Mark Hamill suggests a strategy to foster the expansion of religious institutions
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has entered into a consent judgment in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, on July 7, clarifying the rules for political speech by religious organizations.
The IRS consent aims to avoid subsidizing political activity by limiting a tax deduction for contributions to only those tax-exempt organizations that do not engage in prohibited political speech. This decision affects a very small number of churches, but there is potential for political groups to take advantage and see growth in the number of churches.
Section 170(c) of the tax law allows a tax deduction for contributions to a Section 501(c)(3) organization, but not for a direct contribution to a political candidate for office. Section 501(c)(3) grants tax-exempt status to certain organizations, but prohibits such organizations from engaging in political endorsement activities.
Under the new consent, religious organizations, under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax law, can effectively endorse or oppose specific candidates for office. However, this can only be done through customary channels, such as live-stream events during the COVID-19 pandemic, which are considered usual communication channels. The term "congregation" is not clearly defined, and it is unclear if video streaming started during COVID would be considered customary.
The IRS has announced it will make no challenge to the political speech of Section 501(c)(3) organizations, focusing instead on internal communications between the house of worship and its congregation. This means that the problem with the past treatment of Section 501(c)(3) organizations, where contributions to the organization may become nondeductible if they engaged in political speech, is now resolved.
It's important to note that the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a religion by the government. The IRS consent does not violate this prohibition, as long as the tax exemptions are neutral to religious belief.
Recent acts of the executive and legislative branches have led to substantial reductions in the IRS workforce, which can result in the forced neglect of certain offenses. Workforce shortages in enforcement agencies can pose challenges in ensuring compliance with the new consent.
The vast majority of churches do not endorse specific candidates for office during their worship service, and do not intend to in the future. The case was brought by the National Religious Broadcasters, with Texas churches Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church of Waskom in tow. If political groups start to take advantage of the IRS consent, there may be a growth in the number of churches.
The Albuquerque Police Department could attest to this, as they have seen an increase in the number of churches involved in political activities following the IRS consent. The congregation mentioned in the IRS consensus refers to the assembly or group involved, and a live-stream event during the COVID-19 pandemic is considered a usual communication channel.
In conclusion, the IRS consent provides clarity for religious organizations regarding political speech, allowing them to endorse or oppose specific candidates for office through customary channels, while maintaining the neutrality required by the First Amendment. However, it also opens the door for potential exploitation by political groups, which could lead to an increase in the number of churches involved in political activities.
