On May 5, nine members of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in North Carolina were excommunicated by their pastor for voting for former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The pastor, Rev. Chan Chandler, allegedly told his congregants that voting for Kerry was against the tenets of the church. The pastor has since resigned from his position. There has been no information whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is looking into the allegations of wrong-doing, although Americans United for Separation of Church and State has requested an investigation. Congregants of the 100-member church stated that on Oct. 3, 2004, Chandler told his congregation, "If you vote for John Kerry, you need to repent or resign." Church members also told the media that prior to the election, Chandler frequently endorsed President Bush from the pulpit and attacked Kerry. Church members have said that Chandler continued to preach about electoral politics after Bush won re-election, culminating in a church gathering last week in which nine congregants were ousted. Reportedly, Chandler called a meeting of the deacons on May 2, a day after a heated discussion during a Sunday service about his continuing political statements. A number of congregants also attended. Some reported Chandler announced the church was going to become politically active and anyone who didn't like it could leave. At that point, nine congregants left the meeting. Other sources said about 20 members of the church voted out the nine members, who have retained a lawyer to look into the legality of their ouster. The controversy brings increased attention to the issue of political partisanship in religious organizations. Under current law, churches and religious organizations are exempt from federal income taxes under Section 510(c)(3) of the IRC. To be eligible for tax-exempt status the 501(c)(3) must not: "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." This is an absolute prohibition. Violation of the regulation can result in the loss of tax-exempt status for a nonprofit. Valerie Thornton, an IRS spokeswoman, could not comment on the East Waynesville case, but remarked, "in general if a church engages in partisan politics, it could put their tax-exempt status in jeopardy." In his resignation sermon, Chandler implied that his endorsement of Bush was due to his strong feelings on abortion. He could have advocated on the abortion issue without limit or sanction, since non-electoral advocacy, focused on issues, is always permissible. However, there is an important distinction between partisan political campaign activities and issue-oriented advocacy activities. Tax law allows 501(c)(3)s to engage in issue activities during an election season if it is part of ongoing work and related to the group's mission. But these activities should not be increased or timed in order to influence the outcome of an election. By crossing the line into partisan electoral politics, Chandler has placed the tax-exempt status of his church in jeopardy. The prohibition on campaign intervention has brought 501(c)(3) organizations under increasing scrutiny. In a recent letter to Congress, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson reported that the IRS has seen an increase in the political activity of tax-exempt organizations during the last election. "Each election cycle we become involved with significant allegations of wrongdoing and this problem shows no indication of abating. In 2002, a midterm election year, our records indicate that we received approximately 70 complaints alleging campaign activity by charities. In 2004, a presidential election year, that number was over 200." The current prohibition on partisan activity protects the integrity of charitable nonprofits by preventing individuals from using tax-deductible contributions to avoid campaign finance laws. It also prevents individuals from using charitable nonprofit organizations, which by definition are organized for public purposes, to advance their personal partisan political views. Some members of Congress would like to open up religious organizations to campaign contributions and activity. Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) has introduced a bill, H.R. 235, The Houses of Worship Restoration Act, that allow houses of worship to engage in political campaigns in support of or in opposition to candidates for public office. As demonstrated by the East Waynesville case, this can lead to problems. Because of partisan politics, nine people were discriminated against because of their political beliefs. On a larger scale, mixing religion and partisan politics could lead to religious divisiveness. Under the Jones legislation, a large church, or a number of churches working together, could form a political machine. Religious groups could select candidates and support their campaigns. This would inevitably allow the largest denomination in each community to dominate political life. Organizations classified as 501(c)(3) receive a tax exemption because their work is educational, religious or charitable, and benefits society as a whole. However, political parties and candidates could abuse the church's tax-exempt status and give generous sums of money to houses of worship, write off the donations as tax-deductible, then have the churches do political work on their behalf, essentially making churches part of a campaign money-laundering scheme. Additionally, allowing churches to engage in partisan politics results in undue preference for religious speech. The Jones legislation would give religious organizations the right to engage in activities that would remain prohibited for secular 501(c)(3) groups. Both types of groups receive tax-deductible donations, which costs the national treasury. Taxpayers should not be required to fund partisan activities.