General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHidden in GOP tax bill: A plan to turn churches into dark-money spigots
The House tax bill would tear down the wall between religion and politics, and open the gates to secret spending
Ever since 1954, a legislative add-on known as the Johnson Amendment has prevented charities, social welfare organizations and, perhaps most importantly, churches from endorsing candidates. Such institutions may lose their tax-exempt status if they engage in electioneering. The House bill would functionally dismantle the Johnson Amendment, thereby opening the door to pastors endorsing candidates from the pulpits and for charities large and small -- even the Red Cross or Salvation Army -- to openly support political candidates or causes in the course of their official charitable work.
The tax bill threatens the integrity of our elections and all of our tax-exempt organizations," Maggie Garrett, the legislative director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in an emailed statement. "No one wants to turn our charitable nonprofits, houses of worship and foundations into political campaign tools."
This provision, Adam Bozzi of End Citizens United explained to Salon, would create "a gaping loophole in our campaign finance system." Bozzi explained it could "allow a big political donor who wants to make a contribution through the back door to give to a church, which could then endorse a candidate and engage in electioneering."
https://www.salon.com/2017/11/23/hidden-in-gop-tax-bill-a-plan-to-turn-churches-into-dark-money-spigots/
Irish_Dem
(47,226 posts)On all fronts. Media, money, rigged elections, all of it.
PatrickforO
(14,586 posts)getting scarier by the hour. I just got done calling a bunch of Republican senators about it and urging them to quit putting the interests of their donors above the people they are supposed to be serving.
Sigh.
Let's hope efforts like that bear some fruit. Did you know states are running out of Children's Health Insurance Program funding because this Congress has FAILED to act on that?
But these big corporations and billionaire parasites are getting a giant tax cut?
And now they are going to allow right wing 'churches' to launder political donations from people like Charlie Koch?
Well...make your calls and write your letters. And when the time comes vote. If you feel up to it, run for office. I mean, my 16 year old cat could govern better than these idiots are doing.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,027 posts)Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)make no mistake. They are out to destroy American democracy and throttle freedom with TaliBornAgain Hate & Control (R).
dalton99a
(81,565 posts)mahigan
(85 posts)We are having an apparently endless supply of things like this thrown at us. Our chances of winning these fights are approaching zero if our side can't get past an apparently equally endless supply of *&^&*^%* circular firing squads. Winning together as opposed to losing alone shouldn't be that difficult a concept.
Orrex
(63,219 posts)Initech
(100,096 posts)If they overturn the Johnson Amendment, we are truly fucked beyond repair.
Gothmog
(145,479 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Much of the commentary seems to assume that the effect would be limited to existing churches, ones that actually are religious organizations (however far from the teachings of Jesus they may be) but could now branch out into being PACs.
Couldn't it work the other way? For example, some peace activists establish Plowshares Ministries, a new 501(c)(3) religious organization that preaches opposition to militarism, bloated Pentagon budgets, and imperialistic wars of choice. Devotees make tax-deductible contributions to Plowshares Ministries, which uses the money to support anti-war political candidates.
I'm not saying this provision in the bill is a good idea. It's terrible. But if it's enacted, we don't have to just sit back and wring our hands while we watch the right-wing churches exploit the loophole.
It seems to me that the bill would essentially make political contributions tax-deductible, provided the beneficiaries of the contributions have gone through some not-very-burdensome paperwork and legal finagling.
Gothmog
(145,479 posts)Here is a draft of a law review article on this issue. http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96133
On November 2, 2017, the House Ways and Means Committee released its proposed tax reform legislation. It includes a provision amending the provision of the Internal Revenue Code, sometimes called the Johnson Amendment, that prohibits charities, including churches, from intervening in campaigns for elected office, at risk of loss of their exemption under section 501(c)(3). Under the Ways and Means proposal, as later revised and passed by the House, organizations exempt as charities under section 501(c)(3) would be permitted to engage in campaign intervention if the preparation and presentation of such content . . . is in the ordinary course of the organizations regular and customary activities in carrying out its exempt purpose and . . . results in the organization incurring not more than de minimis incremental expenses.
If such legislation becomes law, the IRS and the Department will be faced with the difficult task of giving guidance as to the meaning of regular and customary, de minimis, and incidental. It would likely have to address whether donations could be earmarked for campaign intervention so long as they were within the organizations de minimis limit and involved regular and customary activities. Whatever rules are announced are sure to be controversial and complicate enforcement of the prohibition for campaign intervention that is more than de minimis. Given the lack of IRS resources and controversy regarding its attempts to regulate political activities of exempt organizations, the IRS may well hesitate to take action against possible violations.
However these terms are defined and enforced, a de minimis exception raises significant issues that demand attention in an era of what Professors Eugene Volokh and Richard Hasen have called cheap speech. These are issues that require consideration whether or not a de minimis exception is adopted in the current tax reform legislation.
After giving background on the Johnson Amendment, this essay discusses the impact of any de minimis exception regarding campaign intervention in the age of cheap speech. It concludes that the availability of cheap speech may have undermined the most common constitutional justification for the prohibition that the government has no duty to subsidize speech such that a new approach to limiting the political speech of charities is needed.
I strongly disagree with the elimination of the Johnson amendment.