Just before news of September 11th's tragic events reached Capitol Hill Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) held a news conference to promote HR 2357, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act. It would allow religious congregations to support or oppose candidates for office without losing their tax exemption or ability to receive deductible contributions, as long as election related efforts do not amount to a substantial portion of their overall activities. The bill would not extend this expansion of advocacy rights to non-religious 501(c)(3) organizations. It has 56 co-sponsors. Ten days later Delay, Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-TX) and Represntative Phil Crane (R-IL) introduced a similar bill, HR 2931, which would allows congregations to spend up to 5% of their funds on partisan electioneering, and up to 20% of their funds on legislative lobbying. Called the "Bright- Line Act of 2001" the bill incorporates the definition of legislative lobbying used by 501(c)(3) organizations that use the expenditure test to measure their lobbying. (Currently religious organizations are not eligible to elect the expenditure test, since at the time the test was adopted they asked not be included.) This bill would also apply to 501(c)(3) affiliates of congregations. The Bright-Line Act has a more generous formula for determining allowable lobbying expenditures by congregations than the sliding scale that is used by non-religious 501(c)(3)s. Current law only allows non-religious 501(c)(3) organizations to spend 20% of their first $500,000 on lobbying, with smaller percentages applying to the remaining portion of their budget. They also must deduct fundraising and capital expenses from their revenues before making their calculations. HR 2931 would allow religious congregations to include the fundraising and capital costs in their calculation. The Bright-Line Act does not define what constitutes participation in political campaigns, merely limiting spending to 5% a year. Current IRS rules defining partisan electioneering are not clearly set out in regulations, which could lead to significant problems distinguishing between "electioneering" and the nonpartisan voter education and get out the vote activity currently allowed. If the definition of "electioneering" under federal election law were to be used, only spending that involved a plain "vote for" or "vote against" statement would be included in the 5%. This in turn could lead to unlimited spending on issue advocacy that promotes or attacks candidates without mentioning names and would not be counted toward the 5% ceiling. The consequence of all these bills would be to make campaign contributions funneled through the congregation or 501(c)(3) fully tax deductible, creating an enormous loophole for soft money. Even though HR 2357 and 2931 would limit the loophole to religious congregations, the potential for abuse is enormous. The problem is further complicated by the fact that religious organizations do not have to file for recognition of tax-exempt status or file financial disclosure forms with the IRS (Form 990). These bills represent growing Republican interest in expanding the role of religious organizations in the election process. After HR 2357 was introduced in June Rep. Jones spoke on "Jay Sekulow Live" , a radio program sponsored by the chief attorney for Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). Jones told the audience that he hoped hearings on the bill would be held in September, and that the law is needed to allow preachers to "speak their mind and heart" from the pulpit. In January Rep. Jones introduced HR 355, the Nonprofit Political Speech Protection Act, co- sponsored by Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN), which would allow all 501(c)(3) organizations to participate in partisan politics as an insubstantial part of their activities. The bill proposed amending Section 501(h), which contains an expenditure test for measuring legislative lobbying by 501(c)(3)s, to apply a similar test to measure an organization? s partisan electioneering activities. However, the bill did not move, and in June Jones introduced the bill limiting the extension to religious organizations. The new bill does not contain the language extending the expenditure test to partisan electioneering. In July a more limited bill, HR 2464, was introduced by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX). It would make direct contributions to federal candidates (defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act) deductible up to $100 for individuals and $200 for couples. It would not change the prohibition on 501(c)(3) partisan electioneering, which has been in effect since 1954. At the September 11 press conference Rep. Delay said the partisan electioneering ban "stifles vital speech" by religious leaders. However, by permitting deductible contributions to be used for electioneering purposes, the bill would go far beyond allowing clergy members to make endorsements from the pulpit. Congregations would also be free to run media campaigns, distribute voter guides, operate phone banks, distribute campaign materials and conduct get out the vote campaigns, all designed to support or oppose specific candidates or political parties. Some religious organizations have argued that the ban on partisan electioneering interferes with their religious freedom. However, the courts have rejected this argument, most recently in the case Branch Ministries v. IRS. In that case the Circuit Court for the District of Colombia held that the electioneering prohibition does not substantially burden free exercise of religion, and that alternate means are available for members to engage in political activity. For example, members of a congregation can form a political action committee, or the congregation could form a related 501(c)(4) social welfare organization that could in turn have a separate fund for partisan political work. The bills introduced to allow political expenditures by congregations go beyond what would be needed to allow political speech from the pulpit. Statements made during a sermon do not have direct costs. But congregations would be free to spend funds on voter guides and scorecards, phone banks, media ads and other campaign related activitites. And since political electioneering is not clearly defined, much more money could be spent on sham issue advocacy that is intended to influence elections