One of the boundaries being challenged is that which prohibits religious groups from supporting political candidates. As legally recognized institutions, religious groups are subject to tax laws, and most are registered as non-profit institutions--classified 501(c)(3) so you can write off your donation to your church from your taxes. If a religious group campaigns on behalf of a candidate, then its tax-exempt status is jeopardized. Losing tax exempt status is a BIG deal, so a religious group would not want to lose it. The economic logic behind wanting tax-exempt status is straightforward. Tax-exempt status decreases costs (churches do not have to pay taxes on their income), and because in the U.S. the government does not financially subsidize religious groups' primary activities, tax-exempt status allows for larger financial donations (the cost of contributing is lower to taxpayers because it is a tax write off). In short, tax-exempt status greatly improves a religious group's ability to provide religious goods and services in the American religious market. For more details on what is prohibited and why see this excellent Guide to the IRS Regulations compiled together by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
As described in this Pew Forum article, religious leaders are challenging the law that prohibits their involvement in campaigns. Yet, as the article states:
"While a strong majority of Americans support religion’s role in public life, a solid majority also expresses opposition to churches coming out in favor of particular political candidates."What economic logic is behind the argument against the current rule? What economic logic is behind the argument for the status quo?