New Orleans      Recently, in response to a bit of push and shove from the Trump administration and its compliant appointees, the IRS announced that churches will now be able to make political endorsements to its members.  There wasn’t much attention given to this announcement.  Most commentators simply shrugged, since mostly the restriction against political activity in churches and other religious institutions has been honored in the breech.  This kind of head turn had been an objective of the conservative religious right for some time.

The background is simple.  Churches, as nonprofit organizations, similar to tens of thousands of others, have been classified under IRS section 501c3 as tax-exempt.  The privilege of the tax-exemption requires that the organization, church, or whatever, be established for charitable, religious, and/or educational purposes.  The commitment the organization makes is that it will be nonpartisan and apolitical.

I understand that the evangelical right is having a moment of political power now, so this new interpretation of the regulation doesn’t surprise me.  At the same time, I don’t understand why under equal protection, it shouldn’t apply to any 501c3 organization that is membership-based?  The regulation is trying to distinguish a supposedly private endorsement from the pulpit to the members of the assembled congregation or other adherents from a public endorsement to influence the general population.  How would that be different from any other membership-based nonprofit with a 501c3 status that might indicate a political preference in a membership meeting or to its membership?

I don’t see how that restriction could be policed any better by the IRS than they were able to do with churches?  Given the way Congress and the administration are trying to curtail funds to the IRS for almost any kind of enforcement, especially in the non-profit section, this whole non-political edifice is now based on voluntary self-regulation.  Many churches and other religious institutions were sticklers about being apolitical, just as other nonprofits have been.  The government must be counting on organizational restraint.

It’s a shame, but maybe it’s working.  Many foundations and others self-restrict how much they can do that might be seen as political or advocacy.  Different percentages are frequently quoted, both high and low, but unless something has happened recently, the IRS has never in the last many decades defined a bright line test, and instead counted on self-policing to keep within the limits.

I’m not saying that 501c3’s should go wild with political opinions and endorsements now, but I’m also not saying that they shouldn’t either, especially if they are legitimately membership-based.  Or, maybe, they should apply for religious status, since that seems a category where you can now do anything you please and still enjoy a tax exemption.

It’s hard to believe this contradiction will be allowed to stand for very long.  In the meantime, as elections come up, we need to mobilize churches even more than we have done in the past.  The chains are now broken, and they are unbound.