Religion & American Law

Electioneering Issues May Be Creeping Up On Us

Since the recent shift in Congress to all Republican control in both the Senate and House of Representatives, there has been a bill proposed, titled H. R. 153, by Representative Walter Jones Jr. [R-NC] that would allow for electioneering practices for churches and other 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups.

Currently as most of us know, there is a legal prohibition of electioneering for such organizations and/or entities.  This current prohibition is termed the "Johnson Amendment," which was established in 1954.  For those of us who are either unfamiliar with electioneering or just need a quick refresh, electioneering occurs when an organization publicly endorses or opposes a political candidate who is up for (re)election.

The American Humanist Association who, under this proposed bill, would also be allowed to employ electioneering practices, is not happy that this would allow churches more free speech and "untold" influence in politics.  The AHA released a statement which says, "This is fundamentally un-American, and weakens the state of our democracy by giving religious leaders untold influence."

It is important, however, to keep in mind that the diction of the bill itself does not appear to favor religious organizations/churches.  The most relevant section of the bill to us is stated as follows: "Paragraph (3) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to list of exempt organizations) is amended by striking “, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."  This wording demonstrates that all 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups would truly be included, not just churches and other religious organizations.  The proposed bill can be viewed in its entirety here.

One of the biggest issues that people seem to have with this bill is that it would allow for churches and other religious organizations to practice electioneering while also receiving a tax deduction, which seems unfair and may appear to violate the Establishment Clause.  Most people, however, would not object to the fact that other 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups would have this privilege as well.  As stated by Rep. Jones Jr., the purpose of the bill is "To restore the Free Speech and First Amendment rights of churches and exempt organizations by repealing the 1954 Johnson Amendment."

Another concern is that by passing this bill into law, there would be more open support and/or opposition from churches and religious groups which creates a large window of opportunity for government and politics to be influenced and also for general coercion.

In my opinion, it would be wrong for Congress to pass this bill.  Not only does it slightly violate the Establishment Clause by providing religious groups with a tax benefit, it also allows for more religious influence in government and legislation, which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison explicitly told us to avoid.  Remember the wall of separation between church and state? It does not seem to be too high here.

Some might point out that the function of the bill is actually neutral, with which I am not inclined to totally disagree.  However, it seems to me that this bill functions more as a slippery slope rather than a totally neutral bill in practice, even if it may be neutral in regards to intent.  The author of the article I read said that passing this bill would "make things worse for secular Americans," and to an extent, I would agree.

Tags: