Religious 501(c)3 discrimination. (Or, the IRS doesn't do its job for Churches)
I should start off by talking about nonprofit organizations, which are all 501(c)'s of one sort of another. [link]
Wikipedia has a list with short explanations, I suggest a quick once-over, specifically looking at 501(c)3, and 501(c)4.
Basically, a 501(c)3 organization is given tax-exempt status, and its donors get to write off donations to it; but the organization cannot endorse candidates or lobby.
Religious organizations fall under the 501(c)3 code, as well as charities like the Red Cross, St. Judes, Toys for Tots, etc. This is all fine and good, many of them do very good work for their causes and communities. In fact, this is what the 501(c)3 tax code was created for, to encourage people to give money to charitable efforts to help everyone. They are allowed to advocate for issues, but directly supporting a candidate, or lobbying is verboten. A 501(c)3 organization could say that abortion was wrong, but it couldn't say "Obama wants to abort your babies." It can also advocate for cancer solutions, but it cannot claim that "Romney's policies would stagnate cancer research."
A 501(c)4 organization is given tax-exempt status, and can endorse candidates and lobby, as long as it's for social welfare; but donors cannot write off donations to it. A
501(c)4 is almost the same thing as a (c)3, but with political contributions involved. It dropped the tax-exemption for donors, because the people writing the tax code, showing infinite wisdom, decided that political donations should not be tax deductible (consequentially, this is the tax-exempt group that has ballooned since Citizen's United). All those new PACs are 501(c)4's, if you want a better picture of what that entails.
The sad thing is? I don't know about you, but I heard any number of preachers using their pulpits to say: VOTE FOR ROMNEY/OBAMA. This is illegal, and every single one of them should have lost their non-profit status for it. But none of them did.
[link]
Apparently, the IRS has changed its policy, and is not auditing 501(c)3 churches that endorse politicians, even though there are a record number of complaints. This creates a loophole for political speech, which lets candidates with churches behind them circumvent taxes by laundering money through 501(c)3 organizations. The funny thing? Just switching churches to 501(c)3 to 501(c)4 organizations would be enough for them to operate within the spirit, as well as letter of the law, without immediately hurting the churches bottom line.
So why isn't anything being done?
Well, I'd like to throw out any number of hypothesises (hypothesie? hypothesii? SCREW IT, GUESSES).
1: Nobody wants to deal with the fallout for doing the right thing. This, I think, is the biggest problem. Nobody wants to be seen as the guy who said, "fuck it, I'm gonna tax churches!", even though a change from c3 to c4 would not actually tax churches. Many of them already have a very acute persecution complex, feeding into it in any way could be a death sentence for re-election (see: war on Christmas).
2: Bush. Well, I don't think he's why nothing is being done, I think he was one of the big causes behind the whole problem. By appointing partisan judges, he tilted as much of what was supposed to be a non-partisan-meritocracy as he could into a partisan-shill-fest (one need only remember the whole Meyer's appointment fiasco to get my point).
3: What happens when the IRS inevitably takes these cases into hostile conservative courts? The way the IRS sees it, any case that comes into the courts will inevitably cut the IRS's power to collect revenue. Being a bunch of bean-counters, they figure that the entire situation is no good for them right now.
Questions? Opinions? Barely concealed gestures of contempt?
Wikipedia has a list with short explanations, I suggest a quick once-over, specifically looking at 501(c)3, and 501(c)4.
Basically, a 501(c)3 organization is given tax-exempt status, and its donors get to write off donations to it; but the organization cannot endorse candidates or lobby.
Religious organizations fall under the 501(c)3 code, as well as charities like the Red Cross, St. Judes, Toys for Tots, etc. This is all fine and good, many of them do very good work for their causes and communities. In fact, this is what the 501(c)3 tax code was created for, to encourage people to give money to charitable efforts to help everyone. They are allowed to advocate for issues, but directly supporting a candidate, or lobbying is verboten. A 501(c)3 organization could say that abortion was wrong, but it couldn't say "Obama wants to abort your babies." It can also advocate for cancer solutions, but it cannot claim that "Romney's policies would stagnate cancer research."
A 501(c)4 organization is given tax-exempt status, and can endorse candidates and lobby, as long as it's for social welfare; but donors cannot write off donations to it. A
501(c)4 is almost the same thing as a (c)3, but with political contributions involved. It dropped the tax-exemption for donors, because the people writing the tax code, showing infinite wisdom, decided that political donations should not be tax deductible (consequentially, this is the tax-exempt group that has ballooned since Citizen's United). All those new PACs are 501(c)4's, if you want a better picture of what that entails.
The sad thing is? I don't know about you, but I heard any number of preachers using their pulpits to say: VOTE FOR ROMNEY/OBAMA. This is illegal, and every single one of them should have lost their non-profit status for it. But none of them did.
[link]
Apparently, the IRS has changed its policy, and is not auditing 501(c)3 churches that endorse politicians, even though there are a record number of complaints. This creates a loophole for political speech, which lets candidates with churches behind them circumvent taxes by laundering money through 501(c)3 organizations. The funny thing? Just switching churches to 501(c)3 to 501(c)4 organizations would be enough for them to operate within the spirit, as well as letter of the law, without immediately hurting the churches bottom line.
So why isn't anything being done?
Well, I'd like to throw out any number of hypothesises (hypothesie? hypothesii? SCREW IT, GUESSES).
1: Nobody wants to deal with the fallout for doing the right thing. This, I think, is the biggest problem. Nobody wants to be seen as the guy who said, "fuck it, I'm gonna tax churches!", even though a change from c3 to c4 would not actually tax churches. Many of them already have a very acute persecution complex, feeding into it in any way could be a death sentence for re-election (see: war on Christmas).
2: Bush. Well, I don't think he's why nothing is being done, I think he was one of the big causes behind the whole problem. By appointing partisan judges, he tilted as much of what was supposed to be a non-partisan-meritocracy as he could into a partisan-shill-fest (one need only remember the whole Meyer's appointment fiasco to get my point).
3: What happens when the IRS inevitably takes these cases into hostile conservative courts? The way the IRS sees it, any case that comes into the courts will inevitably cut the IRS's power to collect revenue. Being a bunch of bean-counters, they figure that the entire situation is no good for them right now.
Questions? Opinions? Barely concealed gestures of contempt?
Comments179
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
I suspect that it's because the IRS doesn't want to spend a ton of money extracting a tiny amount of money from church donors. I'm pretty certain that the IRS makes this same choice when faced with similar non-church scenarios.
It never really was about revenue when it came to this issue, it was about keeping charities from turning into political machines that people can donate to and not pay taxes for.
I could never understand why churches are tax exempt.
Comment Flagged as Spam
My priorities are to end preferential treatment for religious bodies under the tax code. If you do not think that is an important issue, that's fine, but it is one that is rarely discussed. Class warfare, on the other hand, is an issue that sees plenty of of air-time.
I have family that has worked in educational technology under grants from Bill and Melinda Gates as well as Michael Dell's foundation. Tax shelter or not, they are doing some amazing things in this country and others where government simply is too inefficient.
Comment Flagged as Spam
Can you give me some amounts that show the foundation is just a sham?
I'm in favour of taxing churches, temples etc as luxuries.
Most of them make zero profit. So you would be taxing nothing.
Exactly, but those that do (and I'm thinking cynical televangelists etc) would be screwed. As would, of course, Scientology, Catholicism et al.
Certainly lose charitable donation status for donations to such organisations, unless they split the ministry from the social welfare element. That would be a good solution.
Certainly lose charitable donation status for donations to such organisations, unless they split the ministry from the social welfare element. That would be a good solution.
Much ado about nothing.
They're just luring us into a false complacency before they unleash their secret force of SWAT officers. Schemer says they have them, anyway.
But... honestly... I don't think a preacher saying to vote for a candidate technically counts as lobbying, any more than me telling my friends and family to vote for a certain person does. Only if you could prove people were forced to obey in some way.
But... honestly... I don't think a preacher saying to vote for a candidate technically counts as lobbying, any more than me telling my friends and family to vote for a certain person does. Only if you could prove people were forced to obey in some way.
I agree. I've been to a few churches over the years and only one really said anything related to politics. It was pretty much "I might vote for someone you don't like and you might vote for someone I don't like. Just get out and vote."
I've never seen a particular candidate or party promoted over the pulpit at any church I've attended.
I've never seen a particular candidate or party promoted over the pulpit at any church I've attended.
Yeah, at best I've heard "I think we need to vote for bla bla bla because bla bla bla." Which the preacher has a right to say. And you of course have the right to agree or disagree. Certainly the preacher isn't representing any other views but their own.
You could make a case for Bishops (or, uh, whatever the non-Catholic equivalents are) not being allowed to sponsor candidates, I suppose, since they actually would constitute something closer to an official position of the Church. But ironically they also have less influence since they don't have as much direct contact with the believers. (Hell, I was raised Catholic and I couldn't even tell you which Bishop/Archbishop covers my neck of the woods.)
Personally I think the companies saying "If <x> doesn't get in I'll fire you" are a much bigger threat to worry about. I'd feel more pressure over losing my job than I would disagreeing with my pastor on something relatively minor in the grand ecclesiastical scheme.</x>
You could make a case for Bishops (or, uh, whatever the non-Catholic equivalents are) not being allowed to sponsor candidates, I suppose, since they actually would constitute something closer to an official position of the Church. But ironically they also have less influence since they don't have as much direct contact with the believers. (Hell, I was raised Catholic and I couldn't even tell you which Bishop/Archbishop covers my neck of the woods.)
Personally I think the companies saying "If <x> doesn't get in I'll fire you" are a much bigger threat to worry about. I'd feel more pressure over losing my job than I would disagreeing with my pastor on something relatively minor in the grand ecclesiastical scheme.</x>
Your friends and family are not charitable non-profit organizations, are they?
Neither is the preacher or the congregation.
Alternatively: I don't know, I get and give money and I sure ain't making a profit...
Point being, while I agree it's dodgy, a preacher has the same right to express their views as I do to any friends who look to me for advice and a parent has to their children. They have a right to discuss which politicians they feel best represent their congregation's beliefs, especially since being an advisor on life matters is part of a preacher's remit. I honestly don't know how to deal with that without either abrogating their freedom of speech or turning churches into tax-paying organizations which opens up a ton of other cans of worms.
Do you really want churches to be able to officially lobby a la corporations? *shudder* They're already bad enough on that call.
Alternatively: I don't know, I get and give money and I sure ain't making a profit...
Point being, while I agree it's dodgy, a preacher has the same right to express their views as I do to any friends who look to me for advice and a parent has to their children. They have a right to discuss which politicians they feel best represent their congregation's beliefs, especially since being an advisor on life matters is part of a preacher's remit. I honestly don't know how to deal with that without either abrogating their freedom of speech or turning churches into tax-paying organizations which opens up a ton of other cans of worms.
Do you really want churches to be able to officially lobby a la corporations? *shudder* They're already bad enough on that call.
Neither is the preacher
His Church is, and he is a representative of it. There are restrictions that come with that classification, as well as benefits. One of these restrictions is that they may not directly endorse any candidate, or else they lose their exempt status. This is not a matter of playing favoritism, or even free speech: 501(c)3 charities are not allowed to use their money and position to endorse candidates, and in return receive several tax benefits.
They have a right to discuss which politicians they feel best represent their congregation's beliefs, especially since being an advisor on life matters is part of a preacher's remit.
They do have this right, true, but they do not have the right to be insulated from consequences of their actions. In this case, the consequence according to the law is losing their tax-exempt status. If they wish to endorse candidates, they should file under the appropriate non-profit category, which I pointed out is a 501(c)4 organization.
His Church is, and he is a representative of it. There are restrictions that come with that classification, as well as benefits. One of these restrictions is that they may not directly endorse any candidate, or else they lose their exempt status. This is not a matter of playing favoritism, or even free speech: 501(c)3 charities are not allowed to use their money and position to endorse candidates, and in return receive several tax benefits.
They have a right to discuss which politicians they feel best represent their congregation's beliefs, especially since being an advisor on life matters is part of a preacher's remit.
They do have this right, true, but they do not have the right to be insulated from consequences of their actions. In this case, the consequence according to the law is losing their tax-exempt status. If they wish to endorse candidates, they should file under the appropriate non-profit category, which I pointed out is a 501(c)4 organization.
"His Church is, and he is a representative of it."
He's a representative of his interpretation of the Church. There's plenty of preachers out there who don't always agree with all of official church doctrine and don't always preach it fully, choosing to instead preach their own version of it.
Certainly, for instance, where I live the Catholic churches don't harp very much on birth control and are usually supportive towards gay people, despite neither of those things being official positions of the Church, to put it mildly.
"501(c)3 charities are not allowed to use their money and position to endorse candidates,"
And the preacher is not officially endorsing a candidate on behalf of the church, so there's no problem.
"They do have this right, true, but they do not have the right to be insulated from consequences of their actions."
There's no more consequences of their actions than I any I would suffer from advising on who to vote for because someone once gave me money.
"If they wish to endorse candidates, they should file under the appropriate non-profit category, which I pointed out is a 501(c)4 organization."
And which is a pretty much utterly meaningless gesture, seeing as how most people who donate to the church don't do so enough to bother itemizing anyway, making it a waste of a time and a symbolic gesture at best. The IRS has better things to do than waste court time and the resulting PR mess to fight over something that in the end would do almost zip in terms of practical result.
Plus you'd mostly hurt the middle class, since those of them who do make enough to itemize benefit from it more than the rich do, since their charitable contributions are a larger burden to them, and the reduction in taxes a greater help.
Look, I'm agnostic and bisexual, I don't like the church's influence on politics any more than you do. But there's no case here worth fighting. It would cause way more shit than it would give a benefit.
Personally I think you'd be better off trying to encourage the Religious Left and tackle it from that angle, to ensure that if the church is going to be stealth lobbying, they're at least stealth lobbying for greater charity and tolerance.
He's a representative of his interpretation of the Church. There's plenty of preachers out there who don't always agree with all of official church doctrine and don't always preach it fully, choosing to instead preach their own version of it.
Certainly, for instance, where I live the Catholic churches don't harp very much on birth control and are usually supportive towards gay people, despite neither of those things being official positions of the Church, to put it mildly.
"501(c)3 charities are not allowed to use their money and position to endorse candidates,"
And the preacher is not officially endorsing a candidate on behalf of the church, so there's no problem.
"They do have this right, true, but they do not have the right to be insulated from consequences of their actions."
There's no more consequences of their actions than I any I would suffer from advising on who to vote for because someone once gave me money.
"If they wish to endorse candidates, they should file under the appropriate non-profit category, which I pointed out is a 501(c)4 organization."
And which is a pretty much utterly meaningless gesture, seeing as how most people who donate to the church don't do so enough to bother itemizing anyway, making it a waste of a time and a symbolic gesture at best. The IRS has better things to do than waste court time and the resulting PR mess to fight over something that in the end would do almost zip in terms of practical result.
Plus you'd mostly hurt the middle class, since those of them who do make enough to itemize benefit from it more than the rich do, since their charitable contributions are a larger burden to them, and the reduction in taxes a greater help.
Look, I'm agnostic and bisexual, I don't like the church's influence on politics any more than you do. But there's no case here worth fighting. It would cause way more shit than it would give a benefit.
Personally I think you'd be better off trying to encourage the Religious Left and tackle it from that angle, to ensure that if the church is going to be stealth lobbying, they're at least stealth lobbying for greater charity and tolerance.
He's a representative of his interpretation of the Church. There's plenty of preachers out there who don't always agree with all of official church doctrine and don't always preach it fully, choosing to instead preach their own version of it.
That does not change the fact that they represent their churches.
And the preacher is not officially endorsing a candidate on behalf of the church, so there's no problem.
Is he on the pulpit? Is he doing it in the church newsletter? Is he doing it in any situation where he represents his church, like a bake sale or camping trip? Does he preface his political position with "I'm a priest in the Catholic Church?" Then he is endorsing a candidate on behalf of the church.
There's no more consequences of their actions than I any I would suffer from advising on who to vote for because someone once gave me money.
Once again, are you a 501(c)3 organization?
And which is a pretty much utterly meaningless gesture, seeing as how most people who donate to the church don't do so enough to bother itemizing anyway, making it a waste of a time and a symbolic gesture at best.
It's not meaningless at all. It means that they are not getting preferable treatment under the law.
Plus you'd mostly hurt the middle class, since those of them who do make enough to itemize benefit from it more than the rich do, since their charitable contributions are a larger burden to them, and the reduction in taxes a greater help.
They can donate to any number of charities that will still count towards deductions, or even join a church that does not endorse politicians.
But there's no case here worth fighting.
Every case of religious favoritism under the law is worth fighting.
"That does not change the fact that they represent their churches."
It's not a fact to begin with.
"Then he is endorsing a candidate on behalf of the church."
Nope, he's endorsing a candidate on behalf of himself.
"Once again, are you a 501(c)3 organization?"
Nope, and neither is the preacher.
"It means that they are not getting preferable treatment under the law."
One, no it doesn't, since they're not getting preferential treatment to begin with. Two, even if they were, it's so negligible that the great harm and effort in combating it would outweigh any benefit.
"They can donate to any number of charities that will still count towards deductions, or even join a church that does not endorse politicians."
You really don't understand how faith and religion work, do you?
"Every case of religious favoritism under the law is worth fighting."
Nope, that's the retarded liberal approach, where you retardedly shoot yourself in the foot by doing a cure that's worse than the disease.
I mean, what are you trying to accomplish? Turning every single religious person against you, including the religious people who are currently your allies? Letting the Religious Right successfully paint the government as trying to silence them and take away their freedom of speech, thus gaining them a shitload of support? All to gain a few pennies?
I mean, they're already out there trying to claim Christians are being persecuted and treated as second-class. Right now they're being mostly ignored by all but the most die-hard Christians. Do something like this, and suddenly they're look a lot less fringe.
Seriously, I'm fucking tired of liberals being retarded about image, PR, and how the system works, in favor of adhering to ideology even if it fucks them over. Grow some damn brains, because I'm tired of you fucking up the things I support.
It's not a fact to begin with.
"Then he is endorsing a candidate on behalf of the church."
Nope, he's endorsing a candidate on behalf of himself.
"Once again, are you a 501(c)3 organization?"
Nope, and neither is the preacher.
"It means that they are not getting preferable treatment under the law."
One, no it doesn't, since they're not getting preferential treatment to begin with. Two, even if they were, it's so negligible that the great harm and effort in combating it would outweigh any benefit.
"They can donate to any number of charities that will still count towards deductions, or even join a church that does not endorse politicians."
You really don't understand how faith and religion work, do you?
"Every case of religious favoritism under the law is worth fighting."
Nope, that's the retarded liberal approach, where you retardedly shoot yourself in the foot by doing a cure that's worse than the disease.
I mean, what are you trying to accomplish? Turning every single religious person against you, including the religious people who are currently your allies? Letting the Religious Right successfully paint the government as trying to silence them and take away their freedom of speech, thus gaining them a shitload of support? All to gain a few pennies?
I mean, they're already out there trying to claim Christians are being persecuted and treated as second-class. Right now they're being mostly ignored by all but the most die-hard Christians. Do something like this, and suddenly they're look a lot less fringe.
Seriously, I'm fucking tired of liberals being retarded about image, PR, and how the system works, in favor of adhering to ideology even if it fucks them over. Grow some damn brains, because I'm tired of you fucking up the things I support.
View all replies
It's a simple question of power, IMHO.
If the IRS did the right thing, the right would very likely be able to use it to great gain politically. That wouldn't exactly put whoever is to take the blame at the IRS into a good position...he or she would fall out of favor, lose the job and prospects for just about any future in the public service sector.
The REAL question is how to fix the system such that the right thing gets done.
The answer is that not doing the right thing must create more voter outrage than doing the right thing.
The presumably huge differences in prospects (between the stay-in-favor bonus and the lacking opportunities after doing the right thing) must be reduced to the point that public servants actually dare try serving the public.
Having seen a public sector (government science in another country, Germany) firsthand, I'm rather pessimistic, though. Even if voters change towards caring about whether the right thing is done, we still need to replace public servants with real people, rather than that special bread that somehow acts as if they not just don't dare admit to these issues existing, but rather as if they were genuinely blind to them. My impression is that Upton Sinclair got it right when saying that it's difficult to make a man understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
If the IRS did the right thing, the right would very likely be able to use it to great gain politically. That wouldn't exactly put whoever is to take the blame at the IRS into a good position...he or she would fall out of favor, lose the job and prospects for just about any future in the public service sector.
The REAL question is how to fix the system such that the right thing gets done.
The answer is that not doing the right thing must create more voter outrage than doing the right thing.
The presumably huge differences in prospects (between the stay-in-favor bonus and the lacking opportunities after doing the right thing) must be reduced to the point that public servants actually dare try serving the public.
Having seen a public sector (government science in another country, Germany) firsthand, I'm rather pessimistic, though. Even if voters change towards caring about whether the right thing is done, we still need to replace public servants with real people, rather than that special bread that somehow acts as if they not just don't dare admit to these issues existing, but rather as if they were genuinely blind to them. My impression is that Upton Sinclair got it right when saying that it's difficult to make a man understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Church and state was never separated. If it was, there would be no tax exemption clause for churches. Also, these churches can do whatever they want as long as, you guessed it, they play by the rules.
Unions do not pay taxes on member dues or expenses geared towards labor relations. They do, however, pay taxes on political contributions, which is the one area churches are forbidden to enter in order to remain tax exempt. Therefore, what is your point?