Religious Institutions in the United States

The IRS makes no attempt to evaluate the content of whatever doctrine a particular organization claims is religious, provided the particular beliefs of the organization are truly and sincerely held by those professing them and the practices and rites associated with the organization’s belief or creed are not illegal or contrary to clearly defined public policy. - Excerpt from the IRS's "Tax Guide for Churches & Religious Organizations"  

This direct quote from the IRS's documents concerning Tax Exempt and Government Entities raises some questions. Firstly, this is a very commonly pointed to section of the document - 501(c)(3) - which highlights some concerns about the ease with which religious organizations may be founded. Firstly, I think it is important to note that it makes absolute sense that the IRS would make intentionally vague guidelines about exactly what it takes to found a church or religion in the United States, especially considering the large part of our history in which many people came to the New World seeking religious freedoms, or rather escape from persecution. Further, the First Amendment directly states in an upfront manner, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." 
However, in relatively recent times, it has come to light exactly how much potential there is for abuse in this system. The so-called trend "televangelism" is by no means a new trend, however it is none the less surprisingly effective in its goals. The method consists of, in a general case, a minister, preacher, or speaker making incredible claims of healing or religious salvation which is in some way connected to donations made to their religious organization. In some cases, the speaker may ask that one "plant a seed," herein meaning give a donation, or donations, in return for a sort of positive karma which they claim will lead to great wealth and happiness in the future. The majority of the American public is certainly desensitized to the effects of bold advertising and excited claims, however there are those that this sort of message is very effective at reaching. People in need of major medical care, or who may be deeply in debt, are sadly often driven to these people. 

This sort of method of promising great things, and in some case complete miracles, in exchange for money represents a major problem for the people of the US, just as predatory lending does. Both of these institutions are, of course, major distortions of entire broad-ranging groups of people, and do not represent their respective groups at all, however they none the less pose a great problem which deserves a solution. 
I wish to highlight some of the most important errors in the system of registration for tax-exempt status that may be resolved in some form. Firstly, there is no requirement to provide evidence that the proposed institution actual resides in the state it is being registered for. One popular example of this can be seen in the comedian John Oliver's registration of a nonprofit church in Texas - a state which he admits he has never lived in, and living in New York, would clearly not be in a position to start a church in. In addition, there is no mention of where this religious institution actually is in a physical sense. Continuing the Oliver example, he registered the place of worship as being the studio of the "Last Week Tonight" television show, which you will note, is located in New York City.
These facets, however are simply requirements - and not even necessarily required, as the documents make clear it is not necessary to meet all of the requirements to establish a religion - and there are three specific rules in order to be tax-exempt. One is that the the church cannot conduct political lobbying. This makes sense as the separation of church and state is something the US has supported - at least in the de jure sense - for much of its existence. Secondly, the church cannot engage in any activities that actually break existing laws. Again, this is a logical requirement. Thirdly is the requirement that the church not financially benefit any private individual or shareholder, and this is where the line gets very grey. This requirement is not tightly enforced, and the definition of what it is that actually benefits a private individual is not well defined, and thus is open to exploitation. For example, One prominent televangelist asked each of his church's members for $300 in order to purchase a private airplane for the sake of spreading their faith. However, it is not difficult to see the abuse of power in that situation. Creflo Dollar, in many ways, directly gained from that investment, one which he directly instigated. This is significant because lack of regulation in this specific requirement of tax-exempt status is what open the possibility of abuse of religious institutions overall. Not only is it certainly uneasy that a religious leader should frequently ask their congregation for donations, but it is dangerous that there are virtually no restrictions on where that money can go.