"Senator Tarzan"?

Churches, for federal tax exemption purposes, are defined by Federal tax law as 501(c)(3) organizations. That is, they are not required to pay Federal taxes as long as they abide by certain restrictions. Violations of those restrictions may lead to revocation of their 501(c)(3) standing. Many, perhaps most churches are not heavily funded. They often operate on the proverbial shoestring, relying heavily on voluntary labor by their membership to perform such mundane duties as janitorial, maintenance and other administrative necessities. If they had to pay taxes on their income (mostly voluntary contributions), they would not be left with sufficient funding to continue operation.

What does that mean?

It means that the Federal Government has the power and the ability to put any single church out of business by administrative fiat.

What are these restrictions?


According to an online publication of the Internal Revenue Service, here is part of what that means:

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.

[ED: all emphasis in quoted materials is added by me; it is not part of the original material.]
In the current campaign season, there are two clauses which are particularly important:

"[T]hey must not devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation".

That means that they may actively support or intervene in an attempt to influence legislation, as long as that activity does not constitute "... a substantial part of their activities..."

What does "substantial" mean?

It means whatever the IRS says it means.

Here's the other important clause:

"[T]hey must not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office".

Notice the difference between the two clauses. The first clause includes the provisio that political activity not be substantive.

The second clause is absolute. There is no room for equivocation. "No" means NO!

Here is a 22 minute video of a sermon given by a preacher who has not much more admiration for a Political candidate than I do. I have no idea why he persists in referring to that candidate as "Senator Tarzan" ... perhaps I heard it wrong.

However, it is clear that this preacher is not only "in opposition to" the Candidate because of political reasons, but also because of the threat which he seems to believe the candidacy constitutes to Christianity itself.

Brave and bold, to take on the Federal Government, the Internal Revenue Service, and the man who in 24 short days (from the creating of this video) may be advanced to the position of the most powerful man in the world.

It's obvious that he is a man of conviction. Whether you agree with him is between you and your conscience. Or between you and your God.

But if this preacher can challenge the IRS, can a blogger do less than defy McCain/Feingold?

H/T Paul M.