Earlier this week, the IRS ruled that churches and nonprofit organizations are now able to endorse political candidates without risking their tax-exemption status. Although the Johnson Amendment, a provision in the US tax code which prohibits this from happening, is still in place, they have made an exemption to the policy.
The IRS statement was made in a court filing intended to settle a lawsuit brought by two Texas churches and an association of Christian broadcasters, who argued that the amendment violated their right to free speech.
The statement says that if an endorsement is happening in a house of worship to its congregants, it will not be viewed as campaigning but rather “a family discussion concerning candidates.” This makes it a private matter, not a public campaign, therefore not in violation of the Johnson Amendment. Although this amendment was not previously strictly enforced in religious contexts, the statement now makes such endorsements explicitly legal.
Still, this raises concerns. Many nonprofits expressed apprehension, warning that it may give leeway for politicians to use both churches and charitable organizations for political gain. In other words, candidates and donors could funnel money to campaigns while receiving tax breaks.
Others warned that no endorsements in these houses of worship will ever stay contained to just the congregants. A simple social media post can reach anyone. It seems to be a way to blur the lines between church and state, under the guise of “family matters.”
President Trump has repeatedly called for an appeal to this amendment, an obvious move since he controls a large majority of religious voters. With a weakened Johnson Amendment, Trump, and Republicans alike, can garner more support from these faith-based institutions without them losing their tax-exempt status.
This change in the Johnson Amendment has the power to redefine how campaigns interact with faith communities, and, ultimately, will weaken boundaries between church and state. In a country so strongly against that intersection, it is disheartening to see religious influence become even more prevalent in politics.
