Posted on 09/20/2012 7:36:27 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
More than 1,000 pastors are planning to challenge the IRS next month by deliberately preaching politics ahead of the presidential election despite a federal ban on endorsements from the pulpit.
The defiant move, they hope, will prompt the IRS to enforce a 1954 tax code amendment that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, from making political endorsements. Alliance Defending Freedom, which is holding the October summit, said it wants the IRS to press the matter so it can be decided in court. The group believes the law violates the First Amendment by “muzzling” preachers.
“The purpose is to make sure that the pastor -- and not the IRS -- decides what is said from the pulpit,” Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the group, told FoxNews.com. “It is a head-on constitutional challenge.” Stanley said pastors attending the Oct. 7 “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” will “preach sermons that will talk about the candidates running for office” and then “make a specific recommendation.” The sermons will be recorded and sent to the IRS.
“We’re hoping the IRS will respond by doing what they have threatened,” he said. “We have to wait for it to be applied to a particular church or pastor so that we can challenge it in court. We don’t think it’s going to take long for a judge to strike this down as unconstitutional.”
An amendment was made to the IRS tax code in 1954, stating that tax-exempt organizations are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”
“Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax,” in its online guide for churches and religious organizations seeking tax exemption.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Have a Pastor cousin in one of the poorest parts of Kentucky. May have to send him this thread and ask his opinion and what his congregation thinks. Am thinking the answer is known ahead of time. And out of the hills they came to do battle, with the cry of FREEDOM.
Believe me, they have been teaching the evils of Islam and studying the Koran to see how it’s teachings are different since many began saying that Yahweh and Allah are the same God. If you study the Koran and compare it to the bible they are vastly different though it is obvious that some information was pulled from several books of the bible but thats where it ends. If you want to tell a lie and make it believable mix in some truth.
The Koran’s commandments teach the Muslims to lie to the Christians, infiltrate their lands, and kill them. It is a religion of violence whereas the bible teaches not to lie or murder and turn the other cheek and love your neighbor as yourself. The authors of the bible were honorable and Godly men. The author of the Koran had sex with a 9 year old girl and tells his followers that they will receive 72 virgins in their version of Heaven if they die for their cause. There are many more differences but those are just but a few highlights.
So tell me, which book would you be more likely to believe?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
That the power of taxing it by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it is too obvious to be denied. But taxation is said to be an absolute power which acknowledges no other limits than those expressly prescribed in the Constitution, and, like sovereign power of every other description, is intrusted to the discretion of those who use it. But the very terms of this argument admit that the sovereignty of the State, in the article of taxation itself, is subordinate to, and may be controlled by, the Constitution of the United States.
John Marshall McCulloch v. Maryland
Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is a separate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion. Pp. 20–25.
Citizens United v. FEC
Check mate
Don’t organizations like Planned Parenthood, Unions, Green groups, Media Matters and other “nonpartisan” political entities enjoy the same tax free status?
How do they not have any problems with political advocacy, donations etc?
Check mate
Except that the issues in Citizens United are easily distinguishable from this issue.
One has to reference times present and times which have come and those long past. It has been ordained. It may not happen in my lifetime, though most has, except for WWII. The church remained silent and obeyed, turned the other cheek, so to speak. The other cheek has been slapped again and again and again. Any sane human can only take so much. The Rebellion Lives. Long Live The Rebellion! The aforestated are this site’s founder Jim Robinson’s words. May not be absolutely correctly stated, therefore no quotes. Am pinging Jim as a courtesy, simply because this is proof, The Rebellion Lives.
The churches donate much of the funds they receive to people in need and charities. To take away their tax exempt status will only make theim curtail their humanitarian endeavors and remove hope of the people.
Oh CRAP I just figured out what the one world government is trying to o here...
How do they not have any problems with political advocacy, donations etc?
501(c)(3) organizations are prevented from endorsing or opposing candidates for political office.
It does not mean they cannot talk politics, criticize elected officials & candidates & more.
If you see an advocacy group endorsing or opposing a candidate they - at least the ones who know what they are doing - are doing it under a different legal structure, such as a PAC.
In other words, you might think of a group like Planned Parenthood as a simple non-profit. In reality, they are most likely split into a 501(c)(3), a 501(c)(4), a PAC, etc, etc.
I don't think NRA is even a 501(c)(3). I think they exist as a (c)(4) & a PAC.
In other words, almost every other non-profit that wants to engage in politicking has found a way to do it legally while still maintaining a 501(c)(3) organization.
In this case, some churches want to do the same but without jumping through the hoops everyone else has to. And they argue they should get special treatment simply because they are religious in nature.
No one gets arrested for this, the church just loses Tax Exempt Status.... Which means the church will now have to pay 25-30% of their revenues to the Government.
Frankly this is long past time to happen, churches need to stop being blackmailed, just accept that Ceasar wants his blood money, and TELL THE TRUTH FROM THE PULPIT, PERIOD.
Bible believing churches never have stopped.
John Marshall held that the taxation cannot be used as an excuse to circumscribe the rights and powers bestowed in the Constitution.
In other words - Citizen v. United presents sanctions on the preachers; McColloch v. Maryland prevents sanctions on churches.
These churches are correct. That legislation shouldn't stand up to judicial scrutiny.
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Citizens United did no such thing. There's a decades long history of case law from SCOTUS holding that speech cannot be constitutionally prevented because of the who the speaker is, the organization they belong to, or the viewpoint articulated (although, like all constitutional rights, that is not absolute).
Citizens United was more about how the speech was paid for and when exactly it could be exercised.
John Marshall held that the taxation cannot be used as an excuse to circumscribe the rights and powers bestowed in the Constitution.
I have no problem lifting 501(c)(3) politicking restrictions on all non-profits, not just churches.
These churches are correct. That legislation shouldn't stand up to judicial scrutiny.
If your read is ironclad, why is no one litigating this issue?
Here's an answer - because there is no right to tax exemption and churches are free to renounce their 501(c)(3) status and say whatever they want -- which I recommend.
§441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions.
Less than two years after Buckley, <>Bellotti reaffirmed the First Amendment principle that the Government lacks the power to restrict political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity. 435 U.S., at 784–785. Thus the law stood until Austin upheld a corporate independent expenditure restriction, bypassing Buckley and Bellotti by recognizing a new governmental interest in preventing “the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of [corporate] wealth … that have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas.” 494 U. S., at 660. Pp. 25–32.
However, given its complexity and the deference courts show to administrative determinations, a speaker wishing to avoid criminal liability threats and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak. The restrictions thus function as the equivalent of a prior restraint, giving the FEC power analogous to the type of government practices that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit.
Austin is overruled, and thus provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures.
The IRS didn’t do jack to all the Black churches in Cleveland in 2008 that preached “Vote for Obama” and rented buses to get people to the polls.
My BFF, a black christian, had to leave her church because she refused to support Obama and the congregation called her all kinds of nasty things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.