The Forbidden Political Dictionary Complete and Unapproved

Have you ever read The Devil’s Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce? When I was in my late teens I went through a stage where I was reading whatever I could get my hands on about witchcraft. Many girls go through this, probably because when you’re a teenager you feel like a witch—misunderstood, alienated, and persecuted. I added The Devil’s Dictionary to my small collection, bought only on the strength of the front cover which was red and featured tiny demons.

If you’ve read The Devil’s Dictionary you know that it is not a book about demonology or witchcraft. Instead, it’s a small dictionary that offers perverse, ironic definitions of a selection of terms. It translates what people say into what they mean. For example, Bierce defined “lawyer” as “one skilled in the circumvention of the law.” I was not disappointed in this little volume; I found it amusing and accurate. Even as an adolescent, I was cynical (as defined by Bierce, a cynic is “a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.”)

Many years have passed, and another slim volume with a red cover has been published, The Forbidden Political Dictionary - Complete and Unapproved. Again, it is a dictionary of terms, many of which did not exist when Ambrose Bierce wrote, with their true meanings. Written by John Clifton, The Forbidden Political Dictionary defines “lawyer” as “One versed in litigation and skilled in prevarication who represents clients and misrepresents facts in order to beat the law.” Like me, John Clifton is an admirer of Ambrose Bierce. I know this because I read the forward to his book, something he thinks no one will do.

Clifton is also a cynic, which he defines as “Perceptive person who sees falsity where others see truth and truth where others see falsity. Cynics are often deemed perverse, nasty souls, but are actually honest, nasty souls.” His definitions will strike a chord of familiarity (“interim appointment, n. Sale of a vacated office”) in those who are exposed to politics, even by accident.

Allowable Political Activities of Non-Profits

In the last few months there has been a lot of news coverage about IRS investigations into churches and charities regarding their political activities. One local church, Pasadena's All Saints Episcopal Church, is actively resisting IRS subpoenas regarding an anti-war/anti-Bush sermon given just a few days before the 2004 Presidential election. These recent occurrences demonstrate just how important it is for churches, charities and other non-profits to ensure that their political activities are within the limits of U.S. Tax Law, an issue this article addresses.

The most common form of organization for churches, charities and other non-profits is called a 501(c)(3), after the section of the tax law that grants their tax exempt status. Donations made to these groups, unlike those made to politicians or political groups, are deductible by the donor. Because donors to 501(c)(3)s are able to deduct their contribution, the organization is forbidden from "substantially" engaging in lobbying and absolutely prohibited from participating in any political campaign.

The difference between lobbying and a political campaign is that lobbying is an attempt to influence legislation and a political campaign elects a specific person to a governmental position. Here in California we have referendums or propositions, which are laws voted on by the public. These are considered legislation by the IRS and a 501(c)(3) can attempt to influence the outcome, as long as their efforts are not "substantial."

Unfortunately, the definition of "substantial" can be unclear. The IRS will examine the time devoted by staff & volunteers and the expenditures made in support of legislation. It is within the discretion of the IRS, however, to determine whether the contributions and efforts of the group were substantial.

Charities, other than religious institutions, can elect to use the expenditure test under IRC 501(h). This allows them to avoid the subjective IRS test and instead rely on their actual expenditures. The organization would then be allowed to expend up to 20% of the first $500,000 spent in a given year, with the allowable percentage decreasing up to a total of $1,000,000 spent on legislative campaigns. Though this does create some additional paperwork for the charities, because it lets charities know exactly how much they can spend, it might be wise for non-profits with substantial legislative activities to consider.

The prohibition against non-profit involvement in political campaigns, those in which a person is elected, is much stricter. Non-profits are completely prohibited from participating in these campaigns. Of course churches and charities can participate in election activities, such as voter registration drives or candidate forums, but they are absolutely prohibited from supporting any candidate.

If a non-profit does wish to hold a candidate forum, they need to ensure that all candidates are the opportunity to speak at the same or similar events, that no one from the organization expresses direct support of any candidate, and that no fundraising occurs. Alternately, candidates can speak at non-profits as non-candidates, i.e. because of their position in the community, current elected office, or other reason. In these situations, however, both the candidate and representatives of the non-profit are forbidden from mentioning the election and that the speaker is running for office.

Obviously, the regulation of non-profits can be complex. Hopefully this article has helped some community leaders understand exactly what churches and charities can and cannot do in connection with politics. If any detailed questions arise, the IRS website has good resources, or you can consult with a qualified attorney.