Position Papers

Position Paper on Endorsements

Submitted by: Ingrid Mattson, Rabbi David Saperstein, Sayyid M. Sayeed, Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, Siva Subramanian, Steven Woolf

This position paper seeks to affirm strongly the ban on political endorsements by churches (and other non-profits), and by clergy in their professional capacities.  Anything that would allow political endorsements emanating from the pulpit and/or in regular communications of a church, poses grave risks to America’s religious communities.  The current statutory ban on intervention in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office is supported by a broad array of national denominations and has served to protect houses of worship in America from government regulation and from divisive partisan politics dividing the church communities. 

Relates to Issue 1

Posted by David Saperstein, Panel of Religious Sector Representatives on 8/2/2013 2:44:03 PM ET

Prohibition on Political Campaign for Faith Based Nonprofits to be Retained

On behalf of the Islamic Society of North America, the largest and the oldest organization of mosques, communities and faith based professional organizations in the US, and in alliance with The Jewish Federations of North America, we want to reaffirm that the current prohibition on political campaign intervention by charitable nonprofit (501(c)(3) organizations be retained as currently structured and as interpreted in the Internal Revenue Service. We believe that the current prohibition, which has been in existence for over 50 years, is in the best interests of both charitable organizations and their donors. It serves to create an important barrier between charitable contributions by donors and unwarranted political campaign activity by organizations who claim such deductible contributions.

Relates to Issue 1

Posted by Sayyid Syeed, Panel of Religious Sector Representatives on 7/16/2013 4:54:45 PM ET

Current prohibition of political campaign intervention

It is the unequivocal opinion of The Jewish Federations of North America that the current prohibition on political campaign intervention by charitable nonprofits (501(c)(3) organizations be retained as currently structured n the Internal Revenue Code and as interpreted in the Internal Revenue Service. We believe that the current prohibition, which has been existence for over 50 years, is in the best interest of both charitable organizations and their donor, as it serves to create an important barrier between charitable contributions by donors and unwarranted political campaign activity by organizations who claim such deductible contributions.

Relates to Issue 1

Posted by Steven Woolf Sr., Panel of Religious Sector Representatives on 7/11/2013 12:56:48 PM ET

Alliance Defending Freedom Position Paper

Should the current prohibition of political campaign intervention by 501(c)(3) organizations be relaxed or modified in some way to permit limited speech in support of or opposition to political candidates?

Answer:          The Johnson Amendment should be repealed to alleviate the constitutional violations it imposes on churches and non-profits.

Should the prohibition be replaced with a limitation similar to the existing lobbying restrictions?

Answer:          The Johnson Amendment should be repealed in its entirety.  It should not be converted to a limitation similar to the lobbying restriction.

If so, should churches be permitted to make an election to measure covered activities in dollars spent like other organizations may do pursuant to Section 501(h)?

            Answer:          No

Should the prohibition be retained but the terms “participate in” or “intervene in” be defined in terms of expenditures and electioneering communications per federal election law?

            Answer:          No

Relates to Issue 1

Posted by Erik Stanley, Panel of Legal Experts on 4/17/2013 11:38:24 AM ET

Preserving the Nonprofit-Public Social Compact

Question Presented: Should the current prohibition of political campaign intervention by 501(c)(3) organizations be relaxed or modified in some way to permit limited speech in support of or opposition to political candidates?

Response: On behalf of the National Council of Nonprofit, I write to express the strongly held view that no changes are warranted in the existing prohibition on political campaign intervention by charitable nonprofits (501(c)(3) organizations). The existing ban on political activity is in the best interest of individual nonprofits, the nonprofit community as a whole, and the people and communities we serve.

Discussion

The nonprofit sector is vital for democracy to be successful; the rights of the people to gather through nonprofits to speak freely about public policies must be preserved. From before the time our nation was formed through today, individuals have assembled in groups to advocate for the advancement of the issues and concerns of their times. As safe havens for people to gather to amplify their collective voices, nonprofits have a duty to stand up and speak out for the public good and promote a more just and equitable society. Nonprofits often provide a voice for those individuals and groups who are unable to speak for themselves. Likewise, nonprofits share the responsibility to promote greater engagement of the citizenry, open elections, and open government.

The National Council of Nonprofits works to create a culture in support of nonprofit advocacy and to maintain the advocacy rights of nonprofit organizations by promoting, supporting, and protecting nonprofit advocacy rights. Since the Council of Nonprofits began publishing a Public Policy Agenda, its Board of Directors has annually endorsed the position that the “integrity of charitable nonprofits” must be ensured “by supporting the tax-law ban on electioneering and partisan political activities.”

We have studied the question extensively and recognize that an organization does not have to wade into the political morass and take sides on candidates – positive or negative – in order to affect policies that have an impact on mission. Rather, the cult of the personality that focuses on the candidates and their political affiliations rather than their ideas, creates the very cynicism that the charitable nonprofit community is able to avoid. In our hyper-politicized society, the nonprofit community is, and should remain, the safe, neutral place where citizens can give, volunteer, and experience the services and missions free from ulterior motives.

An affirmative answer to the question presented to the Commission runs the very real risk that the public will come to see the charitable community as one more sharply divided group in our society, and identify individual organizations at Republican charities or Democratic charities. This development would undoubtedly diminish the ability of charitable nonprofits to serve as problem solvers in their communities, to innovate and experiment, and to provide the safe place that politics maintain. There already are too many instances in which politician try to punish charitable nonprofits as being too Republican- or Democratic-oriented; to open the floodgates to labeling and demagoguery will hurt the neutral communities and individuals that independent charitable nonprofits serve.

As we see it, the ban on political activities of nonprofits is vital to the promotion and expansion of nonprofit advocacy rights. It also is fundamental to the social compact between governments and charitable nonprofits. Charities, both faith-based and community-based, must earn their tax exemption every day. They do this by dedicating themselves to the public good, and by giving up profits, privacy (in the case of non-faith-based organizations), and politics in pursuit of their missions. Governments at the local, state, and federal levels are currently seeking to challenge or alter this social compact by extracting new revenues from tax-exempt organizations through various taxes, fees, and “voluntary” payments in lieu of taxes. The fact that charitable nonprofits do not engage in partisan electioneering is a key defense of the sector and a critical factor in public support of tax-exempt organizations in response to governmental challenges. The desire of some in the charitable nonprofit community to engage in partisan politicking will unmistakably come at the very significant cost of new and excessive diversion of revenues from nonprofit missions to government coffers.

For the foregoing reasons, we emphatically answer “no” to the question of whether the ban on partisan campaign intervention should be lifted or altered. Because our position is that no changes in the ban on political activities are warranted, we will not comment on alternatives that have been offered in the policy question presented by the Commission.

Relates to Issue 1

Posted by David L. Thompson, Panel of Nonprofit Sector Representatives on 3/29/2013 2:53:44 PM ET

BoardSource Position Paper - Prohibition of Policital Campaign Intervention

BoardSource fully supports the Commission on Accountability and Policy for Religious Organizations’ (“Commission”) effort to identify strategies to help nonprofit boards increase accountability as the governing body of their organizations. For 25 years, BoardSource has been active in educating nonprofit boards and helping to strengthen board leadership and governance throughout the nonprofit sector.  In this paper, we address Commission Issue #17 related to the prohibition of political campaign intervention by section 501(c)(3) organizations.

This paper presents the views of BoardSource regarding the prohibition on political campaign intervention and analyzes the impact of the prohibition on the nonprofit sector.  We do not address the constitutionality of the provision, but will focus solely on the impact of the prohibition on the sector and the impact that eliminating or modifying the prohibition would have on the nonprofit sector.

BoardSource recommends that the Commission keep the prohibition in place because the prohibition is vital to maintaining the public trust and to ensuring that section 501(c)(3) organizations are providing a public benefit, thus entitling them to receive tax benefits.  This reciprocity must be maintained, so the Commission should keep the prohibition against political campaign intervention for all section 501(c)(3) organizations.  In addition, because there is a fundamental distinction between lobbying and electioneering, the prohibition should not be altered to match the current restriction placed on lobbying.  Lastly, in order to ease the burden of enforcement and the uncertainty as to what constitutes a violation, there should be further definition of what establishes “participation” or “intervention,” but they should not be defined in terms of expenditures and electioneering communications.

Relates to Issue 1

Posted by Anne Wallestad, Panel of Nonprofit Sector Representatives on 3/29/2013 11:41:42 AM ET

CLERGY CAMPAIGN SPEECH: WHEN STATE MEETS CHURCH

CLERGY CAMPAIGN SPEECH: WHEN STATE MEETS CHURCH

by Charles O. Morgan, Jr., attorney, Panel of Legal Experts

March 13, 2013

            This position paper proposes that Congress allow churches the right to limited lobbying, as if a 501(h) type election were made, without requiring churches to file Form 5768.  

            The paper further proposes that clergy should be allowed to speak freely on political issues during regular church services, similar to the proposal in the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act of 2005, that failed to pass the House.

            The paper also considers the effect of allowing churches to make a 501(h)-type election to allow support for or opposition to political candidates.  To require churches to file Form 5768 in order to speak out on political matters would not be feasible or practical.    Difficulties would lie in the IRS identifying churches, forcing churches to register, quantifying offending speech, and enforcing unauthorized politicking, and further, it is submitted that this pursuit of church violators would not be economically feasible.

Relates to Issue 1

Posted by Charles O. Morgan Jr., Panel of Legal Experts on 3/13/2013 3:27:32 PM ET

Political Campaign Intervention

(1) The prohibition on intervention in political campaigns imposes a substantial burden on religious organizations in certain circumstances, presumptively violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and hybrid constitutional rights of free speech and free exercise of religion. (2) However, to alleviate such a burden solely for houses of worship or other religious organizations raises significant risks of invalidation under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Thus it is safer to relax the prohibition in religion-neutral terms for all 501(c)(3) organizations. (3) The clearest, most workable religion-neutral proposal would be to allow all 501(c)(3) organizations to devote up to a reasonable fixed percent of their revenues to campaign interventions. Among proposals to relax the prohibition only for religious organizations, the least risky in constitutional terms would be to permit statements or acts by a house of worship’s clergy to members in a regular worship service or meeting.

Relates to Issue 1

Posted by Thomas Berg, Panel of Legal Experts on 1/17/2012 9:36:48 AM ET

Poltical Speech Restrictions Should be Repealed or Amended

Restrictions on 501(c)(3) organizations should be repealed to allow churches and non-profits to engage in political campaigning. At the very least, churches and non-profits should be permitted to engage in campaign speech, so long as such speech is not a substantial part of the 501(c)(3)’s activities. Campaign activities include carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to intervene in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. Campaign restrictions on 501(c)(3) organizations are contrary to the purpose of the First Amendment, chill the speech of those leading the organizations, lack substantive effects on churches, and are largely unenforceable.

Relates to Issue 1

Posted by Mathew Staver, Panel of Legal Experts on 1/12/2012 5:57:25 PM ET