A bad idea, rolling along

By K. Hollyn Hollman

Hollman Report
November-December 2003

Last Congress Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., proposed legislation to create a special right for houses of worship among nonprofit organizations. Under the so-called "Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act," houses of worship, despite receiving the favorable tax treatment offered under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, would be able to endorse or oppose political candidates in an election. Moreover, such entities could make some financial contributions to campaigns without risking their tax-exempt status.

Among the various flaws in the proposed legislation, opponents noted its conflict with recently passed bipartisan campaign finance reforms, its potential for creating political controversy within congregations and the negative impact electioneering would have on the integrity and independence of churches. Fortunately, reason prevailed and the bill failed by a vote of 178-239.

While there were several reasons for the failure, I like to think that one of the main reasons was that houses of worship, the ostensible beneficiaries of the bill, did not support it. A number of denominations actively opposed the measure, working in coalition to correct the misinformation being spread by the bill's proponents.

Unfortunately, defeat did not deter Rep. Jones and others determined to politicize the nation's pulpits. In January, they introduced the revised and renamed "Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act" (H.R. 235). Despite its simpler design, its half-hearted attempt to avoid the money issue, and the new moniker, the bill is still just a bad idea. Its sponsors continue to publicize misleading claims about the "need" for this legislation, saying that current law "muzzles" pastors from talking about moral issues, when in fact current law simply prohibits participation or intervention in a political campaign by tax-exempt organizations.

Moreover, they overstate the support the measure has received from religious entities. Specifically, they continuously publish the claim that the bill "is supported by all Americans across all faiths, regardless of their political or religious affiliations." A quick look at letters signed by religious entities, groups that actually represent houses of worship, discredits that claim. Other denominational organizations have conspicuously avoided endorsing the Jones bill. A more accurate claim about the bill is that several well-financed, communications-savvy religious right organizations, such as the American Center for Law and Justice, Focus on the Family, and Wall Builders are supporting the bill. With a glossy brochure and a website dedicated to promoting the measure, the proponents show no sign of retreating.

For those waiting to engage in this issue until the threat of passage seems more serious, the time to act is now. The number of co-sponsors of H.R. 235 is steadily growing, inching toward the number of those who voted for the measure in the last Congress. In a marked contrast to proposals that respond to the demands of the grass roots, this bill is being aggressively pushed from the top down as co-sponsors of the measure are targeting pastors to lobby for their support of the bill.

Wait a minute, you say; aren't Members supposed to do the work of the people, answering constituent demands? While that is the way the system usually works, this bill is demonstrating the opposite dynamic. A "Dear Pastor" letter from one of the bill's co-sponsors, enclosing a brochure and asking support for the bill is just a precursor of things to come if the bill passes. Members will have an open invitation and obvious political incentive to seek endorsements from congregations every election cycle.

It is crucial that ministers and church members who value autonomous houses of worship let Members of Congress know that H.R. 235 is not needed, not wanted and not worthy of their vote.