To be or not to be tax exempt

Sociology > Education > To be or not to be tax exempt

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Sociology > Education
User:	""
Date:	13 Nov 2005 12:48:46 PM
Object:	To be or not to be tax exempt

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/religion/columns/051112b.shtml
James L. Evans
To be or not to be tax exempt
All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, Calif., is in hot water with the
IRS. On Oct. 31, 2004 — the Sunday before Election Day last year — the
former rector of the church, the Rev. George F. Regas, preached a vigorous
anti-war sermon.
During the sermon, Regas asked congregants to imagine what a debate between
President Bush, Sen. John Kerry and Jesus might look like. Jesus, Regas
stated, would most certainly have harsh words for the war on terror in
general, and the war in Iraq in particular. He also went on to say that
Jesus was not too keen on tax cuts for the rich and gutting programs that
help the poor.
The Los Angeles Times carried a story about the sermon that characterized
the message as "a searing indictment of the Bush administration's policies
in Iraq." The proximity of the sermon to the November 2004 presidential
election prompted the IRS to send a letter to the congregation warning that
its tax exempt status may be in jeopardy because of political activity.
According to law, nonprofits are prohibited from engaging in excessive or
partisan political activity.
While it is unlikely the IRS will actually revoke the church's tax exempt
status, the incident does raise concerns for churches that have a political
bent — on the left and on the right. Faith communities have typically had
the right to "speak the truth to power," so long as they do not make
lobbying a full-time preoccupation and do not have a "vote for" whomever
sign on the church marquee out front.
All Saints seems to be within these boundaries, but in the heat of a
political season, sometimes things seem to be more than they really are.
On the other hand, there is nothing particularly sacred about being tax
exempt. The two main types of tax exemption — property tax and income tax —
are both vestiges of a time when Christianity was the official religion of
the colonies. During that period, established congregations were funded by
tax revenues, and even ministers were on the city payroll. And, of course,
church property was tax exempt because the state does not tax itself.
The ratification of the U.S. Constitution, however, brought about a
separation of church and state. Congregations and ministers were no longer
funded with tax revenues. But with a nod toward the role that churches play
in the community, the practice of exempting church property from taxes
continued.
The other major exemption churches enjoy, exemption from income tax, is
governed by the IRS code, section 501(c)(3). But most churches have never
actually filed for this exemption; they were "grandfathered" in as the law
was expanded to make room for nonprofits other than churches.
All of which is to say, if local congregations find the privilege of tax
exemption is hindering their ability to speak to the powers that be, then
simply give up their tax exempt status and say whatever they want. Jesus
never said that the church should be free from paying taxes. In fact, he
said "render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar."
And if what Caesar needs from the church is a stern reminder of who God is
and what God expects from the powers that be, and if the price for speaking
that message is the loss of tax exemption, then it is a small price to pay
for being faithful to our calling.
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: "tightwad"
Title: Re: To be or not to be tax exempt	14 Nov 2005 08:36:48 PM

There is no Constitutional basis for Government to interfere with what
is said in the pulpit!
It was illegally made a part of the tax code because it was feared
Christians, whcih look to their Church for guidance on many things would
put the Sitting Administration on the defensive, out of work, or would
interfere in a Politician's effords to confuse or lie to christians.
This needs to go before the Supreme Court.
There is no way the Government can declare Free Speech dead, in the
pulpit because it is tax exempt.
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: To be or not to be tax exempt	15 Nov 2005 01:26:58 PM

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:36:48 -0600, tightwad wrote:

So repeal "tax-exempt" organizations and let them pay their taxes
just like any other business.
Gray Shockley
-------------------
/All/ tax-exempt
businesses.
Yes, that one, also.
.

User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
Title: Re: To be or not to be tax exempt	15 Nov 2005 03:04:55 PM

"Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BF9F92A20042CE52F0284550@news.giganews.com...

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:36:48 -0600, tightwad wrote:

So repeal "tax-exempt" organizations and let them pay their taxes
just like any other business.

Gray Shockley
-------------------
/All/ tax-exempt
businesses.

So stop taxing ALL social organizations that can't advance their position
without fear of monetary reprisals.
Ike
.

User: ""
Title: Re: To be or not to be tax exempt	15 Nov 2005 08:05:01 AM

tightwad <@plum.net> wrote:

:|There is no Constitutional basis for Government to interfere with what
:|is said in the pulpit!
:|It was illegally made a part of the tax code because it was feared
:|Christians, whcih look to their Church for guidance on many things would
:|put the Sitting Administration on the defensive, out of work, or would
:|interfere in a Politician's effords to confuse or lie to christians.
:|This needs to go before the Supreme Court.
:|There is no way the Government can declare Free Speech dead, in the
:|pulpit because it is tax exempt.

Ever hear of the term church state separation?
Once upon a time church and state were one.
The government hates to tax itself, thus religion.churches were tax exempt
When America separated church and state they left that status, since govt
and religion were separated.
Govt didn't tax churches/religion and religion/churches were not part of
government.
You might find this interesting
FEBRUARY 2, 1790
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Madison's interest in preserving the separation between Church and State
led, as we shall see later, to his having some misgivings regarding Federal
Thanksgiving Day proclamations.(294) It also led to a very interesting
debate in the House of Representatives, February 2, 1790, when the question
of the Federal census was under consideration. The bill, as reported,
provided for the enumeration of farmers, mechanics, and other groups, but
did not include the learned professions. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts
(1746-1813) suggested that it should "specify every class of citizens, into
which the community was divided, in order to ascertain the actual state of
the society." Mr. Madison, in his reply, said:
"The gentleman from Massachusetts has asked, why the learned professions
were not included? I have no objection to giving a column to the general
body. I think the work would be rendered more complete by the addition, and
if the decision of such a motion turned upon my voice, they shall be added.
But it may nevertheless be observed, that in such a character they can
never be objects of legislative attention or cognizance. As to those who
are employed in teaching and inculcating the duties ot religion, there may
be some indelicacy in singling them out, as the (General Government is
proscribed from interfering, in any manner whatever, in matters respecting
religion; and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who, and who
are not ministers of the Gospel. Conceiving the extension of the plan to be
useful however], and not difficult, I hope it may meet the ready
concurrence of this House."(295)
Here, as in the case of the Thanksgiving Day proclamations, he had some
question as to the advisability of including a reference to ministers of
religion in the census because of his strong belief in the entire
separation of Church and State. He was no extremist in such matters if the
fundamental principles of separation were observed, and his sense of what
was fitting led him to see that the arguments in favor of both actions
probably outweighed those against them. The case of chaplaincies to be
supported from public funds seemed to him more serious and he opposed their
appointment.
His reasons were stated at some length in an essay on the subject first
printed only a generation ago. He asked the question, "is the appointment
of chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the
Constitution, and with the pure prinsiple of religious freedom)" Madison
made it clear that his opposition to the chaplaincy, whether in Congress or
in the Army and Navy, was not to having services for these groups but to
their being conducted as a function of government and paid for by public
funds.
Similarly, he opposed the incorporation by the Federal government of
religious institutions, believing that such action would tend to break down
the "wall of separation" between Church and State. He sent special messages
to Congress vetoing proposals for incorporating the Episcopal Church in
Georgetown near Washington, and also for setting apart land in Mississippi
territory for a Baptist congregation.(297)
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED
STATES VOLUME I Anson Phelps Stokes pages 346-347 Haper & Brothers New
York, (1950)
**********************************************************************************
In addition:
Of Church, State, and Taxes
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2002/may17.html
Tax exemptions
By John Ferguson
Contributing writer
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/topic.aspx?topic=tax_exemptions&printer-friendly=y
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?L2BA5292C
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
Title: Re: To be or not to be tax exempt	15 Nov 2005 11:24:50 AM

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:0oqjn1pp2s751bqm4fkk5i1d327bu2hj33@4ax.com...

tightwad <@plum.net> wrote:

Ever hear of the term church state separation?

Ever hear of the fact that it is not in the constitution?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR
PROHIBITING the FREE EXERCISE thereof.."
Churches are just as legitimate a "special interest group" or "lobbyists" as
all the rest. In fact, more so--they have a God-given moral agenda to
uphold.

Once upon a time church and state were one.
The government hates to tax itself, thus religion.churches were tax exempt

When America separated church and state they left that status, since govt
and religion were separated.

So you claim.
However, there is a difference between one state-endorsed religion (as per
the past) and individual believers, or even groups of churches, exercising
their rights to free association and collective bargaining.
Moreover, ALL non-profit organizations are tax exempt, INCLUDING the
political parties, which takes us right back to the hypocrisy.

Got didn't tax churches/religion and religion/churches were not part of
government.

And we're still not talking about churches being "part of the government."
We're talking about groups of people with a singular shared identity
endorsing platforms and candidates who represent their views.

You might find this interesting

[snip]
Not really.
The constitution is just a piece of paper organizing yet another failed
experiment in political organization, just like every other failed
experiment that came before it.
Ike
--
Don't put a period where God put a question mark.
******************************
"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation" is
now available in hardcover, softcover, and ebook editions.
For a synopsis, author bio, an explanation of the real "code" in Revelation,
an excerpt, and links to major sales sites, visit
www.eickleberrybooks.com
******************************
Remove X from address to reply
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: To be or not to be tax exempt	15 Nov 2005 09:59:09 PM

"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote:

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message

Ever hear of the term church state separation?

Ever hear of the fact that it is not in the constitution?

The term isn't. The principle is.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR
PROHIBITING the FREE EXERCISE thereof.."

Churches are just as legitimate a "special interest group" or "lobbyists" as
all the rest. In fact, more so--they have a God-given moral agenda to
uphold.

If they are a lobbying group, then they are governed by the same laws
that other lobbying groups are governed by. Which means that they can
lose their tax exemption for violating the law.

Moreover, ALL non-profit organizations are tax exempt,

Not if they violate the laws constraining what non-profits are allowed
to do.
And there are lots of such laws on the books.

INCLUDING the political parties, which takes us right back to the hypocrisy.

Political parties are among the most regulated non-profit groups that
there are.
lojbab
.

User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
Title: Re: To be or not to be tax exempt	15 Nov 2005 10:23:42 PM

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:2dbln1dpuoqmtu0ucqckn5l8j7rb4otvec@4ax.com...

"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote:

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message

Ever hear of the term church state separation?

Ever hear of the fact that it is not in the constitution?

The term isn't. The principle is.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR
PROHIBITING the FREE EXERCISE thereof.."

Churches are just as legitimate a "special interest group" or "lobbyists"
as
all the rest. In fact, more so--they have a God-given moral agenda to
uphold.

If they are a lobbying group, then they are governed by the same laws
that other lobbying groups are governed by. Which means that they can
lose their tax exemption for violating the law.

Moreover, ALL non-profit organizations are tax exempt,

Not if they violate the laws constraining what non-profits are allowed
to do.

And there are lots of such laws on the books.

And that's the scam--hush money.

INCLUDING the political parties, which takes us right back to the
hypocrisy.

Political parties are among the most regulated non-profit groups that
there are.

lojbab

Ike
--
Don't put a period where God put a question mark.
******************************
"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation" is
now available in hardcover, softcover, and ebook editions.
For a synopsis, author bio, an explanation of the real "code" in Revelation,
an excerpt, and links to major sales sites, visit
www.eickleberrybooks.com
******************************
Remove X from address to reply
.

User: ""
Title: Re: To be or not to be tax exempt	15 Nov 2005 12:29:48 PM

"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote:

:|
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:0oqjn1pp2s751bqm4fkk5i1d327bu2hj33@4ax.com...
:|> tightwad <@plum.net> wrote:
:|>
:|>>:|There is no Constitutional basis for Government to interfere with what
:|>>:|is said in the pulpit!
:|>>:|It was illegally made a part of the tax code because it was feared
:|>>:|Christians, whcih look to their Church for guidance on many things would
:|>>:|put the Sitting Administration on the defensive, out of work, or would
:|>>:|interfere in a Politician's effords to confuse or lie to christians.
:|>>:|This needs to go before the Supreme Court.
:|>>:|There is no way the Government can declare Free Speech dead, in the
:|>>:|pulpit because it is tax exempt.
:|>
:|> Ever hear of the term church state separation?
:|
:|Ever hear of the fact that it is not in the constitution?

I'm so happy you brought that up. It gives me a wonderful opportunity to
show just how little you know about the topic
Thank you.
You need to do some historical study
Here is a good place to begin
Separation of church and state, the principle, where can it be found, or
can it be found in the Constitution?
One might consider the following:
====================================================================
Directly, the unamended constitution, Article VI, Section III
" but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under the United States."
-----------------------------
"The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test shall
ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under
the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose
of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an
invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object;
to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and
state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were
fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in history of
other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew,
that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its own stratagems, to secure to
itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance
was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of civil power to
exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility."
(COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, by Supreme Court
Justice Joseph Story, Vol III, (1833) pg 705)
------------------------------------------------------
Then, indirectly the entire document (unamended constitution) as a whole.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They divided power among the three branches of the Federal
Government, through Federal state separation of power, through Church state
separation of power, a division which is recognized in the Constitution
even before the First Amendment in the Religious Test Oath Clause."
Excerpt from The federalist Society For Law and Public Policy Studies.
Charitable Choice, Remarks of Professor Marci Hamilton
http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/practicegroupnewsletters/PG%20Links/charchoicemh.htm
*****************************************************************
April 14, 1800
The Gazette
Philadelphia
Monday Evening, April 14.
The condition of Church and State in America is such as to fill every
considerate mind with the most unhappy sensations. In spite of that vanity
and fastidiousness which led the Federal Convention, in founding their
government, to preclude any connection, it will appear in the end, even by
our own deplorable example, that a strict and indissoluble alliance of
religion to government has been ordained in the nature of things. Though
formally sundered by Constitution and laws; together they decline and
together (it would seem) they are likely to perish.
Source of Information
The Gazette of the United States, April 14, 1800.Jan 1, 1800 TO Dec.31,
1800 MFILM N.S. 10953 AP2.05
***********************************************************************
No Power to Congress Over Religion: The "Elastic Clause" and the First
Amendment
The purpose of the 1st Amendment was not to create the idea or principle of
separation of church and state. Instead, the 1st Amendment reinforced the
meaning of the separation of church and state principle as it was embodied
in the unamended constitution.

Research by Jim Allison; written by Jim Allison and Susan Batte
In the unamended constitution the government was given no authority in
matters of religion: no authority to aid (promote, help, etc) or hinder
religion.
The whole trend, therefore, of the latter part of this decision [The
Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 (1892)], justifying and
upholding religious laws and Sunday legislation, was away from American
principles and from both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of
the United States, by which the Supreme Court is created, and the
principles of which that Court is supposed to correctly interpret, uphold,
and defend. No power is conferred by the Constitution upon any branch of
the national government to make any pronouncement as to the religious
character of the nation.
As Madison said: "There is not a shadow of right in the general
government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it
would be a most flagrant usurpation." Declaring, as it did, the national
"creed," it did more than merely to "intermeddle" with religion. So far as
could be done by a court decision, it united church and state in the United
States, and created a religious establishment.
Source of Information:
The "Christian Nation" Decision. American State Papers Bearing On Sunday
Legislation, Revised and Enlarged Edition, Compiled and Annotated by
William Addison Blakely, Revised Edition Edited by Willard Allen Colcord,
The Religious Liberty Association, Washington D.C. 1911, pp 511-12.
Matters of religion were off limits to the government, but the drafters of
the Constitution were hard pressed to convince the state ratifying
conventions of the built-in constitutional safeguards. Because some felt
that clauses such as the Constitution's "elastic clause" might enable a
future Congress to circumvent the "no power" over religion directive,
Madison drafted and submitted the additional constitutional constraints
that eventually became the religious clauses of the our 1st Amendment. See
also, Hamilton, Alexander, Federalist Papers, #84.
The proper way to begin to understand the religious clauses of the 1st
amendment is to know that they did not create anything, they only
strengthened what had already been created and embodied in the unamended
constitution. The following historical documentation lays the foundation
for this concept.
They [the Framers] divided power among the three branches of the
Federal Government, through Federal state separation of power, through
Church state separation of power, a division which is recognized in the
Constitution even before the First Amendment in the Religious Test Oath
Clause.
Source of Information:
Excerpt from The Federalist Society For Law and Public Policy Studies.
Charitable Choice, Remarks of Professor Marci Hamilton.
http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/practicegroupnewsletters/PG%20Links/charchoicemh.htm
*****************************************************************************************
A. The Constitution and the First Amendment
Strictly speaking, the American experiment of freedom and separation was
not established in the First Amendment command that "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." That experiment had been launched four years earlier,
when the founders of the republic carefully withheld from the new national
government any power to deal with religion. As Madison said, the national
government had no "jurisdiction" over religion or any "shadow of right to
intermeddle" with it.(1)
The First Amendment, then, did not take away or abridge any power of the
national government; its intent was to make express the absence of power.
The historian George Bancroft, in a letter to Philip Schaff, stated:
Congress from the beginning was as much without the power to make a law
respecting the establishment of religion as it is now that the amendment
has passed."(2)
Charles Beard made the same point:
The Constitution does not confer upon the Federal government any power
whatever to deal with religion in any form or manner. . . . The First
Amendment merely confirms the intention of the framers.(3)
FOOTNOTES
(1) June 12, 1788, James Madison speaking to the delegates (speaking
against Patrick Henry's assertions) at the Virginia Constitutional
ratifying convention, as reported on page 330, The Debates of the Several
State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 1787, Vol.
III by Jonathan Elliot. J B Lippincott Company 1888)
(2) Schaff, Philip, "Church and State in the United States," Papers of the
American Historical Society, 1888, p. 137.
(3) Beard, Charles, The Republic, New York, Viking Press 1944, pp. 166,
178.
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Church State and Freedom, Leo Pfeffer Boston, The
Beacon Press (1953) p 114
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nopower.htm
***********************************************************************
Some Thoughts on Religion and Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm"
***********************************************************************
ARGUMENT ONE: The phrase "separation of church and state" is not found in
the Constitution
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg1.htm
Representative Thomas Tucker on Church and State, September 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/basic2a.htm
In the amended constitution we have what is mentioned above, reinforced
with Amendment I (1791)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses only Reinforced Separation of
Church and State.
************************************************************************************
Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses only Reinforced Separation of
Church and State.
* No Power to Congress Over Religion. The Separation Clause, Article IV
Paragraph III
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/art4piii.htm
* No Power to Congress over Religion: The "Elastic Clause" and the 1st
Amendment
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nopower.htm
Congressional Debates: Religious Amendments, 1789
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/1stdebat.htm
****************************************************************************************
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
OCTOBER 1, 1803
Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and additions, etc [1]
(3) after "assure"-are proposed "in due season, and under prudent
arrangements, important aids to our Treasury, as well as," an ample etc.
Quere: if the two or three succeeding paragraphs be not more
adapted to the separate and subsequent communication, if adopted as above
suggested.
(4) For the first sentence, may be substituted "In the territory between
the Mississippi and the Ohio another valuable acquisition has been made by
a treaty etc."[3.] As it stands, it does not sufficiently distinguish the
nature of the one acquisition from that of the other, and seems to imply
that the acquisition from France was wholly on the other side of the
Mississippi
May it not be as well to omit the detail of the stipulated
considerations, and particularly that of the Roman Catholic Pastor. The
jealousy of some may see in it a principle, not according with the
exemption of Religion from Civil power. In the Indian Treaty it will be
less noticed than in a President's speech.[4.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1.] For TJ's third annual message to Congress, Oct. 17, 1803, see Ford,
VIII, pp. 266-7)
[3.] TI's message announced the acquisition of territory by treaty from the
Kaskaskia Indians; see
Ford, VIII, pp. 269-70.
[4.] TJ accepted JM's suggestion to omit any discussion of Indian treaty
requirements to maintain a Roman Catholic priest, leaving the stipulations
in the treaty to "the competence of both
houses.... as soon as the senate shall have advised its ratification"; see
ibid.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Oct.
1, 1803, Notes for annual message, Oct. 17, 1803: alterations and
additions, etc.[1.],
The Republic of Letters, the Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison, 1776-1826, Edited by James Morton Smith, Vol. II, 1790
-1804, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London, (1995) pp 1297-98)
---------------------------------------------------
JUNE 3, 1811
"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I
have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the
Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical
distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the
purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,
I could not have other wise discharged my duty on the
occasion which presented itself"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June
3, 1811. Letters And Other Writings of James Madison Fourth President Of
The United States In Four Volumes Published By the Order Of Congress,
Vol..II, J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, (1865) pp 511-512)
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 2, 1819
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church from the State."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excert of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
----------------------------------------------------------
1817-1833
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents' already furnished
in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JULY 10, 1822
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation
between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have
no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done,
in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity
the less they are mixed together"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt of letter to Edward Livingston from James
Madison, July 10, 1822. Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 273-276. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEPTEMBER 1833
"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to
trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil
authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on
unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other
or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded
against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way
whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting
each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others".
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by James Madison to Rev. Jasper
Adams, September, 1833.Writings of James Madison, edited by Gaillard Hunt,
[not sure what the volume number is but have enough information presented
here to locate the letter] microform Z1236.L53, pp 484-488. )
*********************************************************************
FEBRUARY 2, 1790
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Madison's interest in preserving the separation between Church and State
led, as we shall see later, to his having some misgivings regarding Federal
Thanksgiving Day proclamations.(294) It also led to a very interesting
debate in the House of Representatives, February 2, 1790, when the question
of the Federal census was under consideration. The bill, as reported,
provided for the enumeration of farmers, mechanics, and other groups, but
did not include the learned professions. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts
(1746-1813) suggested that it should "specify every class of citizens, into
which the community was divided, in order to ascertain the actual state of
the society." Mr. Madison, in his reply, said:
"The gentleman from Massachusetts has asked, why the learned professions
were not included? I have no objection to giving a column to the general
body. I think the work would be rendered more complete by the addition, and
if the decision of such a motion turned upon my voice, they shall be added.
But it may nevertheless be observed, that in such a character they can
never be objects of legislative attention or cognizance. As to those who
are employed in teaching and inculcating the duties ot religion, there may
be some indelicacy in singling them out, as the (General Government is
proscribed from interfering, in any manner whatever, in matters respecting
religion; and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who, and who
are not ministers of the Gospel. Conceiving the extension of the plan to be
useful however], and not difficult, I hope it may meet the ready
concurrence of this House."(295)
Here, as in the case of the Thanksgiving Day proclamations, he had some
question as to the advisability of including a reference to ministers of
religion in the census because of his strong belief in the entire
separation of Church and State. He was no extremist in such matters if the
fundamental principles of separation were observed, and his sense of what
was fitting led him to see that the arguments in favor of both actions
probably outweighed those against them. The case of chaplaincies to be
supported from public funds seemed to him more serious and he opposed their
appointment.
His reasons were stated at some length in an essay on the subject first
printed only a generation ago. He asked the question, "is the appointment
of chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the
Constitution, and with the pure prinsiple of religious freedom)" Madison
made it clear that his opposition to the chaplaincy, whether in Congress or
in the Army and Navy, was not to having services for these groups but to
their being conducted as a function of government and paid for by public
funds.
Similarly, he opposed the incorporation by the Federal government of
religious institutions, believing that such action would tend to break down
the "wall of separation" between Church and State. He sent special messages
to Congress vetoing proposals for incorporating the Episcopal Church in
Georgetown near Washington, and also for setting apart land in Mississippi
territory for a Baptist congregation.(297)
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED
STATES VOLUME I Anson Phelps Stokes pages 346-347 Haper & Brothers New
York, (1950)
**********************************************************************************
o James Madison And National Religion
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madnational.htm
o Two Views: James Madison's and Joseph Story's
http://candst.tripod.com/joestor2.htm
* Excerpts from James Madison's Autobiography
http://candst.tripod.com/madauto.html
James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance (June,1785)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/memorial.htm
Excerpts from James Madison's Detached Memoranda (written after 1817)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/detach.htm
*********************************************************************************
More evidence than you probably will ever want can be found here
Study Guide:
Separation of Church and State -- Indepth
This is the longest and most complete collection of evidence on this site.
Because of space limitations the following is a combination of commentary
and URLs for further facts, documentation and commentary.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
and
Establishment Clause
http://candst.tripod.com/estclause.htm
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
Title: Re: To be or not to be tax exempt	15 Nov 2005 02:45:11 PM

<jalison@cox.net> wrote in message
news:b0akn15bihc2j4g4sut8m1gjm5ggb2s7h9@4ax.com...

"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote:

[snip]
As usual, you've done what everyone who has corrupted law and order
throughout history has done--you cite opinions from sources other than the
framing document (of which I was already aware) to substantiate a position.
The Pharisees even did it to the Bible, teaching opinions, and even opinions
of opinions, as legal fact, when the only facts are in the original
document, the Bible.
Hence, we now have the "precedence" legal system which is defiled beyond
repair.
Ike
--
Don't put a period where God put a question mark.
******************************
"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation" is
now available in hardcover, softcover, and ebook editions.
For a synopsis, author bio, an explanation of the real "code" in Revelation,
an excerpt, and links to major sales sites, visit
www.eickleberrybooks.com
******************************
Remove X from address to reply
.

User: ""
Title: Re: To be or not to be tax exempt	16 Nov 2005 01:02:16 PM

"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote:

Is that your best shot. sorry you fail
Guess what dude
You failed right here
I had said

Ever hear of the term church state separation?

You said

Ever hear of the fact that it is not in the constitution?

Someone who trumps you said
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated
hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions
with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of
the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly
increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE."
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Except of a letter to Robert Walsh from James
Madison. MARCH 2, 1819 Letters and Other writings of James Madison, in
Four Volumes, Published by Order of Congress. VOL. III, J. B. Lippincott &
Co. Philadelphia, (1865), pp 121-126. James Madison on Religious Liberty,
Robert S.Alley, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y. (1985) pp 82-83)
1817-1833
"STRONGLY GUARDED AS IS THE SEPARATION BETWEEN RELIGION
AND GOV'T IN THE CONSTITUTIONof the United States the danger of
encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents'
already furnished in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
****************************************************************************
The rest of the primary souce documentation I added was purley icign
rubbing your face in your ignorance
You have no valid position left you to
you were proven with valid histroical documentation to be incorrect
You're just another clown standing in the public square, in a town in the
heart land of America, at high noon on July 4th, in total denial, trying
to sell to stupid idiots that its really dark out, not daylight, that its
really midnight.
I truly do admit I don't know what makes people like you tick.
Reasonable people might agrree waht church state separation muight mean but
there is nothing reasonable about pweople who deny it exsits that it isn't
a basic principle found in the Constitution.
To ttally deny the historical factual evidehnce. but I guess it is far too
dangerous for peopple like you to even acknolwedge the reality of it
Have a nice day
I see not further reason to pay any attention to anohter "The fool,"
"fred," "dana," etc type clone.
*****************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
Title: Re: To be or not to be tax exempt	16 Nov 2005 03:29:12 PM

<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:hg0nn1prcptsjk923q8d0i2d9f1een2q8o@4ax.com...

"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote:

[snip]

"STRONGLY GUARDED AS IS THE SEPARATION BETWEEN RELIGION
AND GOV'T IN THE CONSTITUTIONof the United States the danger of
encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents'
already furnished in their short history"
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Excerpt from Madison's Detached Memoranda. This
document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives,
a
biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand
sometime between 1817 and 1832. The entire document was published by
Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
****************************************************************************

You haven't even begun to see "encroachment by ecclesiastical bodies" yet:
Rev 2:26-27:
"And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will
I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as
the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received
of my Father."
Re 11:17-18a
"...We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and
art to come, because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast
reigned. And the nations were angry..."
Enjoy it while you have it, because you won't have it forever.
Ike
www.eickleberrybooks.com
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: To be or not to be tax exempt	16 Nov 2005 01:35:08 AM

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:45:11 -0600, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:

<jalison@cox.net> wrote in message
news:b0akn15bihc2j4g4sut8m1gjm5ggb2s7h9@4ax.com...

"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote:

So, are you an anarchist or a traitor?

Ike

User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
Title: Re: To be or not to be tax exempt	16 Nov 2005 07:59:19 AM

"Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BFA03D4C000180A1F0284550@news.giganews.com...

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:45:11 -0600, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:

<jalison@cox.net> wrote in message
news:b0akn15bihc2j4g4sut8m1gjm5ggb2s7h9@4ax.com...

"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote:

So, are you an anarchist or a traitor?

Neither.
Heb 11:13-16
...These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having
seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and
confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
"For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came
out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a
better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be
called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city."
I don't "believe" in democracy, socialism, monarchies, tribalism, etc. I
don't "believe" in capitalism or communism, etc.
What I believe in doesn't yet exist, and I believe wherever you are, that's
where you're at.
Ike
--
Don't put a period where God put a question mark.
******************************
"The Character Map: An Introduction to the Introductions in Revelation" is
now available in hardcover, softcover, and ebook editions.
For a synopsis, author bio, an explanation of the real "code" in Revelation,
an excerpt, and links to major sales sites, visit
www.eickleberrybooks.com
******************************
Remove X from address to reply
.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: To be or not to be tax exempt	16 Nov 2005 12:21:16 PM

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 07:59:19 -0600, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:

"Gray Shockley" <grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BFA03D4C000180A1F0284550@news.giganews.com...

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:45:11 -0600, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:

<jalison@cox.net> wrote in message
news:b0akn15bihc2j4g4sut8m1gjm5ggb2s7h9@4ax.com...

"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote:

So, are you an anarchist or a traitor?

That's very sweet but, apparently, there is not enough similarity
between each of us's individual beliefs and reality to discuss
anything.

I don't "believe" in democracy, socialism, monarchies, tribalism, etc. I
don't "believe" in capitalism or communism, etc.

You must be very proud that you have the moral courage to live
outside of what other people refer to as reality. It takes moral
courage to do so and to act according to one's guiding principles.
Hm,m,m - what have you done? Anything other than ramble on UseNet?

What I believe in doesn't yet exist, and

What have you done to bring it into "being"? Is this a hobby or
have you done anything other than ramble on UseNet?

I believe wherever you are, that's
where you're at.

I heard that in a comedian's routine several decades ago and have
heard it hundreds (thousands?) of times since. It's also a bumper
sticker. It should be in quotes.
However, I hope that, someday, you may found out where and what you
are.
However, it seems that that would be /really/ boring.
Gray Shockley
---------------------
You'll find no small glasses
in this house, Professor.
- Hagrid

Ike

User: ""
Title: Re: To be or not to be tax exempt	15 Nov 2005 12:31:35 PM

"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <Xeickleberrybooks@comcast.net> wrote:

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: To be or not to be tax exempt	16 Nov 2005 01:26:17 AM

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:24:50 -0600, H.E. Eickleberry, Jr. wrote:

You might find this interesting

[snip]

Not really.

The constitution is just a piece of paper organizing yet another failed
experiment in political organization, just like every other failed
experiment that came before it.

The Bible is just a piece of paper organizing yet another failed
experiment in political organization, just like every other failed
experiment that came before it.
And, so it goes. / gray/
.

User: ""
Title: Re: To be or not to be tax exempt	15 Nov 2005 08:40:49 AM

tightwad <@plum.net> wrote:

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of pastors
and church leaders to speak out on religious, moral and political issues.
However, houses of worship, as non-profit entities under federal tax law,
are prohibited from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office and
may not intervene directly or indirectly in partisan campaigns.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/churches/index.html
Churches and Religious Orgs

Tax Information for Churches and Religious Organizations
Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations
A quick reference guide of federal tax law and procedures for churches and
religious organizations, to help them comply with tax rules.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
All IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious
organizations, must abide by certain rules:
¦ their net earnings may not inure to any private shareholder or
individual,
¦ they must not provide a substantial benefit to private interests,
¦ they must not devote a substantial part of their
activities to attempting to influence legislation,
¦ they must not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on
behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, and
¦ the organization’s purposes and activities may not
be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html
Political and Lobbying Activities

(Adapted from IRS Publication 1828, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious
Organizations - February 2004)
Political activities and legislative activities are two different things
and are subject to two different sets of rules. The rules depend on the
type of tax-exempt organization, the type of activity (political or
legislative) at issue, the scope or amount of the activity conducted, and
the consequences of exceeding the given set of limitations.
Lobbying Activity
In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a
substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation
(commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some
lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.
Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local
council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills,
resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of
appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative,
constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include
actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.
An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if
it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a
legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing
legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of
legislation.
Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy
without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example,
organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute
educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an
educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.
Measuring Lobbying Activity: Substantial Part Test
Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation constitute a
substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of
all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers
a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and
volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the
activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.
Under the substantial part test, an organization that conducts excessive
lobbying activity in any taxable year may lose its tax-exempt status,
resulting in all of its income being subject to tax. In addition, a
religious organization is subject to an excise tax equal to five percent of
its lobbying expenditures for the year in which it ceases to qualify for
exemption.
Further, a tax equal to five percent of the lobbying expenditures for the
year may be imposed against organization managers, jointly and severally,
who agree to the making of such expenditures knowing that the expenditures
would likely result in the loss of tax-exempt status.
Measuring Lobbying Activity: Expenditure Test
Organizations other than churches and private foundations may elect the
expenditure test under section 501(h) as an alternative method for
measuring lobbying activity. Under the expenditure test, the extent of an
organization’s lobbying activity will not jeopardize its tax-exempt status,
provided its expenditures, related to such activity, do not normally exceed
an amount specified in section 4911. This limit is generally based upon
the size of the organization and may not exceed $1,000,000.
Organizations electing to use the expenditure test must file Form 5768,
Election/Revocation of Election by an Eligible IRC Section 501(c)(3)
Organization to Make Expenditures to Influence Legislation, at any time
during the tax year for which it is to be effective. The election remains
in effect for succeeding years unless it is revoked by the organization.
Revocation of the election is effective beginning with the year following
the year in which the revocation is filed.
Under the expenditure test, an organization that engages in excessive
lobbying activity over a four-year period may lose its tax-exempt status,
making all of its income for that period subject to tax. Should the
organization exceed its lobbying expenditure dollar limit in a particular
year, it must pay an excise tax equal to 25 percent of the excess.
Political Campaign Activity
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are
absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or
intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to)
any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political
campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on
behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate
for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political
campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or
revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the
facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities
(including the presentation of public forums and the publication of voter
education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute
prohibited political campaign activity.
In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate
in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote
drives, would not constitute prohibited political campaign activity if
conducted in a non-partisan manner. On the other hand, voter education or
registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one
candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have
the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute
prohibited participation or intervention.
Individual Activity by Organization Leaders
The political campaign activity prohibition is not intended to restrict
free expression on political matters by leaders of organizations speaking
for themselves, as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking
about important issues of public policy. However, for their organizations
to remain tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan
comments in official organization publications or at official functions.
To avoid potential attribution of their comments outside of organization
functions and publications, organization leaders who speak or write in
their individual capacity are encouraged to clearly indicate that their
comments are personal and not intended to represent the views of the
organization.
Inviting a Candidate to Speak
Depending on the facts and circumstances, an organization may invite
political candidates to speak at its events without jeopardizing its
tax-exempt status. Political candidates may be invited in their capacity
as candidates, or individually (not as a candidate).
Speaking as a Candidate:
When a candidate is invited to speak at an organization event as a
political candidate, the organization mu