Politics from the pulpit

Barack Obama and his church are back in the news.

The United Church of Christ had until Thursday to answer Internal Revenue Service questions posed in February about Obama's speech to the UCC's national conference in June 2007.

Obama's appearance, the IRS stated in a letter to the UCC, might have violated federal law governing churches' tax-exempt status.

But Obama is hardly the only candidate or elected official to speak in a church or religious organization. Appearances at church services, in fact, have become almost a requisite part of political campaigns at all levels.

Where does the legal line fall? To what extent may tax-exempt churches urge political engagement or social activism? And what does the law prohibit?

Dave Daubert, pastor of Zion Lutheran Church in Elgin, saw lots of confusion among congregations on this very point when he served as a denomination executive.

"I'm not sure that a lot of government officials are even clear on where the line is," Daubert said. "There's quite a bit of room for interpretation."

Boiled to its essence, the law prohibits churches from "participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

Candidates are not to use church appearances to advance their candidacies. The law also bars tax-exempt churches from urging members to lobby legislators to back or oppose specific legislation.

Why such laws?

Because tax-exempt status is a large financial benefit: Churches draw contributions in part because donors may deduct their gifts on federal tax forms. In addition, churches pay no taxes.

"There's a lot of money flowing through these groups," said Rob Boston, assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a group that sometimes files complaints with the IRS on possible violations.

An IRS Web site offers 21 what-if situations aimed at helping tax-exempt organizations understand what is and is not permissible.

Some points are crystal clear: Clergy members are not, for instance, allowed to endorse a candidate from the pulpit, as a Las Vegas Pentecostal Temple Church of God in Christ pastor did when he told his congregation, just before the Nevada caucuses, that "if the polls were open today, I would cast my vote for this senator (Obama)."

But Daubert and others, including Michael McConnell, regional director of the American Friends Service Committee in Chicago, say churches often back away rather than risk falling on the wrong side of what they call vague regulations.

That dynamic was at work, Daubert said, when he recently rejected then-congressional candidate Bill Foster's interest in speaking to his congregation. Daubert said he would have liked to hear Foster address the congregation but concluded it would not be worth the potential hassle.

Some churches do take whatever risk is involved.

Dick Simpson, head of the University of Illinois at Chicago political science department, cited a long Chicago tradition of candidates speaking in church settings and particularly in black congregations.

"It happens all the time," Simpson said. "The advantage to politicians is that it allows them to give a speech to a captive audience that their campaign hasn't had to assemble."

Obama's situation is different, in that he spoke to an annual gathering of his own denomination, not to a particular congregation.

A letter of complaint to the IRS asserts that Obama gave a political speech. The letter writer, whose name the IRS redacted, cites several points, including this line in Obama's speech: "I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premiums."

That, the complainant said, violates a ban on candidates addressing a church in the role of a candidate.

"During his speech, on a couple of occasions, he slipped into candidate mode," said Boston. "But is that the UCC's fault?"

Indeed, UCC officials say they merely invited one of their own members -- before he even announced his candidacy -- to speak about his spiritual journey.

Simpson, for one, is unimpressed by the IRS probe.

"It looks like pretty much a witch hunt," he said. "It doesn't seem terribly out of the ordinary that a denomination would ask a senator to speak."

Church officials understand the rationale for the restrictions but sometimes find strict compliance difficult, on issues as well as on candidate appearances.

"In order to speak about things like hunger and conscientious objection, you have to be able to talk about legislation," said Cheryl Brumbaugh-Cayford, director of news services for the Elgin-based Church of the Brethren. "For example, in addressing hunger, we had to speak about the most recent farm bill. I think you do what you have to do and then live with the consequences."

Tracking IRS investigations is difficult because the agency declines to comment on specific cases. The IRS does report, though, that it investigated 100 of 237 complaints it received during the 2006 election cycle. The IRS found what it considered improper political activity in 26 cases, but so far it has not recommended that any of those organizations lose their tax-exempt status.

Boston said that only once in recent years has the IRS revoked a church's status, after a New York church placed a newspaper ad with the heading "Christian Beware" that warned readers against voting for Bill Clinton.

In that case, the church's minister could hardly claim ignorance of the law, telling Church & State magazine, "We did consider that we might (get in trouble with the IRS), but we decided to do it anyway."