Proposal for prop in California: Remove tax exempt status for churches funding propositions...

[cascadiance]

Currently churches and other tax exempt organizations are not allowed to fund political parties or individual candidates campaigns for public office unless they want to lose their tax exempt status. Perhaps a new proposition could be added to California's propositions for next election that would amend the state constitution to place these same restrictions on churches/church organizations on funding/supporting state propositions. If they did so, they'd lose their tax exempt status.

This would up the ante rather than just putting another prop to reverse the regulations of prop 8. It would also help eliminate their props they keep introducing each election on other religious issues like abortion limitations, that come out just about every election. If this prop were to pass (ONLY a simple majority would be needed!), churches or other right wing organizations would have to find another way to fund those campaigns or else lose churches' tax exempt status.

The strategy they've been using is putting a lot of these props on the ballot to get higher wingnut turnout too. By limiting them from being able to fund these props (and perhaps have less of them), there might be less wingnut turnout too, in addition to start pulling back from these f'd up props as well.

Perhaps if they see the effect of a simple majority, which I think can be found to support such a prop, overturning their own agenda, they might have second thoughts of the ability to use a simple majority to amend the state constitution.

Of course, before having a proposition to demand a 2/3rds majority to amend the constitution, you'd have to find a way to reverse prop 8 first before the 2/3rds requirement became law.

But starting with a prop restricting tax exempt status for this sort of ballot funding would be a good opening barrage to launch in a war against this enemy.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Anything that makes life tougher on the biggest rotter of human minds in history...

is fine by me.

Equally applied, of course.

[vadawg]

2. i think that would be the worst possible thing to try to do

if you think the churches etc are involved in politicking at the moment just yank the tax exemption and watch as the churches go into mega political mode, hell i would support my church over any politician who came after it and i wouldnt even say im mega religious or anything.

[cascadiance]

4. Hey, I'm not saying take away tax exempt status for all churches...

ONLY if they choose to start funding state propositions. It's not even restricting their free speech in the sense that they can still state their positions on issues, but if they try to start funding these propositions at all, endorse voting for or against propositions directly, or post signs for these props on their property, it would be treated the same way if they'd put political party or candidate signs on their property and they would lose their tax exempt status. I would hope that you are a member of a church that still emphasizes spiritualism the way it's supposed to, and not trying to fund political efforts. If that's the case, then this proposition shouldn't affect your church.

[vadawg]

6. see the problem then is your applying a litmus test to the churches

who exactly is going to decide what crosses over, think how bad it is at the moment with the churches, what you might think is blatant politicking i might think is just the church stating its long held position, next week it might not offend you but offend someone else. I think we have to be real careful over stuff like this, the more we try to control the more it might backfire.

[cascadiance]

10. It already exists for candidates and political parties. Why would this be tougher?

You say:

a) no contributing to any funds for or against a state proposition explicitly.
b) no signs for or against a state proposition on church property or at church functions.
c) no public statements directly endorsing or rejecting a state proposition explicitly.

Basically the same restrictions you would have for a given public candidate or a political party. I really don't see why it is so tough.

Someone could speak against war in a church, or for speaking against abortion on as not being "pro-life", but if they were to refer to a state proposition directly, that's when they would have crossed the line.

[truedelphi]

23. The IRS has already descended on churches in Red states

Where the pastor was talking AGAINST the war. So the law already exists - it is just never enforced in terms of beating up on the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church. Those two carry a lot of power, and politicians do not usually want to bite the hand that feeds them.

[Kerrytravelers]

3. I use to share this idea. And there are times I emotionally do.

However, if they have to pay taxes, they'll then begin using that as a reason that religion is even more injected into our politics. I'm afraid this will open a new can of worms. They are in the last throes of their attacks. They are losing. And they know it.

[cascadiance]

7. Again, this isn't to just arbitrarily take away their tax exempt status with no pretext...

It would only do so if they choose to try to fund or actively promote for or against a given state proposition that they'd lose their tax exempt status, much like already would happen if they were to do the same for political parties or elected office candidates.

[ladym55]

5. That still doesn't stop all of the out-of-state funding

I understand the Mormons threw millions into Prop 8, as did Dobson's crew in Colorado, Focus on the Family. Of course, after the election, Focus on the Family had massive layoffs, but they denied that all the money spent on Prop 8 affected their bottom line any.

They all should be ashamed of themselves.

[cascadiance]

8. It could be made to affect the funding of any affiliated Mormon churches in the state...

There are many Mormon churches in the state of California. If they are tied to the same organization outside of California funding this effort, then this could be used to take away their tax exempt status.

And there were MANY churches with prop 8 signs posted on their church property. I saw them myself before I left California... Those would have to stop if they wanted to stay tax exempt.

[vadawg]

9. What would happen is you would start an all out war against the churches

not a war that is to be taken lightly, a lot of the churches would stand with each other even if they disagree as they see what happens to one church today happening to them tomorrow, i may not always agree with my church but i sure as hell would stand with it against any politician that went this road, and as i said i am not really religious but the church is a big part of my identity and upbringing.

[cascadiance]

11. So aren't we already at war with them with the current restrictions they have?

I think if you frame it as such that churches not taking political stances by publicly working for or against propositions, they don't have anything to worry about.

We're not against churches per se. We're against churches that are trying to push their values on the rest of us through the political system and ask that we give them a break on their taxes at the same time as a "non-political" organization. That's just wrong!

[nichomachus]

20. If they're not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to fear.

[mitchtv]

12. great idea

they have gone too far.

[madrchsod]

13. first thing one would have to do is .....

overturn the first amendment of the us constitution. good luck with doing that

[cascadiance]

14. Why?

They are free to talk about ISSUES... I'm saying that if they endorse/work against propositions specifically, that it is THE SAME restriction as they would have if they were to talk about political candidates or political parties. They could DO it, but they would lose getting the benefits of getting tax exempt status from the government the same way they would if they talk about political candidates or parties. They don't have their speech limited. They just don't get to say they don't want to be taxed as a non-political organization if they in fact get involved with political advocacy for or against propositions. I really don't see how that's any different, and how this is violating their rights of free speech. They have that freedom IF they want to give up their tax exempt status, just like they can speak for or against political candidates or parties if they want to make the same sacrifice of tax exempt status!

Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to give them a tax break if these churches use their money to work against political points of views that those taxpayers have.

[galaxy21]

15. Going after people's churches seems like a bad idea...

You remember all the crap Obama got for claming lower classes "cling to guns and religion"? Well, it may not have been politically smart, but he was 100% correct. If religious people are apprehensive about gay marriage, is attacking their churches really going to help convince them?

The whole "strip them of their tax exmpt status" threat every time a church gets overly involved in politics is...usually nothing more than a threat. You simply couldn't even try it without pissing off about 60-70% of people. Which is why I don't think anyone would ever do it.

[cascadiance]

16. You can use the same rationalization not to protect gay peoples' rights too...

You remember all the crap Obama got for claming lower classes "cling to guns and religion"? Well, it may not have been politically smart, but he was 100% correct. If religious people are apprehensive about gay marriage, is attacking their churches really going to help convince them?

The whole "strip them of their tax exmpt status" threat every time a church gets overly involved in politics is...usually nothing more than a threat. You simply couldn't even try it without pissing off about 60-70% of people. Which is why I don't think anyone would ever do it.

We ALREADY have rules in place that would strip them of this status if they campaign for/against candidates and parties. Do they take that as an "attack" on them? I probably phrased my emotional reaction in the OP a bit more than I should have as "war". But I do take it as "war" that many of the churches that DO get involved in being heavily active at stripping away the rest of our rights. Those churches that don't get involved with pushing politics on other have my immense respect, and I DON'T have a problem with them!

Look at what you're saying if you make a few word substitutions...

The whole "strip them of their tax exempt status" threat every time a church gets overly involved in stopping gay marriage is ... usually nothing more than a threat. You simply can't even try it without pissing off about 60-70% of people. Which is why I don't think anyone would ever work to protect gay people's civil rights to stop this.

Can't you see how wrong this is?

[galaxy21]

17. In principle, I agree

And I do think with the case of LDS and prop 8 when churches clearly and blatantly do it, to the point it's ridiculous, there should be some sort of penalty for that.

But many churches are involved on politics, on some level, while not to the extent of LDS. And, honestly, there isn't that much anyone can do about it. Sure, it's technically illegal to say "Don't vote for Obama, he's pro choice" but then what if the Sunday before the election the reverend goes "I'd like you to remind you of our most dearest teaching, about the sanctity of life" well, that's a bit different, isnt it? Cause, yeah, he's telling them to vote pro life, but he's not actually saying it.

If the main goal is gay marriage and gaining public support, I fail to see how going after people's churches (and make no mistake, that's how they'll spin it)is going to help.

If I'm truly honest, I think people like churches being politically involved. They want to be guided on moral issues. And I'm not saying that's right (and people are often lied to, like in prop 8,) but actively trying to take that away? Bad idea.

cascadiance, while I agree with what you're saying, I do think it will do more damage than good. Republicans have long tried to convince people to stay away from progressives because "they're coming after your churches" and this seems like it would feed many people's paranoia.

[cascadiance]

21. I think progressive churches are ALREADY being damaged by political actions of churches!

I think that is why many people are being driven away from churches in general now, when they see so much of the right wing and hate-based political activisim that's being allowed to come from them now (especially on these proposition issues). That's sad, as I do remember going to a local progressive church to see Thom Hartmann speak with my Mom the night after I thought my dad said the last things I would hear from him, when we thought he was going to die then from not being able to keep tubes in him after he'd had an operation. He survived later, but that came at the same time Terry Schiavo was allowed to die through basically the same sort of fate he almost suffered then.

That time in a church hearing someone like Hartmann speak after that experience is still one of the most memorable moments of my life, and I was thankful to be able to hear him speak in a very decent church environment then as much as I don't see my self as a believer (I'm an agnostic).

Those opportunities are being lost the more we ALLOW these more fringe churches to speak for those church goers that don't share their notions of political activism, but just go to church for spiritual guidance (which I very much respect).

Just like you could speak indirectly in churches about voting "your conscience" after speaking about the values the church holds, and hoping that people reflect that in their votes for individuals or parties, the same kind of speeches could still be given about the morals surrounding propositions too. If they're not allowed to specifically endorse or reject props by name, and are forced to explain their values instead and hopefully let the churchgoers make the connection on how they should vote, that forces the church not to oversimplify voting for or against a prop (to be a good Christian), and hopefully forces them to think about those votes more after thinking through the real moral topics surrounding it after hearing their church leader speak more directly on the moral issues rather than just what is being voted on or against itself.

I think if you focus the rules just on the propositions themselves, so that as long as they aren't specifically being referred to in either speeches or signs in front of the church, or for church organizations to actually fund efforts for or against propositions, then it forces more introspective thought for some. And that for me is a good enough battle to win in this case, and I think still allows the church to have the needed freedoms of speech to talk on a wide range of topics/issues facing people today without being limited in talking about them in general. Will it stop a lot of political campaigns by churches that still do damage? No. But it will limit them a lot more so that perhaps their effects aren't felt as badly as they are in situations like prop 8.

If churches aren't being seen as being so active in promoting for or against these propositions then hopefully, there will be less bad feelings towards the churches that don't deserve ill feelings towards themselves that gets shared when people see churches active on issues such as prop 8. I believe a lot of these church sponsored prop campaigns aren't just used for the props themselves, but to use the hate/extreme feelings of some of these propositions to influence voters to go to the polls and vote for other right wing candidates, etc. too.

In short, our current setup works badly for our candidates as well as issues like these, not to mention the well meaning churches that don't try to get involved with these sorts of campaigns.

[AntiFascist]

18. K&R...

this could also generate much needed revenue for workers who are funded by the state.

[nichomachus]

19. Put this an the repeal of Prop 8 on the same ballot

Then, the religious hate groups would have to decide where to spend their money.

[solstice]

22. Churches shouldn't be tax exempt period. Why should my taxes subsidize religion??

[Pushed To The Left]

24. Excellent idea! Put the religious right on the defensive. Make them spend money defending

themselves so they won't be able to concentrate on taking away marriage rights from LGBT people.

[cascadiance]

25. There's already an effort going after the Mormon church now for prop 8...

Perhaps they'd like to help sponsor such a resolution...

http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/how-to-file-an-irs-501c3-complaint/

They have some good info on what our tax codes say about what qualifies as "tax exempt" activity and what doesn't.

I think the churches have been abusing this for years with California state propositions...

...
Section 501(c)(3) of US Code Title 26, which governs tax-exempt organizations, reads (emphasis added):

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

(The “otherwise provided” clause does not apply, as the LDS Church, being a church, is a disqualified entity as described in subsection (h).)

Edit: There appears to be a dispute about what is allowed in terms of spending on ballot initiatives, etc. which might make it more difficult to curb this activity even through a proposition. It is claiming that there's a 20% of funds cutoff that if spent under that amount of an organization is deemed as "legal". Sounds like more research is necessary...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/27/BAB214BA4E.DTL

Of course this would be federal tax exempt status. I wonder though, if California law for California state tax could either be updated or looked at differently in covering whether churches, etc. would lose tax exempt status within the state of California, even if they wouldn't lose it as a federal entity.

And if the argument is given that changing how California handles tax exempt status to be different than federal IRS guidelines is "unconstitutional", then can't that same argument be made about Proposition 8 and the Bill of Rights? If they try to go after a state proposition with their federal IRS guidelines in hand, it seems that would open up revisiting the constitutionality of prop 8 itself for the same reasons.

[davsand]

26. The state can only strip state or local tax exemptions.

That would be Property Tax liability and Sales Taxes.

The IRS and federal tax laws would be the ones with control over Income Taxes for churches.

The IRS 501(c)3 section IS pretty specific, about what activity is allowable, and my guess is that those churches probably have some funky PAC set up that slides past the part of the tax law that limits political activity.

The states can pretty much set whatever laws they WANT to when it comes to Property Tax or Sales Taxes, so your suggestion could maybe work if the state legislature had the political will to take on the subject.



Laura

[cascadiance]

28. Yes, this would only be state tax centric...

if you were going to take on the federal tax exempt status of groups doing the funding of propositions, etc. you'd have to take that to court, and as noted in the article I posted in my previous post, it sounds like there's quite a bit of latitude when it comes to initiatives, etc.

Perhaps though going after property and sales tax as you note would be better to target. From this page, it sounds one might still want to look at state income tax and perhaps even payroll tax (though in this economic climate, that might be a slippery slope).

http://www.taxes.ca.gov/exemptbus.shtml

Haven't had time to read the details from the links on this page yet, but it sounds like it might give some more good detailed info on how someone might want to follow up on this.

Even if one can't go after a church's federal tax exempt status with such a proposition, if they can be made to pay a lot more in various state tax liabilities, etc. then many of them might think twice before the lobby/campaign on state propositions, which would be the primary purpose of this proposition, so that one doesn't have a state proposition process that's corrupted by the influence of such organizations, not so much to financially punish them even moreso at a federal level, which even if possible, some might feel is more vindictive in motivation than trying to build a good and fair political system of representative government.

[librechik]

27. That sounds good

except, won't the churches find some way around the restriction,
like forming a non-church front group?

makes total sense tho