Your last question is interesting.

I think my overall point, and maybe I did not state this well enough, is that tax-exempt status sounds like a good thing and many people who support non-profits welcomed that aspect of tax law. In gaining a monetary benefit, they and we as Americans allowed the government to restrict our freedom of speech. It is incremental, but this freedom is being slowly abridged. There are many politicians who benefit from the polical silence of non-profits. Futhermore, the non-profit status has even been used in court to threaten certain institutions who hold views that the political estabishment finds threatening.

I think my issue, is you using the word unconstitutional. The statement:

“just because the government decided to give tax breaks to non-profits, it does not give government the right to then restrict their freedom of speech.”

IS WRONG UNDER CURRENT LAW – Unless, what you are trying to do is portray YOUR OPINION. If that is the case, so be it, but you should say it clearer.

If a church wants to promote a candidate then all they have to do is pay their taxes?

My point is this: just because the government decided to give tax breaks to non-profits, it does not give government the right to then restrict their freedom of speech. And I define the freedom of speech relatively narrowly as most of the founding fathers: the right to free speech is the right to free political speech.

We have too many deductions and targeted tax breaks in our tax code . . . most are not constitutional . . . but that is a whole ‘nother topic.

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state”

Thomas Jefferson 1802

Can’t it be argued that giving a tax preferred status to only CERTAIN religions (i.e. The IRS would have a problem with The Church of My Journey to Millions) orginiziations is actually supporting a religion?

Before you attack me, I am actually NOT a liberal at all, and in fact, got into many a fights in my Constitutional Law Class during Law school with people about how conservative I really am. I just don’t think this issue is black and white.

I am far from a Con Law Professor, but there is no speech that is “always be protected by law” but rather varying degrees of protection. Yes, Political is VERY VERY HIGH on the list of protected speech, but is BY NO MEANS always protected.

I am not sure where it is, but there is some sort of line where you should study con law before proclaiming it.

Churches are in no way compelled to take the tax-exempt status, nor are members prevented from engaging in campaign activities. Therefore there is no loss of freedom of speech.

One might argue that all campaign finance laws should be removed which would make this particular law pointless. Until and unless that happens, it just doesn’t make sense to allow churches to launder money for political campaigns and bypass the laws that try to limit the power of ultra-rich people and corporations to fix elections by pouring in even more money that they do now.

You are right about refusing a tax deduction, my point is not that the deduction is right or wrong . . . the injustice lies in the limiting of the freedom of speech. Our government has discovered an effective means of muzzling the opposition.

I have no particular interest in how Americans choose to practice their separation of church and state or freedom of religion. But, if it’s that important to you, you could forego the tax deduction and/or campaign for its removal.