Trump recently announced at the National Prayer Breakfast Wednesday, that he intends to support religious freedom. Trump did announce one new domestic move with implications for religious freedom, vowing to eliminate a 1954 amendment to the tax code barring 501(c)3 tax-exempt religious organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Here is one quote: “I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment, and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution,” Trump said. “I will do that.”
In thinking about the guy who is putting up adds on TV, (which Comcast blocked, then agreed to air) and he must be thinking Sh__! He just paid thousands of dollars on adds to get info on the church so he can try to get their tax exempt status taken away. Now Trump is going to make it so Churches can get into politics. I was a bit sad as well. I don't think it is a good idea to let churches get involved in politics, hence separation of church and state.
Trump defending Religious freedom
Re: Trump defending Religious freedom
I don't believe this has anything to do with religion. I think that those wanting to take away the Johnson Amendment are merely using religious rhetoric to spin up the base.
The Johnson Amendment is applicable to 501(c)(3) organizations, which churches are affiliated with, but are also for charity, scientific, literary, and educational purposes. I am on the board of two 501(c)(3) organizations: one that raises money for the local library, and one that promotes the arts in the local area. I am also involved with a few other 501(c)(3) organizations in other capacities, and only a single one is a church.
Now, our organization for the library, for instance, gets heavily involved in local politics. We advocate for bonds for the local library and we push against groups that seek for greater levels of censorship of the public and school libraries. We are allowed to do so. We are _not_ allowed to endorse a candidate as a corporation. We had recently a candidate for local city council who was running and they said often that they wanted to defund portions of the library, we could not come out and say, "don't vote for this person". The city lawyer got involved and explained to us (and the other foundations for the library) exactly what the Johnson Amendment was.
Interestingly enough, the three people associated with Mormonism on the board (two believers and me, the ex-Mormon) knew exactly how the law worked because of what was read over the pulpit. That churches are free to take stances and campaign for an issue related to their faith, but are unable to campaign or donate to a specific political party or candidate. The church every two years makes DARN SURE that everyone knows it with their form letter read over the pulpit that distances themselves from every political party and candidate, even when ol' Mitt was running. Usually, when the take a stand on a specific issue, they make it know that they (a church) have the right to speak out, organize for, or donate to a specific issue.
We were the only ones who knew the rules, although none of us knew that these applied to all 501(c)(3) organizations.
Much of the misinformation that is going around on Facebook today, that I have seen at least, has been worry because there is this assumption that the Johnson Amendment means one of two things: (a) a church can lose its tax-exemption if it speaks out against homosexuality or (b) a church cannot take a stand on a single issue, period.
Now for my interpretation of President Trump's comments:
Some of the requirements for setting up a charitable non-profit are relatively low. Imagine I could set up a charity that gave some food to the poor, just enough to meet the absolute minimum charitable requirements, and then dumped the rest of the money into a candidates' campaign. The money raised would be tax free, the money donated to me would be deductible. I donated some money to the Hillary Clinton campaign, I could not deduct that money from my taxes, nor do I believe that one should be able to.
Most churches are charities, then run shoe-string budgets and give a lot to the community in both volunteerism and money. Some churches are scammers. In the same sense, most charities are wonderful and give a lot to the community in both volunteerism and money. Some charities are scammers (the fire fighter call centers come to mind, where people draw massive salaries and the overhead is around 95%). Because _most_ of these do good, and _most_ run on small budgets, then they should be exempt from tax law. We should be encouraging people to give to these organizations and tax deductions are a great mechanism.
A political campaign is _not_ a charity. It does not give to the poor, it does not give to scientific research, it is purely to get a person into office. My donation to Hillary Clinton was _not_ charity and I completely agree that my meager donation should _not_ be exempt from taxation.
I really believe they are trying to remove this amendment not so that priests can come out and say "You should vote for so-and-so" but to inject more money, tax-free, into the campaigns of politicians. They are merely jumping on the religion bandwagon to misinform the religious into believing their rights and privileges are under attack.
The Johnson Amendment is applicable to 501(c)(3) organizations, which churches are affiliated with, but are also for charity, scientific, literary, and educational purposes. I am on the board of two 501(c)(3) organizations: one that raises money for the local library, and one that promotes the arts in the local area. I am also involved with a few other 501(c)(3) organizations in other capacities, and only a single one is a church.
Now, our organization for the library, for instance, gets heavily involved in local politics. We advocate for bonds for the local library and we push against groups that seek for greater levels of censorship of the public and school libraries. We are allowed to do so. We are _not_ allowed to endorse a candidate as a corporation. We had recently a candidate for local city council who was running and they said often that they wanted to defund portions of the library, we could not come out and say, "don't vote for this person". The city lawyer got involved and explained to us (and the other foundations for the library) exactly what the Johnson Amendment was.
Interestingly enough, the three people associated with Mormonism on the board (two believers and me, the ex-Mormon) knew exactly how the law worked because of what was read over the pulpit. That churches are free to take stances and campaign for an issue related to their faith, but are unable to campaign or donate to a specific political party or candidate. The church every two years makes DARN SURE that everyone knows it with their form letter read over the pulpit that distances themselves from every political party and candidate, even when ol' Mitt was running. Usually, when the take a stand on a specific issue, they make it know that they (a church) have the right to speak out, organize for, or donate to a specific issue.
We were the only ones who knew the rules, although none of us knew that these applied to all 501(c)(3) organizations.
Much of the misinformation that is going around on Facebook today, that I have seen at least, has been worry because there is this assumption that the Johnson Amendment means one of two things: (a) a church can lose its tax-exemption if it speaks out against homosexuality or (b) a church cannot take a stand on a single issue, period.
Now for my interpretation of President Trump's comments:
Some of the requirements for setting up a charitable non-profit are relatively low. Imagine I could set up a charity that gave some food to the poor, just enough to meet the absolute minimum charitable requirements, and then dumped the rest of the money into a candidates' campaign. The money raised would be tax free, the money donated to me would be deductible. I donated some money to the Hillary Clinton campaign, I could not deduct that money from my taxes, nor do I believe that one should be able to.
Most churches are charities, then run shoe-string budgets and give a lot to the community in both volunteerism and money. Some churches are scammers. In the same sense, most charities are wonderful and give a lot to the community in both volunteerism and money. Some charities are scammers (the fire fighter call centers come to mind, where people draw massive salaries and the overhead is around 95%). Because _most_ of these do good, and _most_ run on small budgets, then they should be exempt from tax law. We should be encouraging people to give to these organizations and tax deductions are a great mechanism.
A political campaign is _not_ a charity. It does not give to the poor, it does not give to scientific research, it is purely to get a person into office. My donation to Hillary Clinton was _not_ charity and I completely agree that my meager donation should _not_ be exempt from taxation.
I really believe they are trying to remove this amendment not so that priests can come out and say "You should vote for so-and-so" but to inject more money, tax-free, into the campaigns of politicians. They are merely jumping on the religion bandwagon to misinform the religious into believing their rights and privileges are under attack.
Re: Trump defending Religious freedom
I'm hoping one of you are a tax lawyer who can give real detail. Mine is just from serving on the board and having a city tax lawyer explain it.
Re: Trump defending Religious freedom
The Johnson Amendment might actually not apply to the LDS church because the legal Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a 501c3 legal entity. It is a Corporation Sole but I'm confident that Kirton McConkie will be making certain that any new legal benefits to the usual 501c3 entity will also apply to the institutional LDS church.
Let's be clear that we don't know what a new set of rules will truly be in place for non-profit organizations (and not just non-prophet organizations). I would say there is a bright side if the Johnson Amendment is rescinded and gives broad new rules for tax exempt groups. This will panic American secularists, I'm sure. Any pretense of what a church espouses politically will be laid bare. Political diversity in top down hierarchies like the LDS church will be strained. All the Utah Democrats can look on horror if (or when) the LDS church openly backs an increasing number of Republican political ideas or candidates.
The other half of this potential upside will be when Americans on either side of the political spectrum are openly annoyed when a church fails to openly support or oppose some political issue that appears to be of a moral character. Church membership roles may get reshuffled. Will liberal Christians revolt when/if Trump tries to roll back Roe v. Wade and their church supports this action? How about when some military action is proposed and churches line up in either support or opposition to it? Will their parishioners fall in line?
I don't think the balance of power is going to shift all that dramatically. Some churches probably will become more politically active but it could be in either direction politically. Churches will just attract their allies, probably resulting in some newer churches with fewer members. Yes, there will probably be some scandal of using a church to funnel tax free money into some political campaign and that will be ridiculous when it occurs.
Let's be clear that we don't know what a new set of rules will truly be in place for non-profit organizations (and not just non-prophet organizations). I would say there is a bright side if the Johnson Amendment is rescinded and gives broad new rules for tax exempt groups. This will panic American secularists, I'm sure. Any pretense of what a church espouses politically will be laid bare. Political diversity in top down hierarchies like the LDS church will be strained. All the Utah Democrats can look on horror if (or when) the LDS church openly backs an increasing number of Republican political ideas or candidates.
The other half of this potential upside will be when Americans on either side of the political spectrum are openly annoyed when a church fails to openly support or oppose some political issue that appears to be of a moral character. Church membership roles may get reshuffled. Will liberal Christians revolt when/if Trump tries to roll back Roe v. Wade and their church supports this action? How about when some military action is proposed and churches line up in either support or opposition to it? Will their parishioners fall in line?
I don't think the balance of power is going to shift all that dramatically. Some churches probably will become more politically active but it could be in either direction politically. Churches will just attract their allies, probably resulting in some newer churches with fewer members. Yes, there will probably be some scandal of using a church to funnel tax free money into some political campaign and that will be ridiculous when it occurs.
Re: Trump defending Religious freedom
trump is not religious, so there is no way he is doing this for "religious freedom." What Trump is, is a business man. So his motives are going to be about how to donate tax free to the political candidate of your choice, so that politician can do what your business finds most profitable. A few years ago there was a report of organizations being started that passed as tax exempt because they claimed to be "fighting for some cause" as in, fighting to keep same sex marriage illegal because it is a moral issue. But this coalition of churches was donating tons of money to the politicians who supported their cause it they were doing it indirectly, so the money could not be tracked. This was illegal, but these organizations were getting away with it because they would collect money tax free, then donate it to another organization, who would then pass it along to Senator Slimebag's reelection campaign. The money would arrive without ever being taxed as a campaign contribution and it was too difficult to track the money being slid around under the table. Trump just wants to make this process easier and legal.