Options
FFRF Sues The IRS To Enforce Electioneering Ban
dignin
Posts: 9,303
Freedom From Religion Foundation sues IRS to enforce church electioneering ban, calling it a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; as many as 1,500 clergy reportedly violated the electioneering restrictions on Sunday, Oct. 7, 2012
http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item ... eering-ban
FFRF sues IRS to enforce church electioneering ban
November 14, 2012
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is taking the Internal Revenue Service to court over its failure to enforce electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations, calling it a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and of FFRF’s equal protection rights. FFRF filed the lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. (View the lawsuit here.)
A widely circulated Bloomberg news article quoted Russell Renwicks, with the IRS’ Tax-Exempt and Government Entities division, saying the IRS has suspended tax audits of churches. Other sources claim the IRS hasn’t been auditing churches since 2009. (See AP Religion Writer Rachel Zoll’s story, “IRS Not Enforcing Rules on Churches and Politics.”) Although an IRS spokesman claimed Renwicks “misspoke,” there appears to be no evidence of IRS inquiries or action in the past three years.
As many as 1,500 clergy reportedly violated the electioneering restrictions on Sunday, Oct. 7, 2012, notes FFRF’s legal complaint. The complaint also references “blatantly political” full-page ads running in the three Sundays leading up to the presidential elections by the Billy Graham Evangelical Association.
FFRF, a state/church watchdog based in Madison, Wis., is asking the the federal court to enjoin IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman from continuing “a policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations.”
Additionally, FFRF seeks to order Shulman “to authorize a high-ranking official within the IRS to approve and initiate enforcement of the restrictions of §501(c)(3) against churches and religious organizations, including the electioneering restrictions, as required by law.”
FFRF has more than 19,000 members nationwide “who are opposed to government preferences and favoritism toward religion.” FFRF is regularly contacted by its members and members of the public over specific and general violations of church electioneering restrictions, and FFRF staff attorneys regularly ask the IRS to investigate such violations.
This non-enforcement “constitutes preferential treatment to churches and religious organizations that is not provided to other tax-exempt organizations, including FFRF,” the complaint notes. “Churches and religious organizations obtain a significant benefit as a result of being non-exempt from income taxation, while also being able to preferentially engage in electioneering, which is something secular tax-exempt organizations cannot do.”
This preferential tax exemption involves more than $100 billion annually in tax-free contributions to churches and religious organizations in the United States.
In addition to reporting the Graham ministry’s electioneering to the IRS, FFRF has sent letters of complaint to the IRS involving 27 other such violations so far this year. Recent complaints include:
• Green Bay Bishop David L. Ricken, who wrote an article on diocesan letterhead inserted in all parish bulletins about voting and choosing the president and other offices. Ricken warned that if Catholics vote for a party or candidate who supports abortion rights or marriage equality, “you could be morally ‘complicit’ with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy.” (Read full FFRF letter to IRS.)
• Peoria Bishop Daniel R. Jenky, who, in an April homily, sharply criticized President Obama, referencing the 2012 presidential election, saying Obama was “following a similar path” as Hitler and Stalin. Jenky said “every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences. . .” (Read full FFRF letter to IRS.)
• Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wis., who wrote a Nov. 1 article, “Official guidelines for forming a Catholic conscience in the Diocese of Madison,” published in the Catholic Herald, spelling out “non-negotiable” political areas. “No Catholic may, in good conscience, vote for ‘pro-choice’ candidates [or] . . . for candidates who promote ‘same-sex marriage.’ ” (Read full FFRF letter to IRS.)
http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item ... eering-ban
FFRF sues IRS to enforce church electioneering ban
November 14, 2012
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is taking the Internal Revenue Service to court over its failure to enforce electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations, calling it a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and of FFRF’s equal protection rights. FFRF filed the lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. (View the lawsuit here.)
A widely circulated Bloomberg news article quoted Russell Renwicks, with the IRS’ Tax-Exempt and Government Entities division, saying the IRS has suspended tax audits of churches. Other sources claim the IRS hasn’t been auditing churches since 2009. (See AP Religion Writer Rachel Zoll’s story, “IRS Not Enforcing Rules on Churches and Politics.”) Although an IRS spokesman claimed Renwicks “misspoke,” there appears to be no evidence of IRS inquiries or action in the past three years.
As many as 1,500 clergy reportedly violated the electioneering restrictions on Sunday, Oct. 7, 2012, notes FFRF’s legal complaint. The complaint also references “blatantly political” full-page ads running in the three Sundays leading up to the presidential elections by the Billy Graham Evangelical Association.
FFRF, a state/church watchdog based in Madison, Wis., is asking the the federal court to enjoin IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman from continuing “a policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations.”
Additionally, FFRF seeks to order Shulman “to authorize a high-ranking official within the IRS to approve and initiate enforcement of the restrictions of §501(c)(3) against churches and religious organizations, including the electioneering restrictions, as required by law.”
FFRF has more than 19,000 members nationwide “who are opposed to government preferences and favoritism toward religion.” FFRF is regularly contacted by its members and members of the public over specific and general violations of church electioneering restrictions, and FFRF staff attorneys regularly ask the IRS to investigate such violations.
This non-enforcement “constitutes preferential treatment to churches and religious organizations that is not provided to other tax-exempt organizations, including FFRF,” the complaint notes. “Churches and religious organizations obtain a significant benefit as a result of being non-exempt from income taxation, while also being able to preferentially engage in electioneering, which is something secular tax-exempt organizations cannot do.”
This preferential tax exemption involves more than $100 billion annually in tax-free contributions to churches and religious organizations in the United States.
In addition to reporting the Graham ministry’s electioneering to the IRS, FFRF has sent letters of complaint to the IRS involving 27 other such violations so far this year. Recent complaints include:
• Green Bay Bishop David L. Ricken, who wrote an article on diocesan letterhead inserted in all parish bulletins about voting and choosing the president and other offices. Ricken warned that if Catholics vote for a party or candidate who supports abortion rights or marriage equality, “you could be morally ‘complicit’ with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy.” (Read full FFRF letter to IRS.)
• Peoria Bishop Daniel R. Jenky, who, in an April homily, sharply criticized President Obama, referencing the 2012 presidential election, saying Obama was “following a similar path” as Hitler and Stalin. Jenky said “every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences. . .” (Read full FFRF letter to IRS.)
• Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wis., who wrote a Nov. 1 article, “Official guidelines for forming a Catholic conscience in the Diocese of Madison,” published in the Catholic Herald, spelling out “non-negotiable” political areas. “No Catholic may, in good conscience, vote for ‘pro-choice’ candidates [or] . . . for candidates who promote ‘same-sex marriage.’ ” (Read full FFRF letter to IRS.)
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
it is an easy concept. if you are a tax exempt orgainization that is not supposed to endorse political candidates or tell your members how they have to vote, and you do those things, then you have to pay your taxes.
hell, we can bring in a boatload of cash if we just taxed the catholic church on their property and their earnings. i feel that if they agree to pay their taxes then they can endorse any candidates that they wish. it is a win win for everyone.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
It should be that easy, but we all know this will be a big fight. The church has deep pockets.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Planned Parenthood isn't a church and doesn't tell the women who go there for breast cancer screenings and pap smears that if they don't vote for the right candidate, they're going to Hell.
Can you please... just for once... stay on the fucking subject?
20% of America now says they have no religion and that number is likely to top 30% by 2020.
Good.
is that because of atheism or could it be agnosticism? I mean does that number mean people don't believe in God or simply don't belong to a traditional church, Christian, Judaic, or otherwise?
not sure why they are tax exempt in the first place.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I once considered myself agnostic, then maned up and realized I was an atheist.
Can someone post on here why church's are historically tax exempt?
My point is they are a charity and donated to campaign funding. So what is the difference between the two tax exempt orgs? Why should PPH be allowed and not a religion?
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
It's more saying - for me, at least - I simply don't fucking know, and probably never will.
Those who claim to know either way? Fine by me. I believe that YOU believe, if that makes sense.
(and it's funny, because I used to be quite the self-righteous atheist, until I "womaned up" and realized what I said up there - not knowing. So, it's all relative and very likely worthy of respect toward those who might see things differently - both from my perspective and those of any others)
To your first point..... I don't think most agnostics are fence sitters (maybe a poor choice in words saying a lot), it's just in my personal experience the few that I have know classified themselves as agnostics then after time classified themselves as atheists. This is just my personal experience, as I stated, and could change with more time.
I feel my absence of belief makes me an atheist, but that can be argued because there are varying ideas on what that means.
I have no problem with people and their religious beliefs, what I have a problem with is religious organizations (which are made up of people with religious beliefs) meddling in the affairs of the state. I am a huge proponent of the separation of church and state. What I see in the United States is a push from the fundamentalist right to blend those two. This I feel is a very bad idea.
A Church is not a charity. They are a church. They may have organizations that ARE charities but the church itself is supposed to be nothing more than a place of worship. The rules are that they can be tax exempt so long as they remain primarily a religious and non-political organization.
Planned Parenthood is not a charity. They are a clinic that offers medical services, personal counseling and serves as a resource for people needing information about reproductive health and birth control. They accept donations but I can't find anything about them donating money to politicians OR telling their patients to donate to a specific candidate.
And finally... rules are different because entities are different. There are no political organizations whose primary function is political action that are tax-exempt (Planned Parenthood is also not tax-exempt, by the way... that's what we're talking about). You can't call a bunch of radical lesbian feminists together whose primary goal is electing Ani Defranco to congress and then call yourselves "the church of the lotus flower" and get a tax exempt status as a religious organization.
(also, excellent new avatar
New avatar? I tried changing it but it still see pedo bear. What do you see?
they are tax exempt not necessarily charitable.
I am not sure where planned parenthood action fund donated money, but there are two groups, one is a PAC who takes money only from donors and buys adds on its own, and the other is the 501c3 organization that is tax-exempt, like all churches. So Planned Parent hood cannot endorse a client, but the Planned Parenthood Poltical Action Committee can.
I could be wrong, do you have any links to stories about donations directly to political campaigns rather than PAC ad buys?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
My point is they are a charity and donated to campaign funding. So what is the difference between the two tax exempt orgs? Why should PPH be allowed and not a religion?[/quote]
they are tax exempt not necessarily charitable.
I am not sure where planned parenthood action fund donated money, but there are two groups, one is a PAC who takes money only from donors and buys adds on its own, and the other is the 501c3 organization that is tax-exempt, like all churches. So Planned Parent hood cannot endorse a client, but the Planned Parenthood Poltical Action Committee can.
I could be wrong, do you have any links to stories about donations directly to political campaigns rather than PAC ad buys?[/quote]
Thank you sir that was all I was asking. Why the difference? Now I have a better understanding.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Cool, thanks. Guess the website is still a bit sketchy.