Is it time for the Roman Catholic Church to lose its 501(c)(3) status?

[Sandpiper]

I pose this question in response to the article about the Church telling parishoners in Massachusetts to reject any candidate who does not support an anti gay marriage amendment.

Directly from the IRS website regarding 501(c)(3) exempt organizations:

Political Campaign Activity

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including the presentation of public forums and the publication of voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity.

In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not constitute prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html

[Q3JR4]

1. I think so.

Who do we have to complain to to get the ball rolling on that?

[Loonman]

2. The time...

...has arrived.

I fully support having their exempt status pulled.

[MAlibdem]

3. I don't think it is limited to the Catholic Church...

...there are many religions that overtly support particular candidates that receive this exemption.

[Walt Starr]

4. It's now a PAC, call the IRS now and complain.

They've officially crossed the line, telling their parishoners how to vote.

[Jade Fox]

5. Past time!

[cally]

6. Yes, but only those parishes

who have bishops advocating this. The Catholic Church, as a whole, has not endorsed this yet.

[Sandpiper]

8. I agree

And based on that criteria, I think the church in Massachusetts has crossed the line.

[Walt Starr]

11. I disagree

Either the organization as a whole loses its status or the organization must disavow these parishes and divest itself of them.

[SharonAnn]

7. Yes, absolutely.

And I say that as a former Catholic.

The Catholic Church has gone so far from Christ's teachings that I don't think it can be Christian any longer.

[GrapesOfWrath]

9. At least the "Safe Harbor for Churches" section of the

"American Jobs Creation Act of 2004" (H.R. 4520) failed. But they haven't given up... look to see this attached to future legislation.


Americans United Hails Removal Of 'Safe Harbor' Provisions

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has hailed yesterday's vote by a House committee to remove provisions from a tax bill that would have allowed houses of worship to intervene in partisan politics.

http://au.convio.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6735&abbr=pr&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241

[Tina H]

10. I think this rule applies to . . .

support or rejection of specific candidates, not specific political initiatives or policies or proposed laws.

Assuming, for a moment, that your interpretation of the rule is correct, are you ready to have this rule applied to religions and other non-profit organizations all across the political spectrum. If not, you may want to reconsider your interpretation.

[Sandpiper]

14. That might fly

If they were telling parishioners to reject a position, but they're not. They've gone a step further by telling them to reject any candidate that supports a particular position, and the tax code prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations from supporting or opposing candidates, directly or indirectly.

And yes, I think what's good for one is good for all. If you want to operate tax free, stay out of partisan politics, if not, be willing to pay the price that everyone else does.

[Walt Starr]

15. Yep, the current statements go to specific candidates

not a specific issue. As such, they have lost 501(c)(3) status.

[Tina H]

22. I disagree about naming specific candidates.

I don't think this naming-specific-names has been done (because it is perceived as a way to jeopardize tax exempt status).

If you believe that specific names have been named, do you have a link? or is the naming-names referred to in the reply based on some kind of anecdotal and unverifiable info?

[Walt Starr]

24. Read the above linked article

it goes to 501(c)(3) status. Stating that parishoners should not vote for candidates based upon an issue is in direct violation of the IRS regulations

If the Catholic Church wants to do this it must adhere to the regulations and incorporate a completely seperate PAC as do other 501(c)(3) organizations. Pat Robertson was forced to do the same with The 700 Club, and other organizations are in compliance with the regulation.

Personally, I hope they don't. There are a lot of tax dollars waiting to be scooped up and taxing the donations of parishoners would do a lot to make up for the mess Bush* has made.

[Tina H]

16. what about,say,

pro-choice 501(c)(3) organizations? Are they indirectly supporting candidates, too, under the logic of your reply?

If not, why not?

[Sandpiper]

17. What about them?

I'm dealing with concrete statements from the Catholic Church in Massachusetts. You've thrown out a hypothetical. What exactly are we discussing?

[Walt Starr]

20. The Catholic church is making specific statements about specific candidate

that's a violation of the 501(c)(3) status and as such, the Catholic Church is now taxable. Donations to the Catholic church should no longer be tax exempt, just as donations to DU are not tax exempt.

[Tina H]

18. okay, let me break it down

let's say a 501(c)(3) organization says:

"reject any candidate who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade"

Under your interpretation, the organization loses its tax exempt status.

I hope I am understanding your position correctly. This position is somewhat persuasive, but I fear that it might close down some organizations that I like.

[Sandpiper]

21. Not likely

The 501(c)(3) pro choice organizations that you like, in order to maintain their exempt status, generally have a for profit, political action committee that is organized separately from the parent organization. For example, Planned Parenthood has what's called the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. This group has endorsed John Kerry for President. However, Planned Parenthood the 501(c)(3) organization hasn't endorsed anyone.

As a separate entity, the PAC is free to be as political as they want to be. The parent organization would only risk losing their 501(c)(3) status if they became involved with activities of the PAC.

That's pretty much what's at issue here. The lobbying wing of the Church of in Massachussetts is using the Church to disseminate partisan political information, telling parishioners specifically to reject candidates who oppose position X.

[Tina H]

25. How is the PAC kept separate from the rest of the organization?

would it be possible for a church to maintain a similar separation?

If not, would this disparity violate freedom of religion (I think it would)?

[Walt Starr]

26. It's simple, church funds cannot go to the PAC

and donations to the PAC are not tax deductable.

If the funds are mixed in any way, the church loses federal tax exempt status.

This is basic non-profit tax code.

[Tina H]

27. Thanks for the helpful explanations

I understand this tricky issue better now!

[prodigal_green]

12. YES

and any other church that gets involved in civic, secular politics.

I think it is disgusting the way churches have become so bold as to interfere so directly with the electoral process.

Our nation was founded during a period known as the Enlightenment. The early settlers may have been fundamentalist refugees (those who weren't here to make a quick buck that is), but the guys who had the cojones to actually found a democracy were freemasons and free thinkers.

[chelsea0011]

13. Concerted effort to put past behind???????

I don't think it is a coincidence with the past and still ongoing problems with the Church that they have decided to reconnect with it's parishioners. What is interesting is that they aren't concerned with polarizing the flock. It is mimicking the culture war that Bush has established. The Church better step carefully or the pews will mostly be empty. Imagine if they go after contraceptives, which the church is against? Completely empty pews. What galls me is that there is no more individual. Even if I haven't sinned, I am sinning by voting for someone who might sin. It makes no sense.

And the exempt status might be a red herring. They were careful not to exactly tell who not to vote for. They just tried to connect their dots.

[Q3JR4]

19. ....

Call 1-877-829-5500

or write

Internal Revenue Service
TE/GE Division, Customer Service
P.O. Box 2508
Cincinnati, OH 45201

To complain.

[skippysmom]

23. probably

this former catholic is pretty sick of their crap.