UCC Explains Why Obama Speech Was Not Campaign Intervention

In an March 2 op-ed piece in the Hartford Courant, the United Church of Christ explained why Obama’s June speech to the 50th anniversary UCC General Synod did not constitute campaign intervention:

What do Sen. Barack Obama, commentator Bill Moyers, actress Lynn Redgrave, Nobel Prize-winning scientist Charles Townes and novelist Marilynne Robinson have in common? All are members of the United Church of Christ, and all spoke to the UCC General Synod last June in Hartford. Now the presence of one of those speakers, Sen. Obama, has resulted in the Internal Revenue Service investigating the tax-exempt status of the denomination.

So what is going on here? As a condition for tax exemption, the IRS expects nonprofits to abstain from endorsing candidates for office. This we accept, and this we did. The United Church of Christ bent over backward to ensure that we did not violate the regulations.

Our purpose in inviting Sen. Obama in the spring of 2006 — long before he was a candidate for the presidency — was to ask him to address the connection between his Christian faith and his public service, to speak to us of the challenges for people of faith in the public square today. And he did so with eloquence. As a prominent member of our church, his was a natural invitation, just as the others were.

The editorial goes on to explain what the Church did to avoid campaign intervention and why IRS investigations of houses of worship can have “chilling effects on the engagement of communities of faith with public officials.”  Here is a bold prediction:  The IRS will wag its finger and send a “don’t you dare do that again” letter to the UCC and all will be forgotten.  Though the Service will not admit it, the purpose of any such “investigation” is precisely to make houses of worship “chill out.”  The intended effect is achieved merely by the publicity, further enforcement action is always unnecessary.  We do this dance every four years!

Though I disagree with the writer’s sentiment, here is the full text of today’s letter to the editor in response to UCC’s op-ed:

The Rev. Davida Foy Crabtree laments that the Internal Revenue Service might be intruding on her free exercise of religion [Commentary, March 2, “IRS Investigation: A Test Of Church’s Faith?”].

Perhaps the Rev. Crabtree would be willing to abandon her church’s tax-exempt status in order to freely invite selected political candidates to speak before her congregation. She certainly has the freedom to do so. All she need do is pay taxes on the money her church collects. Surely if the Rev. Crabtree feels strongly about presenting political candidates to her flock, she would be willing to pay her share of taxes like any other for-profit organization that would support a candidacy.

However, should the Rev. Crabtree choose to enjoy the monetary privileges of her church’s tax-exempt status, her church, like any other nonprofit organization, must be willing to accept the provisions that come with the tax exemption, including that of not supporting the campaigns of political candidates.  The choice is hers, and she is free to choose.

dkj