markjs
Banned
Political Rallies in 'Swing State' Churches Focus of Inquiry
Bill Fancher and Chad Groening
Agape Press
The election may be over - but the trouble may just be starting for several churches that held political rallies for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.
On October 13, the group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the worship service held three days earlier at Friendship Missionary Baptist Church in Miami, Florida.
According to Americans United, that service evolved into political rally that featured speeches by John Kerry, Al Sharpton, and other prominent Democrats. In addition, Pastor Gaston Smith introduced Kerry as "the next president of the United States." Barry Lynn of Americans United stated at that time that Smith's church had "run afoul of federal tax law" by hosting a partisan political rally.
Later in October, Americans United cited similar incidents at churches in Philadelphia and Cincinnati. In the latter case, John Edwards spoke for eight minutes and then was followed to podium by the pastor, who stated: "I'm not worried about the law" - and added in reference to Edwards: "I'm asking you to support him."
Robert Boston of Americans United says the investigation process has begun regarding the rallies in the churches. "We have asked the IRS to take action against four churches already that have sponsored rallies on behalf of John Kerry and/or John Edwards or the Democratic Party," Boston says.
"The IRS does state that a candidate can appear in a church - the rules allow that," he explains. "But there isn't supposed to be any type of endorsement of that candidate either from the pastor or somebody else who might be speaking."
Boston says the four black churches being investigated were not the only entities that may have crossed the line. He says this election cycle was rather unique - and fraught with problems. "The IRS is currently looking at 60 non-profit organizations for violating the no politicking rule - and 20 of those are houses of worship," he says.
The Americans United staffer adds that he was stunned by some churches that supported the senator from Massachusetts. "One thing that's really ... sort of surprised me is the number of pastors who have stated up front that they're going to violate the law. I mean, that really is a remarkable thing," he says.
According to Boston, the IRS conducts its investigations in secret, so it could be some time before a decision is rendered on the tax-exempt status of the churches in question.
Lower Than Anticipated
While it may be a while before word is handed down regarding the rallies at those black churches, one conservative black leader is delivering his opinion now on the African American vote last week. He says it is apparent that most black voters did not consider moral issues to be their most important consideration when they went to the polls.
Jesse Lee Peterson is founder and president of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, or BOND. He says he had hoped that President Bush would have done much better among black voters in his re-election bid.
But as it turned out, Bush received 11 percent of the black vote - only two points higher than he received four years ago.
"I had read a poll that said [President Bush] was going to get 18 percent," Peterson observes. "It didn't go up that much at all, that's for sure."
Source
While I agree that the Churches that held Kerry rallies ought to be held accountable, why aren't Conservative churches held accountable?
Consequences of Church Tax Exemptions
From Austin Cline,
Your Guide to Agnosticism / Atheism.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
No Political Campaigning
Unfortunately, not all churches and religious organizations have been content to live within these rules. Quite a few have attempted to evade the rules, either secretly or very openly, in order to allow churches and religious groups to participate actively in political campaigns even while retaining their charitable tax-exempt status.
One of the earliest (and only) cases where a religious group had to be sanctioned by the IRS involved Christian Echoes National Ministry. Founded in 1951 by Dr. Billy James Hargis, it engaged in a wide range of political activity, all the way up to endorsing Barry Goldwater for president in 1964. That year the IRS revoked their tax-exempt status, an action which was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit Court in 1972.
For the most part, however, the IRS has done little in reaction to religious organizations which have crossed the line into explicit political advocacy.
Campaign Signs Fast
Union bug. Low Cost. We are the manufacturer.
www.victorystore.com
In 1980, the abortion-rights group Abortion Rights Mobilization had to sue the IRS to try and get them to take action against the Roman Catholic Church over the fact that many parishes had openly endorsed anti-abortion political candidates for office. The case was dismissed on procedural grounds and its merits were never ruled upon.
In 1991, the IRS investigated Jimmy Swaggart and found that he was guilty of violating IRS rules because he had twice endorsed Pat Robertson for president. There was no fine, the tax-exempt status of his ministry was unaffected, and all he was asked to do was sign a pledge not to do it ever again. After that, however, the IRS seemed to start acting a bit more proactively.
In 1993, the IRS investigated Jerry Falwell and found that his Old Time Gospel Hour had illegally funneled money towards a political action committee which, in turn, had given money to conservative political candidates. This time, there was a $50,000 fine and the tax-exempt status for the organization was revoked retroactively for the years 1986 and 1987, the time when the violations occurred.
Also in 1993, the IRS investigated a small church in Binghamton, New York (the home church of radical anti-abortion activist Randall Terry, by the way). Pastor Daniel Little had been so outraged over the candidacy of then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton that he and his congregation took out a full-page ad that ran in USA Today and The Washington Times. With the headline “Christian Beware,” it accused Clinton of supporting “policies that are in rebellion to God’s Laws,” along with other vituperative attacks on the Democratic party and liberals generally.
It ended with the question, “How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?” just before it solicited “tax-deductible donations” to help fund even more such advertisements (and it did result in hundreds of contributions from all across the nation). This was perhaps one of the most blatant abuses of a church’s tax-exempt status that the IRS had ever seen, and it’s no wonder that it attracted quite a lot of attention, both positive and negative.
Eventually, in 1995, the IRS revoked the church’s tax-exempt status — but the church sued the IRS to get it back, with the help of Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice. Both a Washington, D.C. district judge and Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. ruled in favor of the IRS, however, dealing a symbolic blow both to the church and to Pat Robertson.
Symbolic? Absolutely. If the church does not intervene in any future political campaigns, it can continue claiming 501(c)(3) status and receive all of the attending benefits. Even the letter in which the original status was revoked did not, according to the IRS, “convert bona fide donations into income taxable to the Church.” The church can even reapply for official tax-exempt status.
So what does the ruling mean? According to the court decision, “All that will have been lost is the advance assurance of deductibility in the event a donor should be audited.” This means that people who contribute to the church are not assured, in advance, that their contributions will be tax-deductible because of the status of the church. Donors to the church may continue to deduct their contributions; but in the event of an audit, they will bear the burden of proving that the church meets the requirements.
That’s all. IRS oversight when it comes to churches engaging in political activity does not appear to have much force.
Source
Isn't there a nice little double standard? I say yank all of their tax exempt status for a set period of time....That'll teach 'em a lesson.
Truer words were never spoken. Of course, disagreeing with the politics of religion is a one way ticket to the fiery furnace.
