On May 9, the Rev. Lisa Doege, of the First Unitarian Church of South Bend, IN, received a phone call from an Indiana State Representative, who warned her that a church program she had planned might threaten her church's tax-exempt status. Representative Luke Messner (R- Shelbyville) warned Doege against an upcoming program on Social Security, raising once more the issue of the role religious institutions have to play in the public sphere and in issue advocacy. Social Security has become a hot-button issue in South Bend, even eliciting a visit from President Bush. Republicans have put a great deal of effort into covering up Rep. Chris Chocola's (R-IN) history of vacillating on the phasing out of Social Security. In 2000, he advocated a complete phase-out then subsequently opposed a phase-out. Currently, he favors a partial phase-out. Doege had planned to hold a program on the evening of May 9 to discuss Social Security with her parishioners. Speaking that evening was Notre Dame Professor Teresa Ghilarducci, a pension policy expert and member of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation advisory board and the Board of Trustees of Indiana Public Employees. Messner, who is executive director of the Indiana Republican Party, claimed to have placed the call to Doege, because it was his understanding "that Ghilarducci was active in Democratic politics and contributed to the campaign of Joe Donnelly, who ran against Chocola in last year's election." He said that information on the church program had come from Chris Faulkner, Chairman of the St. Joseph County GOP. However, there was no indication that Ghilarducci would speak about any candidate or upcoming election during her talk on Social Security. Doege was "shaken" by the call, but the event went on as scheduled. "They called for a reason, and maybe that reason was to cut off free speech," she explained. Messner continues to question the nature of the church's Social Security talk. "I guess the question is whether her (Ghilarducci) speaking is a partisan activity. Some folks in the South Bend community believe it probably was." Messner is erroneously equating advocacy on an issue -- where a church or charity's right to state a point of view is protected by the First Amendment -- with advocacy on elections or the defeat of candidates, which is prohibited for 501(c)(3) organizations. 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 tax code. To be eligible for tax-exempt status a 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," according to the IRS. This is an absolute prohibition, and violation of this regulation can result in a nonprofits loss of its tax-exempt status. However, churches can address public policy concerns, ranging from abortion, gay rights and gun control to poverty, civil rights and the death penalty. They may support legislation pending in Congress or at the state level, or call for such legislation's defeat. They may also endorse or oppose ballot referenda. The discussion of public issues is a common practice in religious institutions -- and charities -- all over America. 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. This unequivocal provision of federal law has served as a valuable safeguard for the integrity of both religious institutions and the political process.