Supporters fail to make case for new electioneering law

By K. Hollyn Hollman

Church-State Intersection
May 29, 2002

There are many reasons to fight the recent proposals to amend IRS rules to allow churches to engage in partisan political activity. Several were listed in this space just a couple of months ago. Since then the number of religious organizations, including mainline denominations, opposing these measures has multiplied. Their statements reflect widespread concerns about houses of worship becoming tools in partisan campaigns, congregations being divided along party lines over the pastor's endorsement of a candidate, and the inevitable dampening of the religious community's prophetic witness.

So it was with great interest that I recently attended congressional hearings on the proposed legislation. What arguments would proponents make in favor of the bills? Why would they claim the religious community needs these changes in the law?

Unfortunately, the hearings produced only two answers, repeated many times over. Neither rang true.

First, proponents contended that pastors have been silenced. Colby May, attorney for the American Center for Law and Justice, claimed that pastors live in fear of the IRS shutting down their ministries. He argued that legal reform is required to remove the "anxiety and uncertainty" that churches face. Even more boldly, D. James Kennedy, a witness representing a large television ministry, claimed that many pastors "would not say anything on any moral issue" because they feared the IRS. He described current law as a "gag rule" on churches.

The testimony on this point was hard to believe, especially since it followed testimony from the head of the IRS office responsible for tax-exempt organizations. He observed that IRS enforcement activity is extremely limited and explained the strict audit procedures for churches that prevent any investigation unless there is substantial evidence of unlawful activity. In more than 20 years under the current regulations, he knew of only two churches and a handful of religious organizations that have been sanctioned.

Second, proponents argued that there has been uneven enforcement by the IRS. While some anecdotal evidence supports this claim, it does not come close to justifying the proposed remedy of lifting the ban on political activity. Spotty enforcement of this rule is no indictment of its underlying value. If anything, this argument suggests that the government should dedicate more resources to applying existing regulations and educating the public.

Before becoming the chief spokesperson on this bill, Mr. May represented the Church at Pierce Creek, which lost its tax exemption because of its unrepentant political activity. For example, it once placed a full-page advertisement in USA Today with the heading "Christian Beware." Citing biblical warnings, the ad questioned how Christians could vote for Bill Clinton and openly solicited tax-deductible contributions. It is hard to understand how such an egregious violation of the rules (unlike the close calls sometimes discussed) could inspire sympathy. Nevertheless, May depicted the church's loss of its tax-exempt status as an evil in need of correction. Instead, the Church at Pierce Creek incident is a telling example of the cheap and divisive campaigns these bills would encourage.

One final note. Months before the hearings, proponents of the legislation on Capitol Hill sought the reaction of a major religious denomination and were stunned that an endorsement did not result. The direction of that call is illuminating. These bills did not originate among grassroots communities of faith; they have been pushed by politicians. And far from removing any "muzzle" or "gag," the proposed legislation promises to place new shackles on houses of worship, as politicians seek to exploit their resources for partisan ends.