Subject: Re: [EL] FW: Iowa court election and church advocacy |
From: Lloyd Mayer |
Date: 11/3/2010, 1:07 PM |
To: Ellen Aprill <Ellen.Aprill@lls.edu>, Election Law <election-law@mailman.lls.edu> |
One last related note, which may put to the test how strongly
the IRS will pursue apparent violations of the political campaign intervention
ban by churches. With respect to the Iowa retention elections, USA
Today reported a few days ago that at least one pastor intended to urge his
congregation to vote against retention. So once the IRS has sorted out its
procedures for examining churches, it will be interested to see not only
whether the IRS begins audits of churches on this issue but also whether it starts
imposing penalties that go beyond mere warning letters, which have been its
primary reaction in such situations in recent years.
From: Ellen Aprill
[mailto:Ellen.Aprill@lls.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 2:41 PM
To: Lloyd Mayer; Election Law
Subject: RE: [EL] FW: Iowa court election and church advocacy
Lloyd and I can discuss this forever, but I at least promise not
to. In past recent election cycles, the IRS engaged in a Political
Activity Campaign Initiative. Here is an excerpt from a recent article of mine
describing its results in connection with churches:
Based on referrals, it examined
possible political activity among some 100 exempt organizations in each of the
2004, 2006, and 2008 election cycles. Results are available for 2004 and
2006. For both election cycles, the most common violations identified as
being those of the 40+ churches among those organizations selected for
examination were distribution of printed documents supporting candidates,
statements endorsing candidates during normal services, well-known individuals
endorsing a candidate at an official church function, candidates speaking at
official functions, and distributions of partisan voter guides.
Although the statutory prohibition by its
terms is absolute such that even a de minims amount of political campaign
intervention could result in loss of exemption, the IRS did not revoke
exemption in any of these cases. Neither did it impose the available
excise tax of 10% on political campaign intervention expenditures. It instead
issued written advisories because either the act of intervention was shown to
be an anomaly or because the organization corrected the intervention and took
steps to prevent future intervention.
I note that this year, however, there has been no announcement
of such an initiative, in part, we Exempt Organization lawyers believe, because
the IRS is still in the process of finalizing revised regulations that
establish its procedures for examining churches.
Ellen
From:
election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Lloyd Mayer
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 10:57 AM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] FW: Iowa court election and church advocacy
The applicable statutory language prohibits an organization that
is eligible to receive tax deductible charitable contributions, including a
church, from “participat[ing] in, or intervene[ing] in (including the
publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of
(or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” While the statute
does not define “public office,” that term has been interpreted by both the IRS
and the courts to included elected judicial positions (see Association of the
Bar of the City of New York v. Commissioner, 858 F.2d 876 (2d Cir.
1988)). While I am not aware of any IRS guidance or court rulings with
respect to retention elections for judges, I agree with Ellen that the best
reading of the existing guidance is that such elections are within the scope of
the prohibition.
As Doug notes, however, an individual pastor is free to support
or oppose candidates of any type as long as they do so without using church
resources or communication platforms. The key question with respect to
the Iowa election is therefore whether the pastors involved were only acting in
their individual capacities or whether instead they were speaking from the
pulpit, urging their congregations to vote no on these judges. I should
also note that the IRS has shown a reluctance to enforce the prohibition in the
pulpit context, at least based on the apparent lack of enforcement activity
with respect to the “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” initiative launched by the Alliance
Defense Fund in 2008 (see also my BU Law Review piece on this issue).
Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer
Associate Professor
Notre Dame Law School
P.O. Box 780
Notre Dame, IN 46556-0780
Phone: (574) 631-8057
Fax: (574) 631-4197
Web Bio:
http://law.nd.edu/faculty/lloyd-hitoshi-mayer
SSRN Author
Page: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=504775
From:
election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Doug Hess
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 10:07 AM
To: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: [EL] Iowa court election and church advocacy
Since I participate on this list in the digest format, this
may have already been raised, but is it possible that the churches that were
involved in the Iowa Supreme Court fight violated election laws? NOTE: the
process is not a race between candidates but only a confirmation yes/no
vote on retaining each judge. (See link below.) I assume that there are
legal ways for pastors to get involved, of course, but is this kind of vote
(not for a candidate so to speak, but to retain a judge) subject to
prohibitions on electioneering by some nonprofits, including churches (e.g.,
putting their resources into asking for a yes or no on a specific judge, or
using church time to raise money, etc.)?
Thanks.
NYT: "In Iowa, Voters Oust Judges Over Marriage
Issue"
-Doug