OUR VIEWS | Time to lift speech shackles

When it comes to First Amendment rights, government should err on the side of more free speech, not less. Thus, members of Congress deserve credit for trying to repeal a regulation that allows special-interest groups to target churches for audits whenever activists disagree with a political comment made by a priest, pastor or church employee.

In 1954, then-Texas Sen. Lyndon Johnson amended the federal tax code to prohibit nonprofits and churches from engaging in activity that might be interpreted as supporting or opposing a political candidate, including simple verbal statements. Touted as a way to keep churches from directly supporting candidates, in practice the law often facilitates harassment of religious leaders and organizations for stating their views.

In 2017, Travis Weber, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council, noted, “Current IRS guidance describing in detail which activities are prohibited and which are not is extremely vague and hard to understand.” Churches, religious groups and faith leaders have long been active in political debates, landing on all sides of the political spectrum.

That makes compliance virtually impossible. “Even the IRS, charged with administering the law, provides 21 scenarios explaining it instead of being able to state clearly what the law is!” Weber wrote.

Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma City, is one of four authors of the Free Speech Fairness Act, which would repeal the speech prohibition, strengthen First Amendment rights and provide legal clarity. Even as the legislation expands freespeech rights, it maintains the prohibition against 501(c) (3) organizations contributing money directly to candidates or campaigns.

“The First Amendment right of free speech and right to practice any faith, or no faith, are foundational American values that must extend to everyone, whether they are a pastor, social worker, or any charity employee or volunteer,” Lankford says. “People who work for a nonprofit still have constitutional rights to assembly, free speech and free press.”

Churches, religious groups and faith leaders have long been active in political debates, landing on all sides of the political spectrum. The most famous examples are black churches that served as the organizational and inspirational center of the civil rights movement. But other religious entities have been vocal in debates over abortion, the death penalty, gay rights and the environment.

The preceding list validates complaints raised by the speech law's critics. Clearly, the church-speech prohibition has been enforced haphazardly, at best. And the participation of people of faith in political debates has been a net positive, not a negative.

A law that can't be easily obeyed or consistently enforced isn't worth keeping, and no one should have to surrender free-speech rights because of employment by a church. The old saying holds true: The best response to free speech you don't like is not regulation, but more free speech from competing viewpoints.