> Sounds fair but why can't these things just be a not for profit?

They are. There is no difference tax-wise for a non-profit and church.

>They are. There is no difference tax-wise for a non-profit and church.

While both churches and non-profits don't pay tax, they are treated differently. Secular non-profits have to account for the money coming in and out of the organization, while churches don't have to account for the donations or expenses.

Afaik churches in the US doesn't even have to report anything, so there's no way to know where the money is from and what they are being used for. That's a pretty big difference

Even a church ought to be accounting where is moneys are going from and to... I have no qualms with the government being able to inspect those records too.

To me, reporting makes sense. For an organisation as big as a church, employing a few accountants seems like value for money simply because then fraud will be deterred.

While they aren't required to report, many register voluntarily for fundraising and discounts. AmazonSmile, Kroger Community Rewards, and similar programs often outsource basic eligibility to GuideStar. GuideStar will not add you without proof of exempt determination by the IRS.

Alright, so all churches doing charity work now set up a non-for-profit. Problem solved?

AFAIK, the difference would pretty much be that they actually have (pretty loose) limits on what they can spend money on, and on endorsing electoral candidates - and they'd have to publish information about their finances.

If you argued that religion was not an intrinsic social benefit then you might start saying that some of what they do is not non-profit work. That could get interesting.

> AFAIK, the difference would pretty much be that they actually have (pretty loose) limits on what they can spend money on, and on endorsing electoral candidates - and they'd have to publish information about their finances.

I'm not from the US, so I 100% expect those things from churches already. These sound like completely reasonable demands I would have on any public institution.

Theoretically churches are already legally forbidden to endorse candidates but in practice this is effectively bypassed with the fiction that priests/pastors/etc can say they are sharing their personal opinion, not an official church position.

https://ffrf.org/outreach/item/14005-churches-and-political-...

I think it's because publicly funding this stuff is inefficient, and religion/spirituality seems to be the most effective motivator for sustained charitable work.