This new executive order is opening the door for the tyranny of organized religion to influence politics more than they already do. This isn't about religious liberty, it's about money in politics. It's more than a little disingenuous to claim support for campaign finance reform and then support this new rule, by decree, which is becoming more problematic every day. The Johnson amendment is an absolute must to keep the seventeenth century puritans out of government. If the church wants so much say, then they must be taxed.
Tax the church
- Thread starter CaptainObvious
- Start date
Thank you for calling this to our attention. Be it noted that inroads have already been made that weaken the Johnson Amendment. One of these has been the establishment of the 501(c)(4) category, which has been used extensively by Republican Political Action Committees, in violation of official IRS guidelines, to shield political donors names from public disclosure and ostensively make contributions deductible.
This should be strictly prohibited under the Johnson amendment. But newer legislation since Johnson, heavy lobbying and political pressure has resulted in overly generous IRS rules that allow certain types of political activity under 501(c)(4). The IRS has used a rule interpretation that allows political activity so long as it does not exceed 50% of the "Social Welfare Agency's" expenditures. Virtually 100% of PACs, liberal and conservative, operating under 501(c)(4) were found to have violated this rule, once their returns were filed and their actual expenditures known.
These PACs were found to have misrepresented their projected expenditures in their requests for 501(c)(4) status made well in advance of filing. Because of this misrepresentation, the IRS granted these agencies 501(c)(4) status. Consequently, the PACs misrepresented themselves to political donors as legitimate 501(c)(4) Social Welfare Agencies; thus telling their donors that they would receive a tax deduction and protection from having their names revealed. When the IRS attempted to crack down on these bogus Social Welfare Agencies, discovered upon examination of actual 501(c)(4) returns, they (the IRS) were subjected to verbal abuse, intimidation, and political pressure from House Republicans.
This should be strictly prohibited under the Johnson amendment. But newer legislation since Johnson, heavy lobbying and political pressure has resulted in overly generous IRS rules that allow certain types of political activity under 501(c)(4). The IRS has used a rule interpretation that allows political activity so long as it does not exceed 50% of the "Social Welfare Agency's" expenditures. Virtually 100% of PACs, liberal and conservative, operating under 501(c)(4) were found to have violated this rule, once their returns were filed and their actual expenditures known.
These PACs were found to have misrepresented their projected expenditures in their requests for 501(c)(4) status made well in advance of filing. Because of this misrepresentation, the IRS granted these agencies 501(c)(4) status. Consequently, the PACs misrepresented themselves to political donors as legitimate 501(c)(4) Social Welfare Agencies; thus telling their donors that they would receive a tax deduction and protection from having their names revealed. When the IRS attempted to crack down on these bogus Social Welfare Agencies, discovered upon examination of actual 501(c)(4) returns, they (the IRS) were subjected to verbal abuse, intimidation, and political pressure from House Republicans.
Last edited:
The rich are just throwing a bone to the stupid.
The Johnson amendment has never really been enforced to the full extent that it could be. Now King Trump wants to abolish it completely under the guise of religious liberty. Nonsense. This move is about money and political influence. It also reeks with hypocrisy. As I listened to Dear Leader give his pandering diatribe in the Rose Garden today I was astonished to hear him say he was happy to see people, Ben Carson to be specific, just thumb their nose at this law. Really Donald? Now this is the same guy to decry the Mayors and judges who do the same with immigration law. So I guess we really do get to choose which laws we'll obey and which ones we won't. Check that. It's not we, it is those in power that get to choose. Hey, I believe in some kind of greater power in the universe. Can't quite put my finger on it, but cannot buy it's just all random chance either. That should be enough for tax exempt status. Where do I file? We keep going down a bad path in this country and this let it be written, let it be done, rule by the emperor's decree is bullshit. It was b.s. when Obama did it, and it's b.s. now.
And, as we have learned, money is no protection against stupidity. The rich may in some instances just be throwing a bone to their fellow moguls.
Last edited:
I have to disagree on the grounds that this was a matter of simple fairness. The IRS never enforced this rule against anyone but Evangelical churches. All those democrats preaching from the pulpits of big black churches? If that isn't political activity, I don't know what is. Somehow the black tax reparations theory must have kicked in, the same one that seems to excuse prominent black officeholders(dems only of course) from paying income taxes.
Conservative churches constantly had the IRS' sword of damacles hanging over them. Recently a large group of them have begun publicly defying the ban. They wanted to have a lawsuit with the IRS, but the IRS wanted no part of it and ignored them.
Even if applied evenhandedly, it is questionable if the Johnson amendment is constitutional. Do we really want the IRS deciding what is religion and what isn't? Because if they are, I would like them to start with the activities of various mosques. Since Islam itself is a form of government, their activities are heavily political.
Conservative churches constantly had the IRS' sword of damacles hanging over them. Recently a large group of them have begun publicly defying the ban. They wanted to have a lawsuit with the IRS, but the IRS wanted no part of it and ignored them.
Even if applied evenhandedly, it is questionable if the Johnson amendment is constitutional. Do we really want the IRS deciding what is religion and what isn't? Because if they are, I would like them to start with the activities of various mosques. Since Islam itself is a form of government, their activities are heavily political.
We should not have the IRS deciding which religious organization should be taxed, which is why I propose they all be taxed equally. The church has made their own bed. It is they who have decided to enter the realm of the body politic. Fine, but then they must lose they cherished tax exempt status. Is this really about freedom of speech, or is it about money? We're talking politicians here so it's about money. It's always about money. What they want is to be able to openly receive this money without any reprisal at all. The Founders expressly wanted to keep religion out of the government process. This new decree by Lord Trump puts them squarely and openly in the process and the Founders are rolling in their graves.
%%
If you want the gov to control churches ,Captain O, Russia+ Arabian nations usually do that; anyone in US is on Judeo- Christian foundation. That does not mean you have to be a Jew or Christian, or Jewish Christian , but foundations are important. And if you do move to Russia, they dont like capitalists much unless you are in the commie gov.And if you own a gun/guns , you ask them if you can keep your guns?? LOL
