501(c)(3) and Political Activities

[erchess]

Can anyone give me or tell me where to find a brief summary preferably with cites of the rules regarding political activities by 501(c)(3) organizations? Here is where I am coming from.

I thought that charities were not supposed to endorse political candidates but I find that both left and right leaning pastors manage to make it clear from the pulpit and in other ways who they or who the overall leadership of the church thinks members should vote for. I find that sometimes pastors claim that their endorsements are not necessarily the views of the Church, but sometimes even that fig leaf is not used.

I thought that charities were not supposed to lobby the government. I have found one charity that does nothing but urge states to offer vanity license plates supporting this organization's stand on the pro life vs pro choice debate. (This is a tax bulletin board so no one's opinion on that debate should be posted here. This is the USA so no organization's opinion on that debate should affect its tax status including the deductibility of contributions to it.) Then today I realized that several charities I support urge me at times to contact my members of Congress about proposed legislation. They spend money telling me who to contact, giving me the contact information and even telling me what to say.

Ok, I would have thought that all of this stuff would be prohibited for 501(c)(3) organiations. Yet such organizations do these things. What am I missing?

[MAMalody]

I took this off the Christian Law Association web site.
=======================================
It is legal for churches to speak to social and moral issues that have political implications. During the upcoming campaign season, what political activities are permissible for a tax-exempt church?

Although it is true that political campaign intervention is prohibited by Internal Revenue Code §501(c)(3), that does not mean that a church must remain silent on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office. To avoid being attacked as being engaged in political campaign intervention the church should focus strictly on the issues and not mention the name of any candidate for office with reference to the issue.

Example: The church may state that it opposes federal funding of stem cell research that uses embryos. It should not mention that Candidate A favors such federal funding but Candidate B opposes it.

Attempts to influence legislation, unlike political campaign interventions, are merely limited. “Legislation” includes ballot initiatives and referendums. A church may be far less cautious in communicating its position on ballot initiatives or referendums because they are related to the welfare of the community, not to the fortunes of an individual candidate.

Example: A church may oppose a referendum to expand the adult entertainment zone in its neighborhood without having to concern itself with whether this opposes or endorses a candidate.

Attempts to influence legislation, however, may only constitute an "insubstantial amount" of the church’s activities and expenditures. For the sake of simplicity, the church should never spend more than 5% of it annual gross revenues on attempts to influence legislation. Examples of such expenditures would include television, radio, and newspaper advertisements, flyers, yard signs, and bumper stickers.
=====================================

While not a direct answer to your question, it would tend to indicate that some of the activities in your positng would be questionable. The basic thrust seems to be that you can address any issue you want, tread very lightly around any names (best not to mention any) and don't devote any significant resources, time or money on legislative influence. This would seem to allow churches to address things like the death penalty, right to life, stem cell research, etc.; but would prohibit endorsing from the pulpit (but not individually) candidates and make forbidden the hiring of a firm/people to push any legislative agenda.

I would suspect that if you contacted any major denomination such as the Southern Baptist Convention, Assemblies of God, etc that they could give you an english version of the do's and don'ts -but probably not provide the underlying law they are making these decisions on.

[taxstudent]

They frequently use their related 501(c)(4) organizations to get around the limits on the 501(c)(3). As for the pastors, many of them have a "come get me" attitude.

[MAMalody]

They frequently use their related 501(c)(4) organizations to get around the limits on the 501(c)(3). As for the pastors, many of them have a "come get me" attitude.

The sister organization is the way to handle this, you are correct. I must admit that my practice is 100% clergy and I have never seen the "attitude" you are referring to. In fact, my experience has been just the opposite. Their questions seem to be what can I say, if anything, and stay out of trouble. I guess a different client base presents different issues and attitudes.

Mike

[JON]

501(c)(3)

Once a church is established it does not have any reporting requirements governed by 501(c) (3). Churchs can be punished and taxable if their works are outside the guidelines of the extablished church. I think now Churchs can call almost any activity from religious to educational as contributions for their purposes. If they are outside the church's purpose it is usually member(s) who bring that forward.