Along with elections comes a renewal of the struggle between churches and the federal government over how much political activity pastors may engage in from the pulpit. We have just seen this year's round as some 33 pastors, including one from West Bend, made speeches last Sunday that advocated for specific candidates in direct contravention of Internal Revenue Service rules.

Church exemptions from taxation come with a price: Preachers talking to their congregations may not favor one candidate over another. In fact the same rule applies to anyone who is the head of any nonprofit organized under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code. These people are not completely forbidden from advocacy, but they can do this only on behalf of themselves, not when speaking on behalf of their organizations. That is the way it should stay.

First, this is not a First Amendment issue. No one forbids ministers, or anyone else, from discussing their personal beliefs. It is only the activity of an organization, and the activity of a minister as head of an organization, that is restricted. Note also that ministers are not forbidden from talking about issues; only advocacy of one candidate over another is forbidden. There is another small point: that allowing tax-exempt churches to advocate for a candidate amounts to a public subsidy for whatever resources a church may devote to that person.

To be sure, there is much to be said on the other side. Almost every big issue in public life - abortion, environmental protection, poverty or war - has a moral dimension which makes it a subject of action or comment by churches, and it seems unreasonable to allow ministers to discuss positions on issues but not discuss the people who put positions into practice. The danger, however, is that allowing the exercise of that kind of power will do more harm than good and will override other factors for the people listening in pews.

Pastors' opinions carry more weight than those of most people because, like business executives, public officials and some academics, there is a presumption of greater knowledge or experience. There is more. Because they also pronounce on ultimate and very emotional issues of sin and the promise of eternal life, a pastor's power of persuasion is in a way coercive.

In 1992, for example, a full-page ad in USA Today said that Bill Clinton was a sinner and that people who voted for him were also committing a sin. This year, a St. Petersburg, Fla., televangelist said on his Web site that a vote for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a Mormon, was a vote for Satan. For people deeply affected by the words of a church authority figure, such pronouncements could become the primary factor in deciding whom to vote for.

Making a choice in the voting booth is not only an individual act but one which should be free of undue influence. That should especially include fear induced by a pastor wielding power in a way that does not necessarily coincide with God's idea of what should be done.