Latest news with #politicalactivity
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
How the recent IRS filing challenges the boundaries between faith and politics
The 1992 ad began with a warning in bold, all-caps: 'Christian Beware.' The text of the ad went on: 'Do not put the economy ahead of the Ten Commandments. Did you know that Gov. Bill Clinton …' The ad, which appeared in the USA Today and the Washington Times, listed Clinton's stances on 'abortion on demand' and 'the homosexual lifestyle' and accused a then-presidential candidate of promoting policies 'in rebellion to God's laws.' The ad posed an urgent question : 'How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?' At the end, the ad solicited tax-deductible contributions. The ad was put out by The Church at Pierce Creek, a non-denominational church in Conklin, New York. It also became one of the rare cases of the IRS enforcing the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 provision of the U.S. tax code that bars tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. In 1995, the IRS retroactively revoked the church's tax-exempt status, arguing the ad crossed the line into prohibited political activity. In response, the church, operating under the name Branch Ministries, sued. But in the 1999 case Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, the D.C. Circuit upheld the IRS's decision, ruling that the church was still free to speak politically, it just couldn't do so while claiming the benefits of tax-exempt status. For decades, that interpretation stood largely unchallenged — until now. A surprising reversal In a surprising turn, the IRS recently signaled it would stop enforcing the Johnson Amendment in certain cases. In a proposed settlement filed in a federal court in Texas on July 7, the IRS agreed not to penalize two Texas churches for endorsing political candidates during regular church communications. The IRS agreement emerged as part of a proposed settlement in a 2024 lawsuit filed by a coalition of conservative religious organizations, including National Religious Broadcasters, Intercessors for America and two Texas churches — Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church of Waskom. Both argued that the Johnson Amendment violated the First Amendment rights of faith-based institutions, particularly when endorsements were made during worship services. The IRS's decision not to treat such sermons as campaign intervention marked a significant shift from past interpretations of the law. 'Communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,' according to the IRS filing. Since the news about the IRS filing, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit, urging the court to reject the proposed settlement and defend the endorsement limitation for churches. Although the judge hasn't ruled on either of the proposals yet, the filing has reignited long-running debates about whether the Johnson Amendment protects the integrity of religious institutions or improperly limits their speech. Supporters of the change, including Speaker Mike Johnson and some evangelical leaders, see it as a win for religious freedom and free speech. 'The Founders wanted to protect the church from an encroaching state, not the other way around,' Johnson wrote on X. President Donald Trump said he loved 'the fact that churches can endorse a political candidate.' Critics, however, warn of the dangers of entangling churches with partisan politics. Because churches are exempt from the financial disclosure rules that apply to other nonprofits, they could become vehicles for untraceable campaign spending if allowed to endorse candidates, experts say. 'Our faith should inform our vote,' said Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. 'Our votes shouldn't drive our faith.' Whether the IRS's proposed shift becomes policy or not, it has brought renewed attention to a broader question: What are the appropriate boundaries between faith and politics in a house of worship? And can rules like the Johnson Amendment help preserve both religious integrity and democratic fairness? An 'unorthodox way' While the proposal does not formally change the law, it opens the doors for churches, who choose to do so, to endorse political candidates without risking their tax-exempt status, experts say. 'It does serve as a signal to churches that, at least under the current IRS, some amount of candidate endorsement is tolerated,' said Sam Brunson, professor at Loyola University Chicago, who specializes in tax law. 'It gives kind of a legal reasoning for that, even if it's not a binding legal reasoning.' The filing 'is NOT a repeal of the Johnson Amendment. It does not change the law, nor does it protect all churches from potential enforcement,' Tyler emphasized in a statement. But the way the policy was introduced was significant on its own, Tyler said. 'It was a very unorthodox way to go about tax policy,' she said. Rather than issuing formal guidance, she said, the IRS appears to be attempting to change enforcement by bypassing the normal regulatory process without the act of Congress. Brunson called the filing a ' troubling, but at the very least interesting attempt' to get around procedures for issuing tax regulations. Brian Galle, professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who teaches on taxation and nonprofits, said the filing, at least now, does not carry much legal weight: 'I think the promise right now that our charities can participate in politics isn't worth that much — at least for careful lawyers.' If the judge signs the proposed order, the IRS under the current administration would be prohibited from enforcing the Johnson Amendment against the two churches. The Trump administration could attempt to formalize a policy change through regulation, but Galle believes that's unlikely. 'The reason the IRS probably won't issue a regulation is because it would be illegal,' he said, pointing to the Supreme Court's 'major questions doctrine,' which bars federal agencies from making significant policy shifts without clear authorization from Congress. The current filing isn't 'legally binding,' he said, which means that the IRS under a future administration could change its mind on the issue. But for now, it marks an important, and controversial, shift in how the IRS interprets the boundary between religious speech and political activity. Churches endorsing candidates Although the cases of the IRS enforcing the Johnson Amendment are rare, church leaders have often endorsed political candidates. One early example dates back to 1800, when the Rev. William Linn, a Dutch Reformed minister, publicly opposed Thomas Jefferson's presidential candidacy. Linn published a pamphlet titled 'Serious Considerations on the Election of a President,' in which he questioned Jefferson's religiosity: 'Does Jefferson ever go to church? How does he spend the Lord's Day? Is he known to worship with any denomination of Christians? ... Will you then, my fellow-citizens, with all this evidence ... vote for Mr. Jefferson?' Linn faced no legal consequences for his advocacy, according to a 1997 Regent University Law Review article, which argued that The Church at Pierce Creek had the right to run the Clinton ad in 1992 and shouldn't be punished. Other historical examples include a 1960 sermon broadcast by a religious leader warning against voting for John F. Kennedy and a 1980 letter from a Catholic archbishop in Massachusetts urging Catholics not to vote for pro-choice congressional candidates. The article concluded: 'The restriction upon religious political speech adversely impacts a central conviction of religion's purpose: the ability to address issues germane to its moral code with the objective of influencing others.' More recently, a number of evangelical pastors have endorsed Donald Trump from the pulpit. For instance, pastor Mark Burns is known as 'Donald Trump's Top Pastor,' and publicly supported the current president at RNC events and rallies. Repealing the Johnson Amendment became one of Donald Trump's top priorities when he ran for presidential office in 2016. Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2017, he said he would 'totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.' Although efforts to repeal the amendment through legislation ultimately failed, the administration announced a shift in enforcement through the latest filing. 'The administration is trying to signal that if other religious organizations also want to participate in politics, then the administration wouldn't go after their tax-exempt status,' Galle said. Risk of 'dark money' Regardless of whether the filing becomes law, tax policy and religious experts warn about potentially alarming implications of partisan politics entering the house of worship. 'If this is applied to all churches, it would be toxic for both churches and our politics,' Galle said. 'It would make essentially every church a dark money organization.' Unlike other 501(c)(3) nonprofits, churches are not required to file annual tax returns (Form 990) that disclose their donors or spending. Engaging in partisan political activity, Galle explained, could open a channel for wealthy individuals, including those with no religious affiliation, to funnel money into campaigns through churches, benefiting from tax-deductible donations and total financial opacity. 'That would give churches a major, unfair advantage in political messaging,' he said. 'And that's bad for our politics and bad for the integrity of churches themselves.' Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, expressed similar concerns. 'This action is not about religion or free speech,' she said in a statement, 'but about radically altering campaign finance laws.' For religious communities, endorsements from the pulpit, whether local or national, risk dividing congregations and distracting houses of worship from their spiritual missions, Tyler said. Even further, it could fundamentally alter the church's purpose, she said. 'If they get engaged in partisan elections for candidates, we really could see that motivation is driving their mission, instead of their mission, their values and their beliefs really driving civic engagement in society,' Tyler said. Public sentiment remains largely opposed to pulpit endorsements. In 2023, a survey found that 75% of Americans opposed churches endorsing candidates, while only 20% supported it. Is the Johnson Amendment constitutional? When the IRS revoked Pierce Creek's tax exempt status over the Clinton ad, the church challenged the decision and sought an injunction against the IRS. In 1999, the district judge ruled that the IRS did not violate constitutional rights and religious freedoms of the church and dismissed the church's claims. But the question whether the Johnson Amendment is constitutional continues to percolate in the public debate. House Speaker Mike Johnson reiterated his view that this tax rule is unconstitutional and argued that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution, but rather originates from a 1802 letter written by President Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist association. While Brunson thinks churches should not be endorsing candidates, he believes that the constitutionality of the Johnson Amendment is 'shaky at best.' The Supreme Court has identified 'core political speech' — speech that directly addresses government, candidates and elections — as the most strongly protected type of speech, he said. 'That's the speech that the government faces the strictest limits on prohibiting,' Brunson said. 'So it seems like this blanket prohibition is probably at best deeply questionable.' Brunson said ads placed in national or local newspapers aren't the kind of endorsements the IRS appears to be concerned about in the recent filing, which would be more like endorsements made during a sermon or within a church newsletter. Brunson argues the Johnson Amendment is sound and could be considered constitutional with some adjustments. Tyler, however, remains firm that the law does not silence pastors. 'There is nothing that is stopping a pastor's speech,' she said. If the pastor feels they want to endorse a candidate from the pulpit, 'they can give up their 501 (c) (3) tax exemption.' 'Moral judgement' or 'partisan politicking'? Still, politics often finds its way into church life, even without explicit endorsements. Defenders of the Pierce Creek church argued that the Clinton ad highlighted the moral issues at stake of the election, and they viewed it as the church's duty to speak out on the moral qualifications of political candidates. 'The unfortunate result of the I.R.C. (Internal Revenue Code) restrictions is that no meaningful distinctions have been made between moral judgment and partisan politicking,' the 1997 Regent University Law Review article said. Issues versus people — that's how Brunson articulated the appropriate line in addressing the questions of the day that may touch on politics. 'There's a difference between advocating on issues that align with your mission and endorsing a person,' he said. Faith communities also have a stake in local policy debates that directly affect their ability to operate, he said. 'Churches need to be able to protect themselves.' Tax law generally permits churches to advocate on issues like zoning laws, housing policy or poverty, he said, as long as they don't cross the line into endorsing specific candidates. Tyler also distinguishes between being political and being partisan as a church. 'I personally think that Jesus was political the way that he cared about the people and that he lived with and how he was working to change societies and structures,' she said. Historically, churches have played an important but nonpartisan role in civic life: educating voters, helping people get to the polls, hosting forums and even serving as polling places, Tyler noted. 'The law really forbids partisanship,' Tyler emphasized. 'It doesn't forbid political engagement. There's so many ways to be politically engaged without being attached at the hip to a candidate or a particular party.'
The Guardian
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Ministers to enshrine UK charities' right to peaceful protest in new ‘covenant'
The right to engage in political activity and protest peacefully is to be enshrined in a new agreement between the government and UK charities and campaigners aimed in part at ending years of damaging 'culture wars'. The agreement is intended to reset relations between government and the voluntary sector after years of mutual distrust during which Conservative ministers limited public rights to protest, froze out campaigners, and targeted 'woke' charities. The so-called 'civil society covenant' will also commit ministers to giving charities and campaign groups a formal partnership role in helping design and fulfil the government's missions to achieve economic growth and tackle social problems. Keir Starmer will announce the covenant on Thursday in what is seen as the most serious government engagement with the voluntary sector since David Cameron's ill-fated attempt to co-opt charities into his 'big society' vision in 2010. The prime minister is expected to say: 'This is about rebalancing power and responsibility. Not the top-down approach of the state working alone. Not the transactional approach of markets left to their own devices. But a new way forward – where government and civil society work side by side to deliver real change.' The government has highlighted the covenant as a way of putting charities and social enterprises at the centre of plans to provide publicly funded grassroots services in areas such as domestic abuse, youth services and employment programmes. But the covenant is expected to addresses more fundamental principles of civil society independence and rights, and commits the government and charities to continue to engage respectfully even where they disagree on policy. A key passage in the covenant is expected to say the government respects the independence and legitimacy of civil society organisations to advocate and campaign, will protect their right to engage in peaceful protest, and hold the government to account. The commitment was welcomed by civil society leaders. Jane Ide, the chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, said: 'This is an essential part of a healthy democracy and speaking truth to power is central to the role of civil society.' There is widespread optimism in the voluntary sector that the covenant, which was negotiated in recent months, signals a genuine attempt by the government to embrace civil society groups and draw on their expertise to drive social change. One senior voluntary sector figure said: 'This is something everyone has wanted to see for some time. It is easy to be cynical about words on the page but it is a massive opportunity to do things in a different way.' There is broad relief the covenant appears to signal that the tide of aggressive criticism of charities from rightwing politicians in recent years, seen as an attempt to undermine charities' legal rights and restrict their role in public debate, has receded. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion These have included hostile 'culture war' attacks on charities including the National Trust, the RNLI and Barnardo's by politicians and media over so-called 'woke' issues such as race, immigration, the UK's colonial legacy and the climate crisis. Charities that provide public services have also railed against 'gagging clauses' inserted into delivery contracts preventing them from speaking out on behalf of beneficiaries, and many will hope the covenant will end such practices. But there is also scepticism about the covenant in some quarters, given the government's recent banning of the Palestine Action protest group, and amid fears that police handling of some peaceful pro-Palestine marches risks criminalising legitimate protest. Some charity figures contrasted the commitment of the covenant to 'coproduce' policy with campaigners with the failures of ministers in recent months to consult civil society over unpopular cuts to disability benefits and the winter fuel allowance. There is also concern that the financial difficulties faced by many charities, often as a results of cuts to local authority and NHS board funding, will severely limit the ability of many civil society organisations to engage in partnership.
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lake County GOP chair alleges Dems set up for caucus during work hours
Lake County Republican Party Chairman and county councilman Randy Niemeyer raised concerns Tuesday about Democratic employees setting up for the party's caucus during work hours and paying student election workers for training they didn't attend. Lake County Board of Elections and Registration Director Michelle Fajman said the set-up for the caucus took place over the weekend, and that student election workers have a different training sign-in and payment process compared to other election workers. Niemeyer, R-Cedar Lake, said during the council's Tuesday meeting five or six Democratic employees spent three hours setting up for the county Democratic Party caucus, which was held Saturday, March 1, at the Lake County Government Center auditorium, during work hours Friday, February 28. The county's employee handbook says 'that activity is deemed improper,' Niemeyer said, so he'd like to look into why the employees set up the caucus during work hours, what has been done to correct the action, and who paid for the workers' time. 'That is not allowed to happen on government time even if there is someone else paying for it,' Niemeyer said. 'I don't think it's ever good practice for government workers to be participating in political work during their work hours.' Lake County has a history of employees doing political work in the office, Niemeyer said, like former Lake County Surveyor George Van Til who was convicted in federal court for using county resources to run his campaign. 'We've had situations here in the past where people have faced legal consequences for those sorts of things, and I sure as heck don't want to see another black eye on Lake County.' Employees did not spend three hours setting up for the caucus during business hours. The voting machines and tables were delivered that Friday, Fajman said, but all set up was done Saturday morning. Fajman said some employees could've walked into the auditorium to see if the equipment was in the room ready to be set up the next day. Employees like to walk the government campus during their breaks, so it's possible some employees could've walked by the auditorium, she said, but no set-up was done. During the May special Crown Point and Hobart school referendum elections, Niemeyer said he was concerned about inspectors and students being paid for training, which they have to attend by law, but records indicate that some didn't receive training. 'We've got some discrepancies there in processes and systems that need to be looked into,' Niemeyer said. Fajman said that special elections are paid for by the entity holding the election, so all payments of election workers would be paid for by the school districts. Initially, the money comes out of the county's general fund, and then the schools reimburse the county for the elections. Under Indiana law, clerks and judges can complete election training online or in person, Fajman said. Inspectors have to do training in person, she said. Further, Indiana law dictates that students have to attend training, Fajman said, so they can pick in person or online. Fajman said when election workers go to training, they show their driver's license and check in on a poll pad against voter registration data. Because some students aren't old enough to vote yet, Fajman said they are checked in manually. To get paid, students on Election Day sign a pay claim and mark on the claim that they attend training. Inspectors could have a discrepancy in training attendance because there could be situations where an inspector had to back out of working the election – but remains on the record – and another inspector fills in, Fajman said. The election office has been working toward coming up with a system to better track attendance and payments, Fajman said, and hopes to launch it by the next general election. 'Right now, there's no foolproof method that we have, but we're looking into it right now,' Fajman said. Ted Bilski, D-Hobart, said he supports Niemeyer raising questions about what occurred in the election office and during the special election. But there's 'agencies out there to police that,' Bilski said. Bilski said the situations should be looked into and see what the investigations find. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, said since Sen. Dan Dernulc, R-Highland, was in the audience of the meeting, maybe the legislature could look into election training criteria to make it more clear who can and can't do which type of training. akukulka@
