselves command their sheep to donate to or vote for him?

This sounds like him as a private citizen, nothing more. Am I wrong?

[tom_paine]

59. Life in Bush Occupied Amerika - You cannot do what Bushies do.

Plus, Bushies will use all the power of the Totalitarian State to harass you if you dare do it.

[mysteryman2]

63. a scandal like white water

not barack. i thought he led by example. he has the best judgement. well if this proves it. i am not sure he knows what to do.

[pokercat999]

65. How about we drop this tax free bs and make em pay

taxes on income and state property taxes. On top of operating the longest and biggest con in history they multiply their crimes by conning the government into tax free status.

There ain't nothing better than a religion at stealing your money. I'm envious, how do they get away with it?

[JerseygirlCT]

66. A little humor about a not really funny situation:

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-colin030208.artmar02,0,5318782.column

[MiniMe]

69. Have they ever probed the Catholic Church over the remarks about Kerry

in the last election? I don't remember exactly what they were, but it was something about if you vote for somebody who supports election you can't receive communion.