c. 2006 Religion News Service

(UNDATED) Consider yourself warned. That’s a key message the Internal Revenue Service sent to churches and charities with the materials it recently released on impermissible electioneering. While the IRS has merely slapped the wrists of most non-complying organizations in the past, this has put churches and charities on notice that it will react more vigorously to violations in future election cycles.

Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code provides an exemption from tax for organizations with charitable, religious or educational purposes. The code also flatly prohibits these organizations from directly or indirectly participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

In short, this tax benefit is intended to flow to charitable, religious or education work, not partisan political activity.

Nevertheless, the IRS report saw “increasing political intervention in the 2004 (election) cycle” by 501(c)(3) organizations. In response, the IRS is stepping up its educational and enforcement efforts.

Materials released Feb. 24 include new information about IRS investigative procedures and additional guidelines regarding what these organizations can and cannot do during election season. The IRS describes these materials as “the ambitious beginning of additional guidance in this area.” One of the overarching points is the IRS will not tolerate bias for or against candidates by 501(c)(3) organizations, even when it has a coat of whitewash on it.

For example, the IRS indicates that it’s serious about its prohibition against implicit candidate endorsements. The IRS has found that churches often incorrectly believe the campaign intervention ban is limited to explicit candidate endorsements. For this and other reasons, the IRS has provided some specific guidance, including some “key” factors it considers when determining whether communications cross the line from permissible issue advocacy into impermissible candidate endorsement.

Of these factors, the IRS notes that “(a) communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or voting in a specific upcoming election.”

This suggests ministers who wish to preach about public issues may avoid IRS scrutiny by ensuring that they do not mention candidates in these discussions or otherwise connect the discussions with elections. That strikes a fair balance between a congregation’s important interest in addressing the issues of the day and the duties accompanying this tax-exempt status.

The IRS also emphasizes that voter registration drives must be unbiased both in theory and in fact, and it encourages 501(c)(3) organizations to monitor their Web sites to ensure they aren’t favoring certain candidates through the use of links.

Further, the guidance underscores the rule prohibiting churches and charities from selectively giving their directories or anything else to campaigns. “Allowing a candidate to use an organization’s assets or facilities will also violate the prohibition if other candidates are not given an equivalent opportunity,” the IRS says.

In this same vein, it seems significant that the service chose to release these materials in Ohio. Several Ohio churches and other religious organizations recently have been accused of intervening in the 2006 gubernatorial race in favor of Republican candidate Ken Blackwell by repeatedly featuring Blackwell at their events, among other things.

The IRS report concludes by recommending increased use of tax-exempt status revocation in appropriate future cases, believing an adequate foundation for such action is being laid.

Given the current climate, the IRS is right to increase its educational and enforcement efforts. Moreover, Congress made the right call when it instituted the electioneering ban. It’s a sensible quid pro quo for this tax-exempt status, and it has the salutary effect of helping to ensure that churches and charities aren’t converted into campaign precincts.

Religious organizations and individuals should do the right thing, too, both for legal and non-legal reasons. People of faith should resist every attempt to drag houses of worship into partisan politics, whether those attempts come from outside or inside the congregation. Contrary to recent suggestions by the North Carolina Republican National Committee, which has asked individuals to forward their church directories, churches aren’t part of any political “base.” They are houses of prayer for all peoples. Heaven help us if we forget that.

MO/PH END RNS

(Melissa Rogers is visiting professor of religion and public policy at Wake Forest University Divinity School).

Editors: To obtain photos of Rogers, go to the RNS Web site at https://religionnews.com. On the lower right, click on “photos,” then search by subject.