> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Columnist warns churches over IRS campaign rules as 2006 election nears
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/the-witness-20061004/
- Published: 2006-10-04T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-25T01:04:33.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica, #archive-import

*STAND BY CLIFF NICHOLS*

Again, we find ourselves in a hotly contested election season. On the surface, we are told that what is at stake is a determination of what party will end up being vested with control of the Congress. But what is really at stake is the charting of our nation’s course with respect to the hot-button social issues that linger always just below the surface of all the rhetoric, such as abortion, gay-marriage, stem cell research and illegal immigration.

So, it follows that once again we will be witnessing those who favor these things threatening Christians who would oppose them with tax code violations, such as a story that appeared this last Sunday on the front page of the LA Times seemed to imply.

That story reminded everybody again that under the IRS’ rules, regulations and guidelines, a 501(c)(3) organization “may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates” and “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.” Further, leaders of such organizations cannot make “partisan” comments in any official organization publications or at official functions, and “indirect participation” in a political campaign includes such things as contributing funds to a campaign or issuing position statements on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate.

The penalty for an infraction can be quite severe. It may result in “denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.” Moreover, in some, if not all, such cases the imposition of taxes may be imposed retroactively on all income the organization has received since its inception. In short, revocation could equate to automatic bankruptcy for the organization.

Why is this a problem? Because most faith-based organizations (i.e. — churches) in this country are tax exempt under 501(c)(3), and consequently, their valuable input into the political debate surrounding many grave social issues is effectively silenced -- issues of immense importance, not only to both these organizations and their members, but to our nation’s cultural future as well — issues such as same-sex marriage, abstinence education, evolution, gender orientation legislation, hate speech legislation, stem cell research, abortion, late-term abortion and, perhaps most importantly, the social policy predispositions of the judicial nominees and politicians that will determine the outcomes of these issues.

The threat made to churches that would violate this mandate of political silence is real. One editorial commentator recently put it this way:“Either religious leaders must confine their public actions to religious matters or forfeit the tax-free status of religious individuals and organizations.” Moreover, there now exist groups that are actively seeking to enforce this threat, such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Mainstream Coalition. Their members are sent to monitor the services of various churches for inappropriate or unlawful “political content.”And in those instances that these monitors perceive that a speaker has crossed the line, a complaint seeking revocation of the church’s tax exemption is filed with the I.R.S.

At the same time, however, the free speech rights of those who would oppose faith-based views are not subject to any similar restraint. In the past, the likes of Howard Dean, Bill Maher, Alec Baldwin, Ben Affleck, Rob Reiner, Linda Ronstadt and Ron Reagan, Jr. have repeatedly attacked Christians and their views publicly with impunity. Whereas, the responsive silence of churches oftentimes has been deafening due to their vulnerability caused by their tax-exempt status. The question is, can this inequality be rectified? I think so, and though I’ve written about this before, I think it bears repeating now.

First, churches could start by acknowledging that the 501(c)(3) choke collar they are wearing is self-imposed. Churches place this choke collar upon themselves when they seek and maintain tax-exempt status. And they do have an alternative. They could choose to simply pay taxes like other businesses and thereby reacquire their right to express and defend their opinions and beliefs freely just like everybody else. Of course, this would be easier for new or recently formed churches to do. Whereas, for churches that have been in existence longer, I can appreciate how this might threaten their very survival if forfeiture of their exemption would result in their being taxed retroactively.

Consider the publicity that would be generated if one such church were to publicly offer to forfeit its exemption and commence paying taxes as of the current tax year, if the I.R.S. would waive the retroactive tax penalty and thereby permit that church to avoid bankruptcy? In essence, the church would be offering to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s (taxes) so that it would be free to render to God what is God’s (obedience to his commandments and precepts). How cool is that? And even if it failed, consider the earthly benefits of making such an offer to the I.R.S. in terms of a public relations coup. The first headline could read as follows: ‘Church seeks permission to pay taxes to restore their right to free’

The real question, however, is whether the next day’s headline would read: ‘I.R.S. Denies church’s request to pay taxes to regain free speech rights’

If that were the case, at least we would then know that the real reason churches are offered the exemption in the first place is to effectively secure their silence.

Cliff Nichols is an attorney practicing criminal defense in Santa Monica. He (310) 917-1083 or

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 4, 2006.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/100406.pdf?ref=smdp.com)