IRS Tells Court That Churches Can Endorse Political Candidates to Parish
Why even bother having the Johnson Amendment?!
The IRS told the Eastern District of Texas – Tyler Division that churches can endorse political candidates despite the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits certain 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations from doing so.
Christian churches and broadcasters sued the IRS, claiming that the Johnson Amendment violates their First Amendment rights.
From 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3):
(3)Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
“Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the Johnson Amendment facially and as applied violates their First Amendment rights to the freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, their Fifth Amendment rights to due process of law and equal protection under the law, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” according to the filing.
Well, the IRS told the court:
When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither “participate[s]” nor “intervene[s]” in a “political campaign,” within the ordinary meaning of those words. To “participate” in a political campaign is “to take part” in the political campaign, and to “intervene” in a political campaign is “to interfere with the outcome or course” of the political campaign. See Participate, Merriam Webster’s Dictionary (2025); Intervene, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary (2025). Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates. Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted.
Um, what?
Then the IRS admitted that it “generally has not enforced the Johnson Amendment against houses of worship for speech concerning electoral politics in the context of worship services.”
The IRS also doesn’t think the Johnson Amendment applies because, for many of these “houses of worship, the exercise of their religious beliefs includes teaching or instructing their congregations regarding all aspects of life, including guidance concerning the impact of faith on the choices inherent in electoral politics.”
Then why bother having the Johnson Amendment!? I ask that question after reading this part:
Interpreting the Johnson Amendment to reach such communications would create serious tension with the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause: That broad interpretation would treat religions that do not speak directly to matters of electoral politics more favorably than religions that do so—favoring some religions over others based on their speech to their own congregations in connection with religious services through customary channels of worship and religious communication.
My jaw literally dropped.
Why do I still have to pay taxes?! Why can’t this apply to all nonprofit organizations!?
I didn’t think I could hate the IRS more, but here we are.
I know I am sick, so I’m hoping I’m misreading this as my sinuses and ears feel like they’re going to explode, and I cough up a lung.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
churches endorse all the time
again,, bs rules
there should be no one exempt from taxes
there should be no income tax
everyone screams for fairness but wont do it
flat consumption tax
everyone pays the same % and those who spend more will pay more taxes
the left should be rejoicing with that fact
For the past ten years I’ve been saying it’s way past time to end ALL tax exempt status for everyone.
It’s been corrupted to the point it’s now a profit center for most.
Remember the race riots of the last century? As a long time resident of the Old South, I do. For at least the last seventy years, probably longer, some churches were allowed to exercise political actions while others weren’t. Martin Luther King held overtly political rallies at black churches that white churches couldn’t get away with. So let’s level the field. All can do it or none can do it, and enforce that.
.
But that’s different! Because they’re the oppressed! Blah, blah, blah….
The most segregated time in America is Sunday morning.
Oof, that old canard?
Trump welcomes dozens of evangelical pastors to pray over him in the Oval Office:
https://baptistnews.com/article/jeffress-wolfe-strachan-among-evangelical-leaders-praying-over-trump/
Leftists have been using houses of worship as a soapbox for as long as I can remember.
I guess Billy Hargiss and Gerald L. K. Smith were leftists.
He didn’t say “only leftists”.
He did imply that leftists have been pretty consistent about it. And they have.
again
the church is a mouth piece for the left and always has been
their right to life stance is questionable, at best
they have always promoted that the real riches are in heaven
the position against abortion is NOT a religious one but a spiritual one
the church is forrrr open borders and welfare state etc ( but of course NOT FROM THEM!!)
Depends on which church you’re talking about.
Catholic claims notwithstanding, Christianity as practiced is not a monolith. I certainly don’t lump myself in with churches that go along with baby killing, women “pastors,” abetting illegal aliens to flout the law, and alphabet nonsense.
you as an individual may not lump yourself in….but the entity itself is as stated
the church is a mouth piece for the left
No, not really. The Roman Catholic church might have been on some issues in the last number of years, and some “mainline” Protestant denominations. But they are not all of “the Church” by any stretch. Ditto what nordic prince said.
Yes, the Johnson Amendment does impact your speech rights. It’s a tradeoff for the tax exemption. Restrictions imposed on one thing to remove an imposition elsewhere.
Hmmm, doesn’t that sound like the rest of us are being taxed to practice our right to speech? Wouldn’t that be un-constitutional?
nice!
This isn’t a first amendment issue but a choice of how to organize the entity and a demand by some to avoid the direct consequences of their choices. A ‘church’ isn’t required to organize as a 501C3 they CHOOSE to do so to qualify for tax benefits and social status as ‘charity/non-profit’ v a for profit entity.
The solution is to set a clear, transparent hard and fast rule then vigorously and ruthlessly enforce it without exceptions. Some congregation decides not to get good tax/legal advice before proceeding? Tough cookies. Prosecute the leadership; the Pastors and the Deacons who authorized and allowed it. Let one entity slide by out of misguided compassion for criminal actions based on the ID of the criminal and the rule becomes unenforceable as a practical matter as the public perceives (correctly) bias against some but others.
yeah but to “ruthlessly” enforce it etc only brings more vitriol when we could just stop the government who must be stopped FROM ruthlessly attacking its (innocent) citizens
no more favoritism at all!
just that flat tax % would finally put the government in a non conflict of interest situation
I’d be all in on a flat tax for individuals and for businesses. Set the individual rate at 18% (10% for general revenue and 8% for SSI/Medicare). Set business rate same. Now labor and capital are taxed at the same rate. A simple exemption for individuals set at the = of Federal Min wage x2K hours; no deductions and no credits. For business they can deduct wages (not benefits), purchase or lease of plant and equipment in same year and utilities, bookkeeping and so on. I suspect most people won’t want an actual ‘flat tax’ that could realistically pay for the costs of Fed gov’t which is what I proposed above.
Roughly half of tax filers don’t pay federal taxes at all. Many get refundable tax credits. The ‘family’ lobby will lose their mind if we remove mortgage interest, child care, deductions for dependents, earned income tax credit and so on. The ‘investor class’ will flip out about ending tax advantaged retirement plans. Every provision in the current mammoth abomination of our Federal tax code has a vocal constituency that got it put there and will fight to keep it. While I’d be for a ‘flat tax’ most people will not support it when their ox gets gored.
not the governments job to pay EXCEPT for military personnel and their healthcare
let them lose their minds ..just b/c they dont understand finances ..nothing has changed people are always upset even when the correct actions are taken
if the money isnt there they can fight all they want for it
Can you clarify what this statement is intended to convey? As written it would seem to argue for limits on federal funds being used for anything except for military pay and military healthcare.
Many of the people losing their minds would be a large number of ‘conservatives’ objecting to the end of all their tax breaks and refundable tax credits. No way the ‘conservative movement’ folks or establishment types would support it…they’d crawl over broken glass and into a lava flow to fight against it.
to: CommoC 7:51 pm post
military
treasury
courts
thats where the tax money is suppose to go as to keep a limited government
“Conservatives” in name only are what they are
those anti tea sippers didnt necessarily want to throw the stuff into the bay either
but they knew overall what it took
Prior to this the IRS selectively enforced the Johnson Act depending on who held office and who the church, etc. was endorsing. This at least clarifies they can no longer play favorites.
The important part is “Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services”. In other words, you can endorse or condemn a candidate from the pulpit to those who voluntarily attend your services.
That would seem to only put the kibosh on a church, etc. paying for political ads or holding non-service related political rallies – and keeping their tax-exempt status.
You ask, why have the Johnson amendment at all?
The IRS ruling only talks about activity to a congregation during typical assemblies. But there are a lot of religious organizations that specialize in political things and may not even have congregations at all. For instance, the organization commonly referred to as “nuns against guns,” or the
Westboro Baptist Church that holds public demonstrations, or Snuffy Pfledger in Chicago, who does the same thing.
Of course, this begs the second level question of why the IRS isn’t stepping on these people either, and I dearly would like to have that answered
A church officer absolutely should be able to tell the church members “Person X violates our belief Y, so you shouldn’t cote for them.” I can’t believe anybody has a problem with that.
Ugh. Vote.
Will they apply their doctrine to every candidate? Every race that impacts the congregation? Will they pick and choose or will they be consistent? Which particular elements of the doctrine will have primacy over other doctrinal elements? What if the dude ‘endorses’ only d/prog even when the candidate’s policies are in direct opposition to the published doctrine of this faith tradition?
Getting involved in politics means complying with campaign finance rules. No whining that ‘we’re just a small congregation’ or ‘we didn’t know we couldn’t do X’ or that we were supposed to do Z’. Dive into the deep waters of politics and no fair complaining that a shark bit you.
“What if the dude ‘endorses’ only d/prog even when the candidate’s policies are in direct opposition to the published doctrine of this faith tradition?”
You mean, like the NRA has for the past 30 years?
Henry,
First that’s not accurate. The NRA has endorsed members of both major political parties and I seem to recall some 3rd party endorsements as.well within the past 3 decades. Now if you meant the NRA has a tendency to endorse incumbents and assist the establishment to anoint a chosen candidate for open seats who may/may not be the strongest 2A advocate…. I’d agree wholeheartedly. The only reason I’m still a member is I was gifted at life membership and use it to monitor their folly and vote against it.
Second the NRA is organized as a 501(c)4 which allows the entity to engage in political advocacy. In contrast the church here in this instance is a 501(c)3 which doesn’t allow political advocacy.
Third there’s a certain social status and credibility or moral/ethical deference granted to religious leaders/church bodies. It’s a form of appeal to authority.
In sum the church at issue or a hypothetical one could alter its organizational status to 501(c)4 and engage in all the political advocacy they want….but they would lose their status as a ‘charity’ both legally and the social/cultural deference that accompanies the pronouncements of ‘charities’.
and again
we accept that the unelected IRS is making laws regs
no wonder lefty runs us over
f the gop for not tearing down the corrupt infrastructure when they’ve had/have the chance
Make a decision: Either politics and taxation or no politics and tax exemption. Frankly I would prefer they implement the former and be done with it.
The same goes for universities and colleges. If their employees keep speaking out on politics and yes their staff are employees then no tax exemptions. This is how it should be.
I think I’ve got my Latin Mass priest on board threatening excommunication for those not voting for MAGA candidates.
I’m not catholic but i see what you did there. nice touch bringing up the…revelations…of last pope over last few weeks 🙂
A church, or other religious organisation, can espouse viewpoints that are both theological and political without endorsing a particular candidate.
The issue to my mind is that endorsement of Leftist candidates seems to be treated differently to advocacy for non-Left candidates e.g. Black churches v ‘White’ churches, Democrat churches v ‘Republican’ churches, liberal churches v Biblical churches etc.
All this announcement does is put white churches on par with black ones, because black churches have always been openly political.
So the Johnson Amendment is selectively enforced.
You either have a rule, or you do not.
A conservative Church would naturally steer clear of violation.
Others, may not.
This alone is enough to make a difference.
” Endorse this candidate… we shall overlook, endorse that one, we have to look at that “
The whole discussion falls on whether anyone should pay taxes to the federal government.
Solve the problem. Do away with the IRS, do away with income taxes, and go back to the original constitution concept of the states pay the taxes to the feds. Or increase tariffs.
The leviathan has grown since personal income taxes were established. Even more so after employer withholding. Be done with it.
Then there won’t be winners and losers chosen based on an ever changing idea of who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.