Speech and Duty

The IRS, under direction from President Trump, recently revised its interpretation of a provision in the tax code (the Johnson Amendment) that prohibited religious institutions that have tax-exempt status from endorsing political candidates.

Now, the pastors, rabbis, imams, etc. of those churches, temples, mosques, etc. can say "I urge you to vote for this candidate."

As opposed to the nod-and-a-wink practice of inviting a candidate or a candidate's proxy to speak to the congregation without actually saying "we endorse John Joe Jimmy."

Like so many other efforts at restricting political speech, this prohibition didn't really work as intended. Prohibitors should take a lesson here, and realize that there is no divorcing money from politics no matter how hard they try.

The libertarian in me has always bristled at the tax favoritism granted to churches. As a matter of principle, disparate tax treatment is antithetical to liberty and limited government, and granting some institutions preferential treatment of this is not among the government’s enumerated powers, nor does it fulfill the “general welfare” edict.

As a practical matter, and as is always the case when it comes to Other People's Money, religion-based tax exemption is a playground for mischief. By some accounts, Scientology started out as a tax dodge in furtherance of a real estate empire. The borough of Queens in NY City is liberally sprinkled with private homes that have been declared as Korean churches, and I don't think I'm too far out of bounds guessing that some of these are simple tax dodges. Every so often, the news offers up some pastor or minister that got busted on tax evasion charges.

But, as with public education, that genie isn't getting put back in the bottle in my lifetime. So, as with public education, those who prioritize liberty are left with the question of what policies maximize liberty within the context of the "given" that this tax exemption isn't going away.

The question whether spiritual shepherds should endorse candidates arises from these musings. That same question also applies to those with a fiduciary responsibility to others. Does a CEO's duty to shareholders constrain his using his position to advocate for a particular candidate? Should he, in his role as CEO, endorse candidates he believes would be good for the company's sales or image or regulatory environment? Does his duty counter personal desires to endorse someone he likes when that endorsement might have an adverse effect on the company?

How about a popular musician? Bruce Springsteen isn't just a guy any more. He is a product upon whose success many other jobs are dependent. He employs dozens directly, dozens or hundreds more when touring, and many more rely on the continued popularity of his work. Make no mistake, I don't argue against his right to voice his opinions publicly. I will defend that right even when I vehemently disagree with the opinions themselves. The question is about whether he should ponder the impact of his voicing opinions on the people that stand to be directly impacted by backlash. Whether he bears any responsibility to the people he employs.

The boss of a company, whether it be small or large, public or private, is expected to offer some sort of hope of continuity to the people he employs. Hiring someone doesn't, barring specifics of a mutually-agreed-upon contract, guarantee future employment, but there is a sense of good will and responsible performance, from both boss and underling.

This brings me back to the question about churches and opinions. People go to church or temple or mosque or shrine for spiritual matters, and while some may also welcome thoughts on politics, not everyone does, and it's not the institution's core mission. While everyone attending is of a mind religiously, there is bound to be a spectrum of views on politics and candidates, and the people in charge voicing opinions on those are bound to be speaking to some who don't share them.

In short, while it may now be overtly permissible instead of "let's pretend we aren't," it does feel unseemly, and it is fraught with down sides.

The flip side of that is - does a pastor endorsing a candidate bring benefit to the church? It can, in that some politicians are going to be more "church-friendly" than others from a legal or taxation perspective. But, is it proper? Will a church endorsing John Joe Jimmy bring more parishioners through the doors or otherwise advance the church's goals and mission? Serving the flock is the core mission, but so is growing the flock in most cases.

And, if we want to be cynical - will the church's coffers grow fuller, by some fiscal miracle, if its priest endorses a candidate? Legal or not, "unseemly" seems appropriate... and inadequate.

Many speak of responsibilities that come with liberty. There is some risk in these discussions, because some are prone to forget that the conversation should be about the person's choices rather than government imposing control and limiting liberty. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have the conversation or point out that just because you are free to say something doesn't always mean you should.

Discretion - and duty to those who depend on you - should be part of the equation.