by Jesse Galef
It was a good week for separation of church and state. The “I Believe” license plate was ruled unconstitutional, the DC Council might have the courage to stand up to the Archdiocese threats, and here’s one from earlier in the week I missed – Representative Lynn Woolsey, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote an op-ed in Politico calling for greater IRS scrutiny on the way the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) influenced the healthcare bill.
The role the bishops played in the pushing the Stupak amendment, which unfairly restricts access for low-income women to insurance coverage for abortions, was more than mere advocacy.
They seemed to dictate the finer points of the amendment, and managed to bully members of Congress to vote for added restrictions on a perfectly legal surgical procedure.
…
The IRS is less restrictive about church involvement in efforts to influence legislation than it is about involvement in campaigns and elections.Given the political behavior of USCCB in this case, maybe it shouldn’t be.
What does it say about me that I was immensely cheered up by this?
Woolsey is absolutely right on this point – trying to affect legislation through lobbying is getting into sketchy territory for a 501(c)3 like the USCCB. Such nonprofits get their tax-exempt status and are not allowed to devote significant time lobbying. That’s what a 501(c)4 designation is for.
At the Secular Coalition for America, we were a 501(c)4 because we had the express purpose of lobbying congress and the administration. As a result, donations we received were not tax-deductible. Them’s the breaks. The ACLU, by the way, is in the same boat. My monthly donations are not tax-deductible (not that it makes a difference on the scale that I donate).
I don’t know if what the USCCB did was too much lobbying for a 501(c)3 – but that’s just the point, we don’t know if the IRS doesn’t investigate, and we have reason to be suspicious:
The influence the USCCB showed in the debate was considerable, the Wall Street Journal reports, calling the group “a major political force with the potential to upend a key piece of President Barack Obama’s agenda.”
The Journal reports that the USCCB swayed Congress with “behind-the-scenes lobbying, coupled with a grassroots mobilization of Catholic churches across the country.” Along with conducting private meetings with lawmakers like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the group circulated to churches a prayer supporting health care reform that included the phrase, “We will raise our voices to protect the unborn.”
Of course, we can count on other elected officials to completely miss the validity and nuance of the problem:
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who is Catholic, took to his Twitter account today to defend the USCCB, the Hill reports.
“The nerve of some citizens to petition their government,” he wrote. “In Woolsey-land, free speech is cause for retribution.”
Wow, is McHenry really calling for a complete overhaul of the non-profit system? Is he saying that even organizations getting special tax privileges should be allowed to influence government in any way they choose?
Or is he just clueless on separation of church and state?
John M: I think the biggest issue we are seeing is that this kind of money is available to pastors in the first... 
Siberia: I kind of don’t give a rat’s ass about propagating my genes. I’d much rather have this particular iteration of my... 
Ty: If that was a possible benefit of being above the line, then yes. I’m extraordinarily capable of success when I... 
K: Couldn’t agree more – especially as I’ve studied the Bible on the role of women and... 
Erp: Interesting. Many years ago I helped my aunt sort out some of her late mother-in-law’s... 
Peter Cross: The Age of Reason is sometimes published and sold without Part 3: Examination of the... 
14 Comments
I’m not exactly the world’s biggest fan of campaign finance and lobbying regulation, but given that the rules are what they are, churches should be treated no differently than secular organizations attempting to influence the output of the legislature. It is nice to occasionally hear a politician say that.
No, he’s not clueless. He’s a Republican. That means that he will viciously argue in favour of the constitution when it comes to owning firearms, but will completely ignore it when it comes to keeping Christianity off of Capitol Hill.
Jesse – why dwell on such idle matters?
“What does it say about me that I was immensely cheered up by this?”
It says you have an amazingly narrow mind. The laws, the wording, the documents and debates and human bickering – they will all go away in time. You will die. I will die. The world will be engulfed by the sun. Run along and try to imagine what 50 million years is like. Once you’ve done that compare it to this stupid post.
I wish you’d stop calling yourself VidLord. We already have a VidLord, and he’s nowhere near as batshit crazy as you.
I’m here, right now, so what happens, here, right now, means a bit to me. Most people feel the same way. Sure, occasionally it is fun to imagine eleventy bajillion years and galaxy-spanning distances, but I still gotta eat, and tend to care if I am on fire or not. If you don’t, hey, lots of luck to you.
Indeed, by his own standards the only reasonable course would be to kill himself. Instead he inflicts us with a poor attempt at faux-profound.
“I will die. The world will be engulfed by the sun.”
Why wait? Kill yourself.
Wow, does the bickering ever end – even on a thoughtful blog such as this one. What a shame. well, I enjoy the content, at least.
?
I’m not one to beat the bandwagon of this is a Christian nation so we need to get back to it, in fact I think government involvement tends to enforce unhealthy power structures in any religion. Having said that I don’t think that the claim that the 1st admendment addresses the tax exempt status issue in the way the Jesse thinks is valid. In fact many argue that the tax exempt provision was a spurious one and that the IRS still grants exempt status to religious orgs who haven’t even filled out 501c3 forms if they meet certain requirments.
a couple of quesitons that i’ve thought about
1. is taxation of religious orgs affect the free exercise clause?
2. Is the view that the first admendment keeps religous orgs lobbying consistent with the fact that there were state supported churches in America during the time of the passing of the Bill of Rights with the last one being stopped in 1833?
3. Would Christians who support the idea that churches should be able to influence the government extend the same rights to other religious orgs, say to Muslim groups?
Why does the infinite cause some people to see life and their place in the space/time continuum (sorry, but that’s what it is) as meaningless, as VidLord does, above? An excuse to be apathetic, maybe? Personally, I don’t trust people who have deluded themselves into believing in magic stories to decide and govern what I do, and I’d be a fool not to watch them like a hawk and resist their efforts to put their BS over on everyone.
BTW: Our infinitesimal smallness and insignificance is what all religion is about at the core.
Subconsciously, I think pretty much everyone believes that size matters.
I’m only half-kidding.
Our infinitesimal smallness and insignificance is what all religion is about at the core.
I’m not sure that’s true. On one level, sure, there is the enormous gulf between piddly humans and the universe (and its posited Creator-dude) that gets thrown around rather liberally in religious thought: God big, you small. On the other hand, one might say that religion is a conscious rebellion against the insignificance of humanity in the broadest picture that comes with the relative enormity of the universe in relation to our tiny corner of it. After all, given the size of the universe, it is awfully odd that any sort of creator being would spend so much effort on us, and yet nearly all religions describe a universe that cares about us.
1) Woosley has to prove the USSCB devoted a “substantial” part of its resources to lobbying. Since 1990, the IRS has withdrawn the tax-exempt status of exactly ONE church.
2) She and others didn’t complain when the bishops supports immigration reform, opposed the war in Iraq, or agreed that we needed health care reform. (Anyone see that NYT article on the black ministers who endorsed Mayor Bloomberg for re-election? See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/nyregion/29ministers.html Are they violating the separation of church and state or is there a separate standard for African American, Protestant clergy?)
3) Other religious groups lobbied against the Stupak Amendment. See http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1716 Do you want to take away their tax exempt status too? If one is going to argue that the Catholic Church sought to make its doctrine against abortion into policy, then can’t the same be said for pro-abortion churches? Of course, you don’t have to be Catholic to oppose abortion. Some atheists and agnostics base their views on biological and emphirical evidence. See http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
4) What’s to stop the bishops from setting up a new, separate 501 (c) (4) entity that focues on lobbying and public policy?
You don’t change the rules of the game if you happen to lose it.
Woosley has to prove the USSCB devoted a “substantial” part of its resources to lobbying. Since 1990, the IRS has withdrawn the tax-exempt status of exactly ONE church.
Because, shockingly, churches are treated with kid-gloves by US government entities, both because of the Free Exercise entanglements which complicate things, and for cultural/political reasons.
She and others didn’t complain when the bishops supports immigration reform, opposed the war in Iraq, or agreed that we needed health care reform. (Anyone see that NYT article on the black ministers who endorsed Mayor Bloomberg for re-election? See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/nyregion/29ministers.html Are they violating the separation of church and state or is there a separate standard for African American, Protestant clergy?)
I don’t think she’s being lauded for being consistent. Just for taking (what the author of the blog post opines is) the right side of an issue. Are you seriously suggesting that we should expect a politician to act against their own political interests while doing something controversial (as criticizing a church for meddling in state affairs insanely happens to be) to begin with?
Other religious groups lobbied against the Stupak Amendment. See http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1716 Do you want to take away their tax exempt status too? If one is going to argue that the Catholic Church sought to make its doctrine against abortion into policy, then can’t the same be said for pro-abortion churches? Of course, you don’t have to be Catholic to oppose abortion. Some atheists and agnostics base their views on biological and emphirical evidence. See http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
Personally I find the tax exemption laws to be fairly ludicrous, but given what they are, yes, I would take away the tax exemption status of 501(c)(3) entities regardless of what side they were on if they were found to be lobbying. Them’s the rules, as they say.
What’s to stop the bishops from setting up a new, separate 501 (c) (4) entity that focuses on lobbying and public policy?
Nothing. However, the law prevents them from funneling money from the (c)(3) into the (c)(4), and donations to the latter would not be tax write-offs, unlike donations to churches.