An advisory commission of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability two weeks ago released recommendations for reforming the ban on electioneering by churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations. It ought to be up to the organizations themselves to decide whether to speak about candidates, the advisory group decided.

The Commission on Accountability and Policy for Religious Organizations is organized by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. Its report,Government Regulation of Political Speech by Religious and Other 501(c)(3) Organizations: Why the Status Quo Is Untenable and Proposed Solutions, is the second of two sets of recommendations the Commission prepared in response to concerns expressed by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). The first report Enhancing Accountability For The Religious and Broader Nonprofit Sector, was issued in December, 2012.

The Commission points out that the ban on election involvement by 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes a prohibition on endorsing or opposing candidates and on funding candidates and their campaigns, is vague and inconsistently enforced–and improperly suppresses political speech and the political views of religious leaders. If the ban was consistently enforced, it would be especially a problem for African-American churches which, as historically the central institutions of the community, have played and do play a major political role.

The solution, the Commission says, is not a more consistently enforced ban but rather modified rules that better respect religious and political freedom. It is right to bar 501(c)(3) organizations from expending their tax-privileged dollars on election campaigns.

But clergy (and the leaders of other religious and secular nonprofits) should be free to make political statements, including statements about political candidates, in the course of their usual activities (e.g., conducting worship services or offering web-based information about civil rights), as long as no significant expenditures are required. This change would allow clergy to speak not only about the moral consequences of government policies but also about the candidates who will support or oppose various policies. The organizations would not be free to engage in full-blown media campaigns about candidates for public office.

When is it wise–or essential–for a member of the clergy to speak directly in support or opposition to particular candidates? The Commission doesn’t offer advice about this. Rather, it simply proposes, and rightly so, that this is a decision that the religious organization and its supporting religious community is better able to make than the IRS.