Nothing New About Pfleger Pflouting Tax Law

My posts about Mike "Snuffy" Pfleger's abuse of his church's tax status notwithstanding, this is not the first time this issue has been brought to light. Yet curiously, not only has the IRS stood by doing nothing, but this aspect of the story has been all but ignored by "conservative" news outlets and bloggers--even though a clear double standard is evidenced in two recent news stories involving evangelical churches in Florida and Kansas.

In 2003, The Washington Post reported on Pfleger inviting then Democrat presidential candidate Al Sharpton to address the St. Sabina congregation. In their account, the Chicago Sun Times revealed:

[A]rchdiocesan officials are concerned about whether having a political candidate speak from the pulpit might violate laws regarding not-for-profit organizations, such as churches.

They shouldn't have worried. It was a good day. Catholic Citizens of Illinois reported a $36,000 collection plate haul.

Sharpton wasn't the only political candidate given a spotlight. As commentator Nicholas Stix observed about Barack Obama's relationship with Pfleger's St. Sabina in 2004:

He believes, with all his heart, in the separation of church and state – except when he campaigns in black churches, in violation of that separation, and in violation of the tax code.

Then we have some revelations from the Chicago Sun Times, April 12, 2005:

Rev. Michael Pfleger of St. Sabina says his church's outlay of $2,500 to send parishioners to a dinner and $1,500 for a golf outing, both sponsored by the 17th Ward Democratic Organization, was not illegal. "The perception was that Saint Sabina is funding candidates and taking church donations to do so," Pfleger said in a letter to the Sun-Times. "Neither is true." But as BGA director Stewart notes: "You have to ask, 'Who were these events hosted by and where did the profits go?'"

Events like these are meant to raise political cash, and a church's contribution crosses the already murky divide between state and religion. It's one thing for a church group to join a street protest to encourage social change and quite another to pay for attendance at a dinner sponsored by a political group. The rules about this are clear.

The article even says "Attorney General Lisa Madigan acted promptly by sending out information to tax-exempt groups..." so continuing to ignore the law is evidently willful, as opposed to an innocent oversight.

And here's a little apparent quid pro quo as reported by The Chicago Tribune early last month:

One of those long-time supporters was Rev. Michael Pfleger, the politically active leader of St. Sabina Church. He gave Obama's campaign $1,500 between 1995 and 2001, including $200 in April 2001, about three months after Obama announced $225,000 in grants to St. Sabina programs.

Pfleger said he made those donations personally, not on behalf of the church or to win grants.

"At a time when less people vote than ever, I don't think pastors should be silent on politics," Pfleger said.

No, apparently not, and 150 times your personal contributions are not a bad return on investment, either. Somehow, that pesky "wall of separation" liberals are alway harping about when the church/state issue involves conservative values (like pro-life Catholicism?) has become as porous and unguarded as our border. And with a nod and a wink, the St. Sabina congregation is in Obama's and the Chicago Democrat Machine's pockets, Pfleger has plausible deniability, and life on the South Side goes on.