Rather Than Working was Wrong and Fesses Up
As it turns out, in my recent rant about religious censorship I had my facts wrong. Churches and other “charities” – 501 (c)(3) organizations – may not endorse or oppose candidates. There are other categories including political organizations that are not as restricted.
You can get more from the following two links:
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=24781
http://www.advanceusa.org/church_involvement.asp
As noted in one of the articles, this law was passed back in the Fifties at the behest of Lyndon Johnson – he thought his opponent was getting help from a charity and he didn’t like it.
From the horse’s mouth, here’s what the IRS says about types of tax exemption:
http://www.irs.gov/charities/content/0,,id=96931,00.html
Rather Than Working apologizes for not doing the homework that it should have done before shooting off its mouth; but, I still think that refraining from political activity should not be a requirement for tax exempt status. The test for such status should be a consensus that the group’s activity provides a societal benefit. If it does, no taxes. If not, it’s one of us. We shouldn’t pick and choose which “societally good” organizations have free speech and which do not – all or none is the way to go.
4 comments:
"The test for such status should be a consensus that the group’s activity provides a societal benefit."
How would that consensus be determined? Could it be done objectively? Or would there be some degree of subjectivity in it?
Not trying to be contentious -- just honestly unsure how said consensus could be reached objectively.
Absolutely a valid point Pos, and I don't have an answer. We have a current "consensus" that I probably don't agree with. Maybe the answer is to end all tax exemptions and make people pay for what they believe in. Or, as I've advocated before, stop taxing corporations of all kinds, they don't really pay taxes, we do.
I agree with pos. Who gets to decide what is good for society?
It may not be legal but churches still tell their members who to vote for. There is a very large Bapist church near me that prints a list of approved candidates for it's members to carry to the polls on election day. As far as I know the IRS hasn't done anything about them. I guess enforcement is a little lax.
Post a Comment