Freedom From Religion Foundation Sues IRS Over Political Activity By Churches, Religious Groups

[mallister]

eeeehhhh quotes malfunction, sorry.

[Callisto]

Maryland Representative Chris Van Hollen also jumping in with a suit of his own:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...wsuit/2680833/

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman filed suit against the Internal Revenue Service on Wednesday, seeking to overturn a 54-year-old rule that allows social welfare groups to engage in political activity.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., seeks to force the IRS to draft new rules requiring that the tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups comply with the section of the Internal Revenue Code for which they're named. That section requires such groups to be "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare."

"The law is clear. What do you want us to do, put an exclamation point after exclusively?" Van Hollen told reporters.

But since 1959, the IRS has followed a rule that allowed 501(c)(4) groups to engage in political activity, as long as it wasn't their primary mission. That rule has been widely interpreted as allowing such tax-exempt groups to spend 49% of their money on politics — without disclosing where that money came from.

After the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case paved the way for unlimited corporate and union spending to elect or defeat political candidates, political spending from 501(c)(4) groups has tripled, from $83 million in 2008 to $256 million in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Washington, also comes amid a growing debate about how the IRS oversees tax-exempt groups involved in political activity. In May, the agency admitted that it had wrongly held up applications from Tea Party groups beginning in 2010. Republicans say the groups were unfairly targeted based on their political beliefs; Democrats say the IRS simply took an unfortunate shortcut in trying to resolve the complicated legal issues surrounding political activities by tax-exempt groups.

But Van Hollen isn't happy with how the Obama administration has responded to the Tea Party affair. The lawsuit seeks to overturn a new "safe harbor" provision enacted by acting IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel. That provision allows groups whose activities are less than 40% political to have their tax-exempt applications fast-tracked, but Van Hollen argues that provision is arbitrary.

The Treasury Department would not comment on the lawsuit. But in a little-noticed planning document released this month, the government listed 324 policy areas it will re-examine in the coming year, including guidance "relating to measurement of an organization's primary activity and whether it is operated primarily for the promotion of social welfare, including guidance relating to political campaign intervention."

Van Hollen, the former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, filed the suit in his official capacity. He was joined by three groups that seek to limit money in politics: Democracy 21, Public Citizen and the Campaign Legal Center.

The American Center for Law and Justice, which represents 41 Tea Party groups suing the IRS over alleged political targeting, said the action Van Hollen seeks to force would "raise serious First Amendment issues."

"Political speech is protected by the First Amendment," chief counsel Jay Sekulow said. "Anonymous pamphleteering is as old as our country, and deserves just as much constitutional protection."

Van Hollen, he said, is in the wrong venue. "If he wants to change the code, he should do that through the legislative process," Sekulow said. "This would be a court way overstepping its bounds."

[BaneTheBrawler]

Good. Maybe someday congress will have the balls to pass a bill forcing all elections to be publicly funded.

[archibaldcrane]

Good. Maybe someday congress will have the balls to pass a bill forcing all elections to be publicly funded.

That would require a constitutional amendment, or at least a very different supreme court.

[BaneTheBrawler]

still starts in congress, though, right?

[archibaldcrane]

still starts in congress, though, right?

Amendments may be proposed by either:

• Two-thirds (supermajority) of both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress
• By a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at least 34) of the United States' 50 states

To become part of the Constitution, amendments must then be ratified either by approval of:

• The legislatures of three-fourths (at least 38) the states; or
• State ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states.

Yeah, usually.

[ronin sparthos]

Good. Maybe someday congress will have the balls to pass a bill forcing all elections to be publicly funded.

How would this even work?

How do you prevent campaigns from taking money under the table, how do you quantify how much each candidate is going to receive, how do you determine who can even get the money in the first place?

If the goal is to make the elections more fair then you'd have to completely remove any support a candidate could get from third parties or you'll just see more PAC type behavior where a 3rd party handles the bulk of the cash (collaborating with the campaign in secret) while the candidate appears to be dipping into only the cash they've been given to run for office.

[Outlaw]

Good. Maybe someday congress will have the balls to pass a bill forcing all elections to be publicly funded.

That would require a constitutional amendment, or at least a very different supreme court.

Tax dollars of the electorate going to a canidate who they are opposed to? That would go over well.

[archibaldcrane]

Tax dollars of the electorate going to a canidate who they are opposed to? That would go over well.

Happens in a lot of countries.

[falloutboy14]

I think one of the best things that could happen for this country is if politicians were held to the same standard that the NCAA holds college athletes. They have their yearly salary and everything beyond that is heavily scrutinized.

[Outlaw]

Happens in a lot of countries.

I know. In the US though I just think it would be a huge issue.

[SamanosukeShiva]

still starts in congress, though, right?

doesn't have to be, because in our case congress IS the problem.

as quoted above, you can propose a new amendment through national convention. Which you can do by rallying local legislator all over the country. Granted it's never been done since America's independence. we can do it again.

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

[Lucavi]

I'm pretty sure the religious politicians are doing the pastors' jobs for them. As said above, I have never heard of a case where a figurehead has announced to a congregation who to vote for.

I'm 100% positive I've heard the pastor of my parent's prominent church tell people to vote republican in the state elections due to republicans being anti-choice. "Something something bible says, something something Republicans following the word of God on this, something something."

[Jaybar]

^ Then that is a church they should avoid. I've got friends that go to several different churches to find the right one (I don't know how they do it, they are crazy Protestants). If their message isn't right, they move on. Sadly you will find people that will cling to political agenda churches which is a big no-no to contemporary church-goers (re: young adults).