Tax Exemption vs. Free Speech

This issue comes to light now as it appears that some churches (actually a VERY LARGE number) in California and the Mormon Church in Utah have taken great pains and made large contributions of money and man-power to support Prop 8 (Gay Marriage Ban) in California.  Also, throughout this campaign there have been church leaders supporting or opposing one candidate or another.  Now, there is an outcry of foul-play because churches that are tax-exempt are not supposed to be involved in political activities.

Some history on churches and taxes:
In 1953, Congress changed the tax code, specifically 501(c)3 to allow churches and other non-profit organizations to apply for and receive an exemption from paying federal taxes.  The IRS website gives this little summary of the relevant code:

"To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."

It seems clear from the tax code that a church receives special benefits from the federal government (tax exemption) and, in agreeing to that benefit, agrees that is will not "attempt to influence legislation" and "may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates." 

Now we come to the crux of the issue - should churches that violate their agreement with the Federal Government by making themselves "action organizations" in a campaign or legislative action be put in jeopardy of losing that tax exempt status?  Or should the government look the other way - even though those churches have clearly violated their agreement?

There are numerous sides to this argument, and I'll lay out a few here:
1. Some people argue that 501c3 is simply a way for the government to silence churches.  They also argue that church speech is protected by the 1st Amendment and that the government should not be able to silence or inhibit its political speech with a tax code.
2. Others agree that 501c3 is a way for the government to silence the church but recognize that churches gain something by agreeing to it - tax exemption.  These people argue that churches SHOULD NOT register as tax-exempt organizations and therefore would not be subject to the political speech restrictions.  They also use the Bible to support this position with the "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" bit.
3. Still others argue that BECAUSE churches DO violate their agreement under 501c3, they should lose their tax exempt status.

After reading up on the arguments, I agree with both 2 and 3.  Churches that ask for special benefits from the government should be required to comply with the restrictions placed on receiving those benefits.  There is no requirement that a Church register as tax-exempt and forfeit its speech rights - it is completely voluntary.  Therefore, IF a church wants to go beyond its religious talk and venture into the realm of political influence and campaigning, it should not ALSO ask the government for tax-exemption. 

In Argument 1 the church wants its cake and wants to eat it too.  It wants the benefits of the tax-exempt money without strings.  The government has no obligation to support churches - at all.  If a church doesn't want to play by the government's rules for tax-exemption - then it shouldn't want to be tax-exempt.