Pastors + Politics = Problems

As reluctant as I am to admit it, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura made a good point the other day about pastors and politics. In an interview with Dan Abrams on MSNBC about John McCain’s recent rejection of Rev.John Hagee’s endoresement, Ventura posed the question, “Why aren’t these pastors losing their tax exempt status for engaging in political campaign activity in the first place?”

(As you may remember, I wrote a post back in March saying that John McCain’s efforts to reach evangelicals by seeking out endorsements from John Hagee and Rod Parsley was a terrible idea and ought to get pounced on by the media.)

Currently, IRS laws prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

So why don’t Hagee and Parsely’s respective churches lose their tax exempt status? Why aren’t they fined or reprimanded for formerly supporting a candidate? Am I missing some loopholes here?

And, on a broader scale, to what extent should churches be involved in politics to begin with?

I remember a few years ago, several churches in my area got really involved in the Tennessee legislature’s effort to amend the state constitution to include a ban on gay marriage. I didn’t support that measure, and was discouraged to see signs on my church’s lawn proclaiming “Marriage = Man + Woman. Vote Yes on One.” I get a little uncomfortable when my church tells me how I ought to vote.

Last time I checked, Jesus wasn’t a democrat or a republican. I’ve met a lot of Christians who vote Republican because they feel very strongly that the Bible’s emphasis on the sanctity of life compels them to support pro-life candidates. I totally get that. I’ve met other Christians who vote Democrat because they feel just as strongly that Jesus’ call to minister to the poor, sick, and disenfranchised is best answered by the policies of the Democratic party. I get that too. It seems to me that church leaders who tell parishioners that God wants them to vote a certain way underestimate the diversity of their congregation.

My prediction is that the Wright/Hagee/Parsley debacles will put an end to candidates actively seeking out endorsements from pastors. Furthermore, with James Dobson’s refusal to back McCain (apparently it’s important to God that the U.S. continue to torture detainees and toughen up on illegal immigration), I think evangelicals are beginning to learn to make political decisions on their own again. It will be fun to see how they choose.


Tim McGhee
Comment
Current Law
Reply #1 on : Mon May 26, 2008, 10:54:01
Hi Rachel,

Current law does not completely prohibit political activity by 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations.

The Congressional Research Service issued a report a couple years ago that detailed the restrictions on political activity by tax-exempt organizations:
http://opencrs.cdt.org/document/RL33377/

In it they said, "The organizational definition in IRC § 501(c)(3) states that “no substantial part” of an organization’s activities may be “carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation” (i.e., lobbying)."

It goes on to detail what exactly is meant by lobbying and "no substantial part" and various percentages of budgets used to infer the amount of political activity and whether or not it is in compliance with the law.

That law has not always been there. It was also created much later than the IRS and the tax exempt part of the code.

The restrictions on non-profit political activity find their origin in 1954 when then-Senator Lyndon Johnson quietly inserted the restrictions into a bill with no debate in order to silence two non-profit organizations that were speaking out against him at the time. It was never intended to apply to churches.

Perhaps the loophole being missed here is the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"No law." The current law is unconstitutional on its face.

According to the Constitution, any pastor should be able to say anything about any political candidate at any time for any reason. As you correctly pointed out, this cuts both ways, whether a pastor wants to talk more about righteousness (as does the Right) or more about justice (as does the Left), both should be free to seek after the heart of God in the public arena.

As the origin of these restrictions have come to light in recent years, legislation has been introduced to correct this error in the law. Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina has been a particular champion of this cause. The most recent version of his bill in this Congress is an outright repeal of the Johnson Amendment:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2275

James Dobson may have other reasons for not supporting McCain. The senator from Arizona has been no friend of free speech during his years in the Senate. He upholds his campaign finance "reform" bill as one of his crowning achievements. That bill moved us in the direction of more restrictions on what should be free speech, not less.

One does well to take note whenever Congress takes on "reforming" something. It usually means eliminating whatever it is they say they want to reform. They don't really want to reform campaign finance; they want to eliminate it. Speech costs money, so when you cut off the funds, you cut off the speech.

Tim
11,313 days
http://numberyourdays.com/
Chris
Comment
Re: Pastors + Politics = Problems
Reply #2 on : Mon May 26, 2008, 11:07:58
I would also point out that individuals are not legally non-profit organizations. What a pastor says outside of his official capacity as the leader of an organization is not necessarily an endorsement by that organization. If the pastors were to explicitly endorse or denounce a candidate from the pulpit, the tax exempt status of the organization could be in jeopardy. As I understand it, the IRS could then seek retroactive tax payments.

Personally, I believe church leaders should endorse or denounce whomever they wish, but they should be willing to do so in spite of losing tax exemption. The bigger disgrace, in my opinion, is that intelligent men and women don't speak up about issues important to their organizations for the sake of saving money.
Rachel H. Evans
Comment
Laws
Reply #3 on : Wed May 28, 2008, 10:24:43
Tim, Thanks for the clarification about the tax exemption laws. That makes sense.

(I love it when someone who knows more than me posts a good comment like that...I get to learn something new on my own blog!)

What bugs me about James Dobson is his insistence that certain policies are more Christian than others, when they seem pretty neutral to me. (Like campaign finance reform.) I don't mind him having an opinion, but I'm uncomfortable with him using his position as a Christian leader to imply that God is on his side. Unfortunately, there are thousands of Americans who rely on Dobson to tell them how to vote; I guess they'll be staying home this year too. (Which, as an Obama supporter I'm not so sorry about!)

I guess I don't think it ought to be illegal for pastors to preach about politics; I just prefer that they not.

I have this weird aversion to anyone who claims God is on his side on a political issue. I guess I feel like that puts an end to intelligent discussion and debate really fast, because who can argue with God?

I want my church to be a sanctuary where I don't have to hear lectures about what God thinks about gun control or balancing the budget or climate change. I feel like I can think through this myself, without the help of pastors or priests.
Amalia
Comment
dr dobson
Reply #4 on : Wed May 28, 2008, 19:15:14
I definitely am nowhere near the caliber of knowledge as you guys are with the laws, but I'll throw my two cents in.
I heard months ago Dr. Dobson was not going to endorse any candidate, but I encourage everyone to review this but I heard recently as an INDIVIDUAL Dr. Dobson was going to back McCain and wanted to make it clear that Focus on the Family as an organization was not promoting any candidate. I think, and according to the laws, it is okay for an individual of religious standing to promote a candidate as long as it is not the organization. This can be tricky but why become an influential person just so you can't say a thing about something as important as politics. Dr. Dobson might as well be a book writer then and dump Focus on the Family if he cannot even comment on who he supports as a candidate. And I think people follow his advice just as much as they would follow the advice of Oprah and (no offense Rachel) I think he should have a shot then!
Katrina W
Comment
Politics! Ugh!
Reply #5 on : Wed May 28, 2008, 23:06:33
I just want to comment on the fact that you went forth and said that politics and christianity don't mix. I have heard the argument (over and over again) about voting for the republicans and have had people ask me if Im even a christian just because I tend to go democratic. I have my reasons for going this way and it has nothing to do with my christian faith. My pastor doesn't even mix the two when it comes to his sermons. From what Ive seen so for in regards to our political system,I feel secure knowing that there's one who is wiser; one who I'll follow no matter what this world will throw at me....political or not!
kristen
Comment
Re: Pastors + Politics = Problems
Reply #6 on : Mon June 02, 2008, 14:11:56
amalia,

if dr. dobson keeps his stance personal and not attached to focus on the family, it is my understanding that that is just fine and his right to endorse someone personally.

the big difference between dobson & oprah is that focus on the family is a religious not-for-profit for tax purposes while oprah owns/runs several for-profit entities. as an 'entertainment' personality, oprah does not get tax breaks for her work, while dobson's company, focus on the family, does.

with the religious tax breaks, if focus or a church were to endorse a candidate, then effectively that would be the government endorsing someone with funds--at least that is how the argument goes as i understand it.

general comments:
when i was in high school, i sat under a lesson (at a non-denominational church, if it matters) that attempted to show why the bible did not support socialism or communism and why it did support republicanism. this never sat well with me. i remained unconvinced by the arguments presented and still feel confused as to why someone would present such a lesson to people who, largely, could not vote. at the same time i respect the person who ran the lesson for attempting to tackle some important and difficult questions with scripture. it was clear that she was sharing her journey into the political world and i appreciate it on that level.

in the end i think each of us should make such a journey of studying candidates and scripture and prayerfully voting as we are led--regardless of political party.

Write a comment

  • Required fields are bold and marked with *.

If you have trouble reading the code, click on the code itself to generate a new random code.
Security Code:*
 

get an account to edit future comments
and remove the captcha security code