The administration, along with the Republican Party, are increasingly looking at faith-based activities in political terms. A September 15 Washington Post story reported that White House Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives officials have appeared with Republican candidates in close races in six states and at a GOP sponsored meeting of religious groups in South Carolina that encouraged them to apply for federal funds. At the same time, House leaders are pushing for a vote in the next few weeks on a bill that would allow religious congregations to endorse candidates and spend funds on campaigns. Supporters of the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act (H.R. 2357), have misrepresented the need for the bill and its impact by claiming current law prevents religious leaders from speaking out on issues of public concern. But, as Steve Miller, Exempt Organizations Director at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), told the House Oversight Committee at a hearing last spring, current law does not prevent religious organizations from speaking on issues. In July the IRS published a guide for religious organizations that states the ban on partisan electioneering “is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of churches or religious organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy.” Supporters of H.R. 2357 fail to make the distinction between issues and candidates. H.R. 2357, sponsored by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), would exempt religious organizations from the prohibition on partisan intervention in candidate campaigns, if it is not a “substantial part” of their overall activities. There is no definition of what is “substantial”. Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) introduced the companion Senate bill, S. 2886, in August. Another House bill, H.R. 2931, sponsored by Rep. Phillip Crane (R-IL), proposes a “bright-line” definition that would allow religious organizations to spend up to 5% of their budget on electioneering, but no more than 20% on both lobbying and electioneering. Non-cost items, including volunteer efforts, would not count toward the total, and could be unlimited. See our summary of the bills. Jones, the Christian Coalition and other supporters of these bills claim they will not open the door to campaign expenditures by religious organizations because of this year’s new campaign finance reform legislation. But while any corporate body, including religious congregations, is prohibited from contributing directly to federal elections, there are many ways, including creation of a PAC, that funds could be spent on campaign activity or donated directly to federal candidates. In addition, federal campaign finance reform only applies to federal elections, leaving open the possibility of donations to state and local candidates. See our Fact Sheet on Church Electioneering. The religious community is clearly divided on the need for this legislation. The National Council of Churches has opposed it, as have most major denominations. The Christian Coalition is pushing hard for it, and is expected to highlight votes on the bill in their voter guides this fall. A Gallup poll conducted in August showed that 68% of the respondents, people of faith and clergy, do not believe congregations should be endorsing political candidates. See OMB Watch comments to the House Subcommittee on Oversight.