KNBC.com of Los Angeles reports that “a firebrand Buena Park preacher is among a group of ministers who plan to violate the Internal Revenue Service ban on political speech by nonprofit groups in hopes of generating a test case.” The Rev. Wiley Drake of First Southern Baptist Church, who is Alan Keyes‘s running mate on the America’s Independent Party ticket, will endorse Keyes from the pulpit on Sunday. The report says “Christian ministers from California and 21 other states will use their pulpits Sunday to deliver political sermons or endorse presidential candidates” in order to “enable the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group, to challenge the IRS rules.”
In other Keyes coverage, Comedy Central’s Indecision 2008 blog says Keyes “lasted in the Republican race long after John McCain had been declared the winner. He finally dropped out in April, only to decide that he was up for some more losing. So he threw his hat in the ring for the Constitution Party nomination, and quickly lost that to a guy named Chuck Baldwin. (Which makes it fair to assume that if Keyes had won, Ron Paul would have endorsed him, too.)” The Las Vegas Sun also has a briefing on Keyes’s career.
“Because the government regulates their tax exemption. Same with every other non-profit.”
Understood. But SHOULD the government be regulating charities, is my question?
“And usually it isn’t the government spying, it’s usually church/state organizations and church members that turn them in. It’s not government spying on them.”
This is a non-sequiter. If the organization didnt turn that paperwork in, the government would then forcefully spy on them and take their property.
“There’s a trade off if you want to avoid paying taxes and have your donors write off your donations on their taxe returns.”
Why? Charities should not ever have to pay taxes, and those donors should be free to “write off” these donations no matter what. If I donate 10,000 to a church, and then that church endorses…Barack Obama–how has my charitable donation been lost? I still donated 10,000 and should not be asked to pay taxes on this. Regulation of charities should be left to OTHER non-profit organizations, like the sort that Ralph Nader starts. There are currently organizations that can tell us how much of each dollar actually gets spent on said charity–these organizations would do more to regulate charities than some beauracrat.
“Do you really want churches to become little more than Democratic and Republican PACs?”
PACS? Donated money still must be used for charitable purposes, otherwise these organizations will lose their investors to more efficient PACS or actual charitable organizations.
Furthermore, it is none of the government’s business what a church does to advocate or oppose candidates. You want to violate the sacred “Seperation of Church and State” by allowing government dominance over the Church.
Because the government regulates their tax exemption. Same with every other non-profit.
They’re free to endorse whomever they wish, provided they choose to give up the tax exempt status.
Unless you want most churches to become not liberal or conservative, but overtly Democratic and Republican tools, this enforcement is just fine.
And usually it isn’t the government spying, it’s usually church/state organizations and church members that turn them in. It’s not government spying on them.
Again, Trent, they’re free to endorse whomever they want, provided they choose to give up tax-exempt status.
They’re under the exact same rules as just about every other 501C3 non-profit, including groups like Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.
There’s a trade off if you want to avoid paying taxes and have your donors write off your donations on their taxe returns.
That pay off is that you don’t get partisan.
Do you really want churches to become little more than Democratic and Republican PACs?
As for tax exempt status–we should seek to extend such statuses to every organization and individual we can. Maybe someday we can ALL be tax exempt. =)
Churches should be free to endorse whomever they want. Why, Mike, do you want the government spying on churches to enforce this legislation? Is it not our choice what church we attend?
I, personally, would be PISSED if my pastor endorsed ANYONE (even my choice for President) from the pulpit—so I would leave that church and find one that wouldnt do such things. Why do you INSIST on bringing government into it?
There are no rules against a church leader endorsing from the pulpit.
There are, however, rules for keeping your tax exempt status and they’re perfectly fine and a good way to keep church and state separate.
And not only do they protect the government from becoming a tool of the church, they also protect the church from being a tool of the government.
If a church doesn’t want to pay taxes and wants their donations to be tax deductable, they should refrain from overt partisanship and endorsement and opposition to candidates and parties. They’re free to take whatever stances they want on issues from abortion, gay rights, war, poverty…etc.
but, they can’t become partisan., unless of course they want to pay taxes.
They’re under the same non-profit status as many other organizations like MADD and countless others who have to restrain themselves from endorsing or opposing candidates.
I mean, do we really want churches to become de facto religious activist wings of specific political parties? Do we really want churches to have that much collective influence over our elections? Do we want churches to be little more than partisan PACs?
Richard Viguerie was quoted in a story about the House GOP standing up to Bush, too.
There was a story about these preachers in the NY Times today.
No way would Ron Paul endorse war-mongering Alan Keyes.
I dislike Keyes even more than McCain, but the IRS rules against endorsing political candidates in churches are fascist and unconstitutional. They also apply at private schools, as I have found out as a Democratic Party leader at my college. Conservative Christians may be the most outspoken on this, but these rules cause problems for liberals, libertarians and socialists too. Everyone should support this test case.