Overhauled electioneering bill still bad for everyone involved

By K. Hollyn Hollman

Hollman Report
May 2005

It's back. Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., has again proposed electioneering legislation for churches. Under current tax laws, non-profit organizations, including houses of worship, cannot intervene in political campaigns. Unlike the more lenient rules allowing nonprofits to do some lobbying, the prohibition on electioneering is absolute. It applies to all entities receiving favorable tax treatment under the tax laws known by the U.S. Code Section 501(c)(3).

In the last few sessions of Congress, Rep. Jones has proposed changing the law, but only for houses of worship and related religious nonprofits. Promoting this misnamed "Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act," supporters make the false claim that churches are being muzzled on important moral issues. The BJC, working with other religious and civil liberties organizations, has opposed these efforts. So far we have been successful.

For most denominational groups, the legislation is an unwanted invitation for politicization of houses of worship. Under the proposed law, congregations would be targeted by candidates for their endorsement. Candidates would be hard pressed to resist the temptation of campaigning as the "largest-congregation-in-the-jurisdiction-candidate," with a hope of leaving the impression that they are "God's candidate."

Still, the legislation enjoys support from some well-funded and persistent interest groups that want churches to endorse candidates while enjoying favorable tax status. This time, the legislation has a twist.

In addition to a general provision allowing political endorsements by churches "during religious services or gatherings," the new H.R. 235 provides: "No member or leader of an organization described ... shall be prohibited from expressing personal views on political matters or elections for public office during regular religious services, so long as these views are not disseminated beyond the members and guests assembled together."

I can see it now. During a sermon prepared for and on behalf of the church, the pastor says: "I now interrupt this service where I have been fulfilling my duties of worship leadership for this church to give you my personal opinion about who you should vote for in the upcoming election. This statement is made in my personal capacity only and is not intended to infect this tax-exempt entity into any prohibited campaign activity. I will now return to my sermon."

I am not sure what the drafters had in mind, but they didn't fix the bill. The idea that a church leader should not endorse or oppose a candidate in the pulpit is just one way of ensuring that a tax-exempt organization is not being used as a shelter for political action that is regulated by other aspects of the law. To the extent that a clergy person feels a religious call or duty to endorse a particular candidate for office, he or she should do so in a way that avoids putting the church at risk.

As supporters of the change in law continue to revamp the bill's language, they also are finding new ways to sell their ideas—a book, a web site, a focus on African-American clergy, efforts to connect the support for civil rights and the alleged need for churches to endorse candidates. For the first time, the bill has a sponsor on the Senate side.

These efforts demand a continued response from individual church members, church leaders and denominational organizations.

The threat of divisiveness is not hypothetical. Recently a Baptist church in North Carolina made headlines when its pastor told members to leave, saying if they didn't support George Bush, they should resign or repent. Several members were disfellowshipped and others, including some who had been members for decades, resigned in protest. This is exactly that kind of threat to churches that the proposed electioneering law would make commonplace.