Trying to decide just what the First Amendment to the
Constitution implies with the words, Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof, has kept the Supreme Court in a continual dither.
The substance is clear: the United States will not have an official religion.
The church is, therefore, protected from control by the government, and the
government is protected from control by the church. But
the devil is in the details. On one hand there are those religionists who
insist that the nation’s founders were only trying to keep us from replicating
England’s official church, but this never implied that we were not a Christian
people. At the other extreme are those who want no mention of any religious
perspective in national affairs. The legislative swamp between these two
islands is fraught with alligators.
Obviously this means that churches may not
endorse candidates or put money in any election. This prohibition applies not
only to churches but also to all not-for-profit organizations with a 501(c)(3)
designation.
Obviously big money is always looking for loopholes in restrictive
laws, and the Supreme Court in its infamous Citizens United decision provided
one big enough through which to float a battleship. It allowed political
contributions from both Super Pacs and “charities” operating under a 501(c)(4)
designation.
A 501(c)(4) is defined as a civil organization operated
exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, charitable, educational and
recreational purposes. But! And
let me quote from the way the law has been interpreted, and the loophole it
opens:
501(c)(4)
organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to
influence legislation relevant to its program]
and, unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, they may also participate in political
campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of
social welfare. The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of
their operations.
A church cannot have a 501(c)(4) designation,
but a politically motivated organization just outside ecclesial control can.
All the group has to do is claim to be a social service body. It can therefore
give a certain percentage of its income to political campaigns. And it never
needs to report the source of those funds.
So if a quasi-religious body wants to be
financially involved in a political matter it must either develop its own
501(c)(4) or be co-opted by a secular body with one.
In the 2012 campaign 310 million dollars
entered the political arena from these “social service” groups. Of that money,
almost 90% came from right-wing sources. Karl Rove’s “American Crossroads,” for
instance, contributed 70 million dollars to conservative causes. And the list goes on. Clearly the American right-wing
is sustained at least in part by conservative Christians. How much so-called
Christian money flowed into the campaign is unclear, but certainly it was
substantial. At the very least these right wing causes were doing the bidding
of conservative religion.
T hese conservative groups finally got the attention of the
IRS. Did it give the same attention to liberal bodies? Probably not, and that
generated the firestorm. But five years ago All Saints Church in Pasadena was
assailed by the IRS because someone preached a sermon in which he took a
liberal position on the Iraqi war.
So the question is: should the progressive wing of American
religion be clever enough to financially support legitimate left-leaning
501(c)(4)s? While there may be that possibility, the issue is not the freedom
of the church or religiously motivated persons to take positions that have
political motives, but a much larger matter.
Perhaps the real problem is the massive infusion of big
bucks into politics. The Citizens United decision is largely responsible for
this financial avalanche authorizing both the Super Pacs and the 501(c)(4)s.
Until that decision is overturned either by legislation or by a Constitutional
amendment, American elections will be bought and paid for. Until then, I
believe liberal religious institutions should refuse to wade in that
multi-million dollar quagmire.
Even while avoiding the deception found in the 501(c)(4)
loophole, church bodies and church people have not only the right, but also the
responsibility to speak clearly about issues which they believe flow from their
faith. I hold that liberal religion has been derelict in having almost
abandoned the political field to more conservative Christians. There are issues
before the public which are critical to human well-being, and we withdraw from clearly articulating our
position at the peril of the dehumanization of millions of our fellow citizens,
and the degradation of the environment.
Well, that’s all from me for a few weeks. See you in August.
Charles Bayer
No comments:
Post a Comment