On Sept. 27, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) introduced S.3957, the Religious Freedom Act of 2006, which would prevent houses of worship from losing their tax-exempt status if they speak out on "public issues, election contests, and pending legislation made in a theological or philosophical context." The bill was sparked by increased scrutiny on religious and charitable organizations as specific cases of possible partisan campaign intervention have come to light. Similar legislation has failed to pass in the House during this Congress. The bill aims to grant houses of worship permission to endorse candidates and engage in partisan political activity without risking their tax-exempt status. These organizations could also be allowed to make political contributions to candidates and political parties. With vague language and no definition for "election contests," S. 3957 could open the door to allow places of worship to engage in highly partisan activity. The bill also discriminates against non-religious 501(c)(3) organizations, which would still be prohibited from engaging in similar political activity. If the standards for 501(c)(3) organizations are changed, all 501(c)(3)s, including secular ones, should be granted the same speech rights. The legislation is similar in principle to the H.R. 235 Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, introduced in the House by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC). While the bill failed in the House, a renewed campaign for its passage, the "Houses of Worship Free Speech Petition," has been taken up by The American Center for Law and Justice. Religious organizations are among organizations exempt from federal income taxes by Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which also exempts charities, educations and scientific organizations. This is the only category of exempt organizations that receives tax-deductible contributions. Accordingly, it is the only category subject to a prohibition on partisan activity. The IRS notes "all 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." These organizations can not endorse any candidate, make campaign donations, or become involved in any other direct or indirect activity that may either help or harm a candidate, including fundraising. However, the IRS also says that "501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office." (For more information, read IRS Fact Sheet 2006-17 Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations.) Introducing the legislation on the Senate floor, Inhofe told his colleagues, "They [Americans] may be surprised to learn that the Federal Government of the United States of America, in the land of the free, does not allow religious leaders in houses of worship of all religious orders to say anything that might be construed as political in nature." Inhofe is mistaken when he asserts that religious leaders can not comment on the issues of the day. Inhofe's claim ignores the fact that such organizations are allowed to engage in issue advocacy. The law distinguishes between taking positions on issues and taking positions on candidates. Houses of worship are bound to be a haven for issue advocacy with so many public policy debates are tied to religious values. If the rules regarding religious organizations and charities participation in elections were more precise and the role these groups can positively play in public policy debates was better defined by law, perhaps places of worship would not feel they are denied their right to free speech. IRS enforcement of electioneering ban has raised serious questions about this lack of clear standards and even-handedness. These problems are reflected in the campaign to promote S. 3957.