Bill to allow churches but not non-profits get involved in elections

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This bill's protection of "involvement" in elections only extends to speech occurring within the church. 

The original version would have allowed them to run ads. They say a relgious gathering, that could probably include a campaign event.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then how come the law is only for religious organizations?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That church that kicked out all of the Democrats in its church should damn well lose their tax -exempt status.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"I don't recall.." is a pretty stupid reason to not have it apply to them.

[Blue Rectangle]

That church that kicked out all of the Democrats in its church should damn well lose their tax-exempt status.

Why?
How is that any of the government's business?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"I don't recall.." is a pretty stupid reason to not have it apply to them.

They are already protected by the First Amendment; they do not need additional protection.  Private speech behind closed doors should have absolutely zero impact on tax-exempt status.  Sadly, public political speech is heavily regulated.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How many times do I have to point out, there's a double standard here, the bill is only for churches and not other 501c3s. I don't see why churches should have more political rights than other non-profits. I'm involved in a non-profit, and we pourposefully avoided taking a stance on a minor ballot item because we were a non-profit, and aren't supposed to be involved in elections. It's ed up if Scientology gets to ignore this sh**t.

[beowulf]

It is perfectly appropriate for churches to be permitted to participate in campaigning. However, it is intolerable that such freedoms are not extended to other not-for-profit organizations. To extend free speech to religious bodies but not to other organizations would be absurd.

I'm with Emsworth.  What's wrong here is to exculde other non-profit organizations.

[Blue Rectangle]

How many times do I have to point out, there's a double standard here, the bill is only for churches and not other 501c3s. I don't see why churches should have more political rights than other non-profits. I'm involved in a non-profit, and we pourposefully avoided taking a stance on a minor ballot item because we were a non-profit, and aren't supposed to be involved in elections. It's f**cked up if Scientology gets to ignore this sh**t.

OK, so you would support this bill if it included 501c3s?

[beowulf]

Also, the use of the word churches is deceptive. It makes it sound like we're favoring Christianity. This is all religion. Here's the bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.235:

Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
HR 235 IH

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect the religious free exercise and free speech rights of churches and other houses of worship.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

      This Act may be cited as the `Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. HOUSES OF WORSHIP PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN RELIGIOUS FREE EXERCISE AND FREE SPEECH ACTIVITIES, ETC.

      (a) In General- Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (q) as subsection (r) and by inserting after subsection (p) the following new subsection:

      `(q) An organization described in section 170(b)(1)(a)(1) or section 508(c)(1)(A) shall not fail to be treated as organized and operated exclusively for a religious purpose, nor shall it be deemed to have participated in, or intervened in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, for purposes of subsection (c)(3) or section 170(c)(2), 2055, 2106, 2522, or 4955 because of the content, preparation, or presentation of any homily, sermon, teaching, dialectic, or other presentation made during religious services or gatherings.'.

      (b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS UNAFFECTED.

      No member or leader of an organization described in section 501(q) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by section 2) shall be prohibited from expressing personal views on political matters or elections for public office during regular religious services, so long as these views are not disseminated beyond the members and guests assembled together at the service. For purposes of the preceding sentence, dissemination beyond the members and guests assembled together at a service includes a mailing that results in more than an incremental cost to the organization and any electioneering communication under section 304(f) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(f)). Nothing in the amendment made by section 2 shall be construed to permit any disbursements for electioneering communications or political expenditures prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

----

I'd support extending this to any  research group, political oraganization, etc. You shouldn't be taxed again when you're just spending you're after-tax money on your own consumption.

Thanks for posting the actual bill.  That clarifies things a lot.

[J.R. Brown]

I read the other day the some Baptist church in North Carolina excommunicated 9 of its members for voting for John Kerry. These people are losing sight of the teachings of Jesus.

His kingdom does not exist on this world, no matter how many laws you pass and enforce. What is the purpose of having laws based on Christianity? Are you trying to save yourself or others? Enforcing state laws won't stop people from sinning. No matter how hard they try, a perfect "Christian" society will never be attained here on Earth through laws or whatever else they come up with.

A lot of these self-righteous Christians only lobby for faith-based laws for the purpose of control over a society that they feel alientated from because of their beliefs. Most true believers focus on the eternal kingdom and how they can attain eternal life instead of trying to change this world into something that it will never be.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How many times do I have to point out, there's a double standard here, the bill is only for churches and not other 501c3s. I don't see why churches should have more political rights than other non-profits. I'm involved in a non-profit, and we pourposefully avoided taking a stance on a minor ballot item because we were a non-profit, and aren't supposed to be involved in elections. It's f**cked up if Scientology gets to ignore this sh**t.

OK, so you would support this bill if it included 501c3s?

I'd strongly oppose the version of the bill from last Congress, which would have applied to political ads. They might try to change it to the old version in commitee, so I oppose this. I also oppose churches being able to kick out people just for being Democrats.

[Jake]

Why? An organization has thr rights to determine its membership.

[J.R. Brown]

Why? An organization has thr rights to determine its membership.

That's not Christian and a lot of its members left after that stunt.

[ATFFL]

How many times do I have to point out, there's a double standard here, the bill is only for churches and not other 501c3s. I don't see why churches should have more political rights than other non-profits. I'm involved in a non-profit, and we pourposefully avoided taking a stance on a minor ballot item because we were a non-profit, and aren't supposed to be involved in elections. It's f**cked up if Scientology gets to ignore this sh**t.

OK, so you would support this bill if it included 501c3s?

I'd strongly oppose the version of the bill from last Congress, which would have applied to political ads. They might try to change it to the old version in commitee, so I oppose this. I also oppose churches being able to kick out people just for being Democrats.

Can you please answer the question asked:  Would you support this bill, the one A18 posted, if it included 501c3s?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Can you please answer the question asked:  Would you support this bill, the one A18 posted, if it included 501c3s?

No, you shouldn't get a tax-write off for supporting a partisan organization. But in any case, that's not what this bill is doing, because the Republicans know that would be bad for them.

[J. J.]

Well, I'm not seeing a problem with Group X saying:

Our position on Issue #1 is yes.

Candidate A's position on issue #1 is yes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Again, this bill does not apply to all 501c3s, it applies to only churches. They do a lot more than just state their position.

[J. J.]

Again, this bill does not apply to all 501c3s, it applies to only churches. They do a lot more than just state their position.

Well, I didn't Group A was a church.  I don't have a problem with any group doing something like that.

[Blue Rectangle]

Can you please answer the question asked:  Would you support this bill, the one A18 posted, if it included 501c3s?

No, you shouldn't get a tax-write off for supporting a partisan organization.

So the NAACP, NOW and the Sierra Club should lose their tax-exempt status?

[Jake]

Why? An organization has thr rights to determine its membership.

That's not Christian and a lot of its members left after that stunt.

I'm not saying it's right, it's an extremely stupid thing for a church to do. It's wrong for the government to forbid it though.

[J.R. Brown]

Why? An organization has thr rights to determine its membership.

That's not Christian and a lot of its members left after that stunt.

I'm not saying it's right, it's an extremely stupid thing for a church to do. It's wrong for the government to forbid it though.

Obviously