Legal Commentary

Thanks to Rick G. for taking my comments seriously enough to respond to, notwithstanding their obviously silly rhetoric.  First, let me commend to readers Rick's essay, which I would certainly count as among the more serious and thoughtful criticisms of existing political rules. 

One of Rick's central arguments in the essay is that IRS regulation of political activity itself corrupts religion by suggesting to the faithful that their religiously-inspired views should be "cocooned" in the private sphere and do not belong in public discourse.   Certainly some casual observers might come away with that impression.  But, as Justice O'Connor asks us all to do when we observe the state dance around the question of faith, I'd suggest we look at the whole context of the regulation.  There are two alternative implications of regulations that withhold  subsidies for politically active churches: Rick's thesis, and mine.  Mine is that, whatever the benefit of religious participation in politics, it carries harmful side-effects that outweigh those benefits. 

Or, putting this another way, both Rick and I worry that churches and other charities will abandon their efforts to "compete with the liberal state."  But I think that the immediate danger of corruption is a more substantial threat than the long-term, subtle, and disputable symbolism of withholding subsidies for politically active churches.      

In his post, Rick responds to this point by doubting that there will necessarily be large money rewards for charities that sign on to political platforms.  To be clear, not all the rewards that I think tempt charities are palpable.  Some of the rewards might be logrolling, or at least moving their own otherwise marginal agenda closer to the mainstream.  Examples here are obvious, but to reduce angry e-mails I'll leave them to readers to supply. 

Incidentally, I'll add that Lloyd's work is among the best out there, but I found the paper Rick linked to unpersuasive.  Ultimately, the argument is that so-called "internal" church communications should be protected from regulation under the First Amendment as essential to the continuing survival of the entity.  But I'm not sure I follow how this overcomes the "if you don't like the conditions, turn down the grant" response the Supreme Court wielded in the Yale military-recruiter-ban case.  The political participation rules do not threaten the internal cohesion of churches; they threaten the ability of churches to get tax benefits for their wealthier parishioners.  Also, to get practical: So, um, I'm a televangelist, and my congregation meets me in their own living rooms.  No limits on what I can say?  This is the proverbial exception that swallows the rule.

This is getting awfully close to First Amendment stuff, about which as "tax guy" I officially know nothing (other than what we they excerpt in the Nonprofits casebook).  So I'll leave it there.  But thanks again, Rick, for a fine post.