RELIGIOUS LEADERS SAY:
OPPOSE THE “HOUSES OF WORSHIP FREE SPEECH RESTORATION ACT" H.R. 235
Dear Representative,
We, the undersigned religious and denominational organizations, are writing
to urge you to oppose H.R. 235, “The Houses
of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act,” introduced by Rep. Walter Jones
(R-NC). As religious leaders, clergy and organizations representing people of
faith and good will, we believe the Jones bill would turn the inner
sanctuaries and pulpits of America’s houses of worship into partisan political
rally halls.
You may remember that Representative Jones offered a strikingly similar
bill in the 107th Congress, entitled the “Houses of Worship
Political Speech Protection Act” which failed overwhelmingly by a vote of 178-239
under “suspension of the rules” on October 2, 2002. Though H.R. 235
represents a modified version of that legislation, there remain significant
concerns about its implications for both our nation’s houses of worship and
the integrity of our political process.
As H.R. 235 may be considered by the full House in the coming weeks,
we wanted to make you aware of our continued concerns and opposition to this
legislation.
Current federal law states that houses of worship, like other 501(c)(3)
organizations, cannot legally engage in partisan political activities and
retain their tax-exempt status. This provision of federal law has served as a
valuable safeguard for the integrity of both
religious institutions and the political process. H.R. 235 would lift these
important safeguards, and allow houses of worship to keep their tax-exempt
contributions while endorsing their favored political candidates.
Religious leaders, denominational offices and faith-based organizations
oppose H.R. 235 for many ethical reasons:
Current law upholds the integrity of houses of worship. Churches,
synagogues, temples and mosques should not be used as political headquarters
or as a means of partisan fundraising for political activities. Tying houses
of worship to partisan activity demeans the institutions from which so many
believers expect unimpeachable decency.
This bill is unwanted and unneeded by America's clergy. In a
Gallup-Interfaith Alliance Foundation poll, a full 77% of clergy were
opposed to their fellow clergy endorsing political candidates. Another poll
conducted by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and The Pew
Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 70% of Americans feel that
houses of worship should not come out in favor of one candidate over another
during political elections.
The bill is predicated on false assumptions about existing law. Supporters
of these bills have argued that their enactment is necessary to allow
religious leaders to speak out on issues of interest to their congregations. The
reality is that religious leaders have an absolute right to use their pulpit
to address the moral issues of the day.
The only activities tax-exempt houses of worship may not engage in are the
endorsement or opposition of political candidates, or the use of their
tax-exempt donations to further partisan campaigns. Current law simply
limits groups from being both a tax-exempt ministry and a partisan
political entity. For a complete guide on this issue, we urge your staff
to consult “Politics and the Pulpit: A Guide to the Internal Revenue Code
Restrictions on the Political Activity of Religious Organizations,” published
by the non-partisan Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (http://pewforum.org/publications/reports/IRCbrochureBIG.pdf)
This bill runs contrary to the spirit of the recently passed
Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. Despite claiming otherwise,
H.R. 235 continues to have campaign finance implications that run contrary to
the spirit of the recently passed Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of
2002. In particular, H.R. 235 would permit considerable expenditures of
tax-deductible funds to publicize endorsement-sermons and other
election-related presentations made during religious services or gatherings
through television, radio, and other media. In this respect, it contradicts
Congress's recent emphasis on reducing the influence of soft money on Federal
elections and requiring the disclosure of the sources of election
spending. For additional information on the campaign finance implications of
this legislation, we urge you to consult The Campaign and Media Legal Center’s
analysis on H.R. 235. (http://www.camlc.org/press-442.html)
For these reasons, we urge you to oppose H.R. 235 and any similar
legislation that seeks to alter the tax code as it pertains to houses of
worship.
Sincerely, rockhawk.com
