Trump to sign E/O lifting 501-c (3) tax restrictions on churches

[donnay]

Why wouldnt it be enforced against the widely known guy with a nationwide TV show, then? I mean, he was out and out endorsing Trump and instructing people to the polls.

I cannot answer that. I know there are a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing out there. You have to research it, and use discernment.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

It looks like right now 503(c) organizations are allowed to spend 30% of their total charity spending doing lobbying and grass roots work. If they spend more than that then they risk losing their non-profit status.

Except that this provision doesn't apply to churches -- see §501(h)(5).

It goes against the 1st Amendment.

Churches don't have a constitutional right not to be taxed. Congress has decided, however, to grant them tax-exempt status and to grant tax deductions for contributions made to them but only if they don't use this subsidy to intervene in political campaigns. If a church wants to campaign for someone it is free to do so, but it can't do it with tax-free money. All other 501(c)(3) organizations are subject to the same restriction, which isn't affected by the lobbying exception in §501(h).

Taxing a publisher doesn't violate the Free Press Clause, and taxing a church doesn't violate the Free Exercise Clause.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Why wouldnt it be enforced against the widely known guy with a nationwide TV show, then? I mean, he was out and out endorsing Trump and instructing people to the polls.

More than likely because his TV show operation is not organized as a 501 - 3 (c) charity.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Pope's a commie

Yes, yes he is.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Except that this provision doesn't apply to churches -- see §501(h)(5).



Churches don't have a constitutional right not to be taxed. Congress has decided, however, to grant them tax-exempt status and to grant tax deductions for contributions made to them but only if they don't use this subsidy to intervene in political campaigns. If a church wants to campaign for someone it is free to do so, but it can't do it with tax-free money. All other 501(c)(3) organizations are subject to the same restriction, which isn't affected by the lobbying exception in §501(h).

Taxing a publisher doesn't violate the Free Press Clause, and taxing a church doesn't violate the Free Exercise Clause.

Churches have been tax exempt in the US since the country was founded. The 501(c)3 provision was added in 1954. All 501(c)3 did was muzzle their speech in return for the ability to deduct contributions from income tax, thus making Church revenue de facto taxpayer funds, which is why they believed they had the authority to do it. Since 501(c) churches are literally funded by tax money, the government believes they have the authority to tell those churches how to conduct business.

I for one do not believe that donations to Church should be written off on income taxes to begin with. I am a passionate and fervent Christian, but the idea of funding a Church with taxpayer funds is evil from both perspectives. However what is far, far worse than the ability to write off those donations (which again, should not exist) is this idea that a Church should give up their 1st Amendment.

 

[William Tell]

More than likely because his TV show operation is not organized as a 501 - 3 (c) charity.

And also because Trump was an establishment candidate. No threat to the gravy train and overseas killing.

 

[jonhowe]

More than likely because his TV show operation is not organized as a 501 - 3 (c) charity.

I've been trying to look into this. I don't mean to derail the thread, but the show requests donations, and is careful to not say you are "buying" their books and products, but getting them in return for a donation. Perhaps this is just done as a guise to make people think it's a charity.

Jim Bakker just infuriates me; he's such a con artist. (That said, his tax conviction back in the day was bogus.)

 

[Madison320]

There should be no taxes. That being said, special exemptions reak of cronyism and fraud.

I agree. I don't like any sort of tax exemptions, progressive taxes, etc. If we have to suffer from govt, we should all suffer equally.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

As written, the Executive Order doesn't do away with anything insofar as the Johnson Amendment is concerned.

Section 1. Policy. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law's robust protections for religious freedom. The Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and views were integral to a vibrant public square, and in which religious people and institutions were free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by the Federal Government. For that reason, the United States Constitution enshrines and protects the fundamental right to religious liberty as Americans' first freedom. Federal law protects the freedom of Americans and their organizations to exercise religion and participate fully in civic life without undue interference by the Federal Government. The executive branch will honor and enforce those protections.

Sec. 2. Respecting Religious and Political Speech. All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall, to the greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, respect and protect the freedom of persons and organizations to engage in religious and political speech. In particular, the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury. As used in this section, the term "adverse action" means the imposition of any tax or tax penalty; the delay or denial of tax-exempt status; the disallowance of tax deductions for contributions made to entities exempted from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States Code; or any other action that makes unavailable or denies any tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit. (qualifying disclaimers bolded)

As the National Review said, "The answer to the Johnson Amendment, however, is to either repeal the statute or overturn it in court. This order does neither. In fact, a lawyer will commit malpractice if he tells a pastor or director of a nonprofit that this order allows a church or nonprofit to use its resources to support or oppose a candidate. Even if the Trump administration chooses not to enforce the law, a later administration can tear up Trump’s order and begin vigorous enforcement based on actions undertaken during the Trump administration.

 

[CPUd]

 

[PierzStyx]

Trust me, I am in full agreement with Gunny, the methodology is utterly broken.

However, I am in favor of anything that restores even the slightest bit of freedom to people.

Does it though?

If I can prevent you from drinking beer but I allow you to drink beer, are you really free or are you merely dependent on my whims?

I'm glad when the yoke has a nice velvet interior. But let us not confuse that for actual freedom.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Even if the Trump administration chooses not to enforce the law, a later administration can tear up Trump’s order and begin vigorous enforcement based on actions undertaken during the Trump administration.

good point

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The Pope heretical bishop of Rome says that your liberty is a bad thing...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-latest-evil&p=6461312&viewfull=1#post6461312

FIFY.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Does it though?

If I can prevent you from drinking beer but I allow you to drink beer, are you really free or are you merely dependent on my whims?

I'm glad when the yoke has a nice velvet interior. But let us not confuse that for actual freedom.

You are if you repeal the law that prohibited me from drinking beer.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Even if the Trump administration chooses not to enforce the law, a later administration can tear up Trump’s order and begin vigorous enforcement based on actions undertaken during the Trump administration.

Which is why the anti federalists were right, and why we should not be ruled by fatwas and royal decrees from a President/King

 

[Anti Federalist]

And I got the IRS bass ackwards...fuck.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

FIFY.

How about an older label and we call him the anti-Christ?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

How about an older label and we call him the anti-Christ?

That's newer. The Protestants gave him that one.

 

[devil21]

When Trump sucks up news air time and conversation with these red meat EOs (and tweets) of dubious content and enforceability I always wonder what his other hand is doing...

 

[Origanalist]

As written, the Executive Order doesn't do away with anything insofar as the Johnson Amendment is concerned.



As the National Review said, "The answer to the Johnson Amendment, however, is to either repeal the statute or overturn it in court. This order does neither. In fact, a lawyer will commit malpractice if he tells a pastor or director of a nonprofit that this order allows a church or nonprofit to use its resources to support or oppose a candidate. Even if the Trump administration chooses not to enforce the law, a later administration can tear up Trump’s order and begin vigorous enforcement based on actions undertaken during the Trump administration.