Over the weekend a good handful of clergymen endorsed John McCain, despite IRS rules that put them at risk of their churches losing tax exempt status. This was done to deliberately challenge the constitutionality of the law, so if the IRS goes forward and attempts to impose taxes on them, then a challenge could end up in the Supreme Court. The purpose of the initiative was to ensure that pastors could speak freely without fearing reprisal (which assumes that paying tazes is punishment).
The rule, as Stanley Fisk explains, has a peculiarly secular--Texan in fact--history. It was driven by Lyndon Johnson who wanted to punish his opponents:
The story goes that when he was running for re-election to the Senate in 1954, Lyndon Johnson was opposed by a couple of non-profits that urged voters to reject him and his radical communist ideas. (And you thought things were crazy today.) In response, Johnson had new language inserted into the section of the IRS code, which defines a tax exempt entity. His addendum declared that an exempt organization “does not participate in or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”
He tells us that in order to push the issue, the pastors sent copies of their sermons to the IRS, and a bill has been introduced into Congress to repeal Johnson's amendment.
Fish's argument is worth discussing because he reminds us that at the center of this issue is a dispute about what "religious exercise" means. Is it a purely private affair, or does it require involvement in human affairs?
We'll go over this in class.
