On Jan. 4, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) introduced H.R. 235, the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act of 2005. The bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow religious congregations to support or oppose candidates for public office and conduct partisan campaign activities without losing their tax-exempt status, as long as the activity takes place in the context of a religious service or gathering. While narrower than previous proposals, the bill still unfairly favors religious organizations over other nonprofits and allows tax-deductible contributions to support partisan activities. The bill is the latest in a series of attempts by Jones, who introduced the first version of the bill in June 2001 (The Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act or HOWPSPA). Congress has consistently rejected the proposal, which has been opposed by nonprofits, clergy and campaign finance reformers. Currently, tax law prohibits all religious, educational, charitable and other organizations exempt under section 501(C)(3) of the tax code from opposing or supporting candidates for office. H.R. 235 would change that for religious organizations. H.R. 235 is narrower than earlier versions of the bill in that it limits the type of activities permitted, but it is more expansive in that there is no ceiling on the number of activities that could be permitted. Under H.R. 235, the permitted campaign-related activities would have to occur in the Òcontent, preparation, or presentation of any homily, sermon, teaching, dialectic, or other presentation made during religious service or gatherings,Ó but any amount of these activities could be conducted provided they were part of the presentation at a religious gathering. However, religious organizations would be precluded from making campaign contributions or paying for advertisements in newspapers. Since this language would permit any activity that could be deemed part of a sermon or other presentation during a religious service, it allows for the express endorsement or opposition to a candidate for public office during a sermon. Religious leaders could request that contributions be made directly to the candidateÕs committee or other political organizations or even individual contributions of services to political campaigns. They could appeal to their congregations to vote for particular candidates. Compared to last yearÕs version the bill also narrows what the houses of worship can do outside of the service facilities. Under the Houses of Worship bill introduced in the 108th Congress, the church could reprint the sermon or minutes of the gathering and mail them to church members and the general public. In contrast, the Houses of Worship bill introduced in the 109th Congress restricts churches to expressing personal opinions so long as these views are not disseminated beyond the members and guests assembled together at the service. It specifically restricts mailings that result in more than an incremental cost to the organization and any electioneering communication as defined by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. However, FEC regulations have interpreted broadcasts by Section 501(C)(3) nonprofit corporations as exempt from the definition of Òelectioneering communication.Ó Current law protects the integrity of charitable nonprofits by preventing individuals from using tax-deductible contributions to avoid tax and legal restrictions that apply to political donations. It also prevents individuals from using charitable nonprofit organizations, which are, by definition, organized for public purposes, to advance their personal partisan political views. Supporters of the bill claim religious leaders are afraid to speak out on public issues. However, all 501(C)(3)s, including religious organizations, are allowed to engage in advocacy activities such as lobbying, public education campaigns, comment on public policy, and litigation. This regulation exists to protect the integrity of the election process. The 501(C)(3)s receive a tax-exemption because their work is educational, religious or charitable. It is an acknowledgment that the organization performs an activity that relieves some burden that would otherwise fall to federal, state, or local government. Taxpayers should not be required to fund the political activities of tax-exempt organizations. Additionally, tax-exemption is afforded to churches as a safeguard to preserve separation of church and state by preventing governments from using taxation to favor one religion over another. Allowing churches to advocate for one political party or another would blur the line between the separation of church and state. The money in the collection plate should not pay for bumper stickers or attack ads on behalf of a politician or political party.