Bill to allow churches but not non-profits get involved in elections

[A18]

How is letting religious leaders speak out about politics a violation of the separation of church and state? This is free speech.

[A18]

No income that is just transferred from one group to spend on another's behalf, with no consumption, should be taxed.

[A18]

Also, the use of the word churches is deceptive. It makes it sound like we're favoring Christianity. This is all religion. Here's the bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.235:

Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
HR 235 IH

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect the religious free exercise and free speech rights of churches and other houses of worship.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

      This Act may be cited as the `Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. HOUSES OF WORSHIP PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN RELIGIOUS FREE EXERCISE AND FREE SPEECH ACTIVITIES, ETC.

      (a) In General- Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (q) as subsection (r) and by inserting after subsection (p) the following new subsection:

      `(q) An organization described in section 170(b)(1)(a)(1) or section 508(c)(1)(A) shall not fail to be treated as organized and operated exclusively for a religious purpose, nor shall it be deemed to have participated in, or intervened in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, for purposes of subsection (c)(3) or section 170(c)(2), 2055, 2106, 2522, or 4955 because of the content, preparation, or presentation of any homily, sermon, teaching, dialectic, or other presentation made during religious services or gatherings.'.

      (b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS UNAFFECTED.

      No member or leader of an organization described in section 501(q) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by section 2) shall be prohibited from expressing personal views on political matters or elections for public office during regular religious services, so long as these views are not disseminated beyond the members and guests assembled together at the service. For purposes of the preceding sentence, dissemination beyond the members and guests assembled together at a service includes a mailing that results in more than an incremental cost to the organization and any electioneering communication under section 304(f) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(f)). Nothing in the amendment made by section 2 shall be construed to permit any disbursements for electioneering communications or political expenditures prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

----

I'd support extending this to any  research group, political oraganization, etc. You shouldn't be taxed again when you're just spending you're after-tax money on your own consumption.

[A18]

If the black churches already have unwritten privelege to do this, why shouldn't all churches?

What? It's not black churches that have been kicking out Democrats from their church. Why should some fundie church be allowed to influence elections, but not the Sierra Club? They're both 501c3 non-profits.

Sierra Club should too.

[A18]

Allowing churches but not all non-profits is unconstitutional.

Hahaha. It was like that until Lyndon Johnson introduced an amendment to a bill to silence preachers, because they were speaking out about his scandals.

[A18]

Allowing churches but not all non-profits is unconstitutional.

Hahaha. It was like that until Lyndon Johnson introduced an amendment to a bill to silence preachers, because they were speaking out about his scandals.

Of course, prior usage does not automatically make a system constitutional. BOTF is quite correct; the legislation would be unconstitutional. Congress cannot, in effect, tax a body that participates in election activities merely because it is not religious.

If anything, giving conditional tax-exempt status itself is unconstitutional, because it violates free speech and censors the free exchange of ideas.

All non-profits should be exempt.

[A18]

All non-profits and churches should be taxed just like any other entity, individual or business.

There's a difference between real income derived from consumption, and the neutral transfer of wealth from one party to another for the original holder's purposes with no exchange of productivity.

Anyway, these organizations are ALREADY tax-exempt. The issue is whether they should all be allowed to influence elections, and I think any good conservative or liberal alike would say yes.

[A18]

Look, if you don't know what the difference between having your friend by you each a coke with a dollar bill, and real income, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.