Johnson Amendment

File:The Johnson Amendment.jpg containing a transcript of the passage of the amendment]]

Paragraph (3) of subsection (c) within section 501 of Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code) of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.) describes organizations which may be exempt from U.S. Federal income tax. 501(c)(3) is written as follows,See paragraph (3) of subsection (c) of {{usc|26|501}} with the Johnson Amendment in bold letters:The parenthetical phrase "(or in opposition to)" was not part of the original text of the Johnson amendment as enacted in the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, but was added by Congress as a clarification, in 1987. See section 10711(a)(2) of the Revenue Act of 1987, Title X of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, Pub. L. No. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330, 1330-464 (Dec. 22, 1987).

{{blockquote|(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.[bolding added]}}

The amendment affects nonprofit organizations with 501(c)(3) tax exemptions,{{cite news|last1=Stanley|first1=Erik|last2=Lynn|first2=Barry W.|title=Tax laws and religious speech: what the Constitution says|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-lynn-stanley25-2008sep25,0,2620493.story|access-date=September 14, 2010|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|date=September 25, 2008}} which are subject to absolute prohibitions on engaging in political activities and risk loss of tax-exempt status if violated.Elacqua, Amelia (2008). [http://www.hbtlj.org/v08p1/v08p1elacquaar.pdf "Eyes wide shut: The ambiguous 'political activity' prohibition and its effects on 501(c)(3) organizations"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170902142613/http://www.hbtlj.org/v08p1/v08p1elacquaar.pdf |date=2017-09-02 }}. Houston Business and Tax Journal. pp. 119 and 141. Specifically, they are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office.{{cite web|url=https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations |title=The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations |publisher=Internal Revenue Service|date=2012-08-14 |access-date=2012-09-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101202054714/https://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0%2C%2Cid%3D163395%2C00.html |archive-date= 2 December 2010 |url-status=live }}{{cite web|title=Why the Constitution Neither Protects Nor Forbids Tax Subsidies for Politicking from the Pulpit, And Why Both Liberals and Conservatives May be on the Wrong Side of this Issue|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20081006.html|last=Dorf|first=Michael C.|work=Findlaw|date=6 Oct 2008}} The Johnson Amendment applies to any 501(c)(3) organization, not just religious 501(c)(3) organizations.

The benefit of 501(c)(3) status is that, in addition to the organization itself being exempt from taxes, donors who itemize may also take a tax deduction for their contributions to the organization.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, contributions to political campaign funds, or public statements of position in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office, are disallowed. However, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides), voter registration, and get-out-the-vote drives, if conducted in a non-partisan manner, are not prohibited.

File:Senator Lyndon Johnson.jpg

The amendment was to a bill in the 83rd Congress, H.R. 8300, which was enacted into law as the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The amendment was proposed by Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas on July 2, 1954. The amendment was agreed to without any discussion or debate and was included in Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736).Congressional Record-Senate, July 2, 1954, p. 9604 The provision was considered uncontroversial at the time and continued to be included when the 1954 Code was renamed as the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 during the Ronald Reagan administration.{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/johnson-amendment-trump.html|title=The Johnson Amendment, Which Trump Vows to 'Destroy,' Explained|last=Peters|first=Jeremy W.|date=February 2, 2017|newspaper=The New York Times}}{{Unreliable source?|date=January 2020}}

In the 2010s, the Alliance Defending Freedom made attempts to challenge the Johnson Amendment through the Pulpit Freedom Initiative, which urges Protestant ministers to violate the statute in protest. The ADF contends that the amendment violates First Amendment rights.{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/georgetown-on-faith/post/where-does-church-end-and-state-begin/2011/10/04/gIQAzy2RNL_blog.html|title=Where does church end and state begin? – Georgetown/On Faith|last=Berlinerblau|first=Jacques|date=2011-10-05|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=2011-12-26}}

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump called for the repeal of the amendment.{{cite news|last1=Smith|first1=Samuel|title=New Bill Would Repeal Johnson Amendment, Protect Pastors Rights to Endorse Candidates, Political Positions|url=http://www.christianpost.com/news/bill-repeal-johnson-amendment-protect-pastor-rights-endorse-candidates-political-positions-170196/|access-date=October 29, 2016|work=The Christian Post|date=September 29, 2016|quote=The bill, also known as H.R. 6195, comes as Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has drawn the appeal of social conservatives and evangelicals by vowing to repeal the Johnson Amendment, which was passed in 1954. Opponents of the Johnson Amendment assert that this regulation has "allowed the IRS to intimidate and censor churches and other nonprofit organizations."}} On February 2, 2017, after becoming President, Trump vowed at the National Prayer Breakfast to "totally destroy" the Johnson Amendment,{{cite news |title=Trump asks for prayers for Arnold Schwarzenegger's ratings at National Prayer Breakfast |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=February 2, 2017 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/02/trump-asks-for-prayers-for-arnold-schwarzeneggers-ratings-at-national-prayer-breakfast/|author=Phillip, Abby}} White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer announced to the press that Trump "committed to get rid of the Johnson Amendment", "allowing our representatives of faith to speak freely and without retribution",{{cite news |title=2/2/17: White House Press Briefing|publisher=The White House/YouTube|date=February 2, 2017 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqoWh6vVvs0&t=235 }} and Republican lawmakers introduced legislation that would allow all 501(c)(3) organizations to support political candidates, as long as any associated spending was minimal.{{Cite news|url=https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/317656-gop-lawmakers-unveil-bill-to-water-down-law-limiting-churches/|title=GOP unveils bill to allow political activity by churches |last=Marcos |first=Cristina |date=2017-02-02 |newspaper= The Hill |access-date= 2017-02-03 }}{{Cite web |url= https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/781 |title= H.R. 781 – 115th Congress |date= February 2017 |publisher=Library of Congress, congress.gov |access-date= 2017-02-02}}

On May 4, 2017, Trump signed the "Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty."{{cite web|url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/05/04/presidential-executive-order-promoting-free-speech-and-religious-liberty|title=Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty|date=4 May 2017|publisher=The White House|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170506055021/https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/05/04/presidential-executive-order-promoting-free-speech-and-religious-liberty/|archive-date=6 May 2017|url-status=dead|access-date=5 May 2017}} The executive order does not repeal the Johnson Amendment, nor does it allow ministers to endorse from the pulpit, but it does halt the enforcement of its consequencesDef.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss for a Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction for Failure to State a Claim, 7, 8/22/17, https://ffrf.org/images/A2876868.pdf by directing the Department of Treasury that "churches should not be found guilty of implied endorsements where secular organizations would not be." Douglas Laycock, speaking to The Washington Post, indicated that he was not aware of any cases where such implied endorsements have caused problems in the past.{{cite news |url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/05/05/many-religious-freedom-advocates-are-disappointed-with-trumps-executive-order/ |title= Many religious freedom advocates are actually disappointed with Trump's executive order |date= 5 May 2017 |first=Sarah |last= Pulliam Bailey |newspaper= The Washington Post}} Walter B. Jones Jr. had been the principal congressional advocate for repealing the speech restriction altogether and had support from the Family Research Council in modifying religious speech language in the Kevin Brady sponsored tax re-write legislation styled, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.Douglas, William. (2 November 2017). "GOP plan to ease law on political speech from the pulpit gets lukewarm reception". [http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article182390976.html McClatchy DC website] Retrieved 3 November 2017.

The final version of the major tax rewrite legislation passed in December 2017 does not include the House repeal of the Johnson Amendment because the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it violated the Byrd Rule for reconciliation legislation.Long, Heather. (15 December 2017). "WonkBlog-Analysis:

The final GOP tax bill is complete. Here's what is in it." [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/15/the-final-gop-tax-bill-is-complete-heres-what-is-in-it/ Washington Post website] Retrieved 17 December 2017.McCambridge, Ruth. (15 December 2017). "Dep't. of Small Mercies: Johnson Amendment Repeal Gone from Still-Terrible GOP Tax Bill

". [https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2017/12/15/dept-small-mercies-johnson-amendment-repeal-gone-still-terrible-gop-tax-bill/ Nonprofit Quarterly website] Retrieved 17 December 2017.{{cite news|last1=Shellnutt|first1=Kate|title=Johnson Amendment Repeal Removed from Final GOP Tax Bill|url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/december/johnson-amendment-repeal-blocked-final-gop-tax-bill-byrd.html|access-date=2 January 2018|publisher=Christianity Today|date=15 December 2017}}

Efforts to repeal the Johnson Amendment have been criticized for a number of reasons. One concern is that political campaign contributions funneled through 501(c)(3) organizations would be tax-deductible for donors and that such contributions would not be disclosed since churches are exempt from reporting requirements required of other 501(c)(3) organizations. Under that critique, repeal would have the potential of creating a mechanism where political contributions could be made without regard to other campaign financing laws.{{Cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/2017/02/03/trumps-plan-to-totally-destroy-the-johnson-amendment-creates-a-huge-campaign-finance-loophole-for-churches-to-exploit/ |title= Trump's plan to "totally destroy" the Johnson Amendment creates a huge campaign finance loophole for churches to exploit |last=Tesfaye |first=Sophia |date= 2017-02-03 |website= Salon |access-date= 2017-02-04}}{{Cite news|url=http://www.churchlawandtax.com/blog/2016/october/what-would-repealing-johnson-amendment-actually-mean-for-ch.html |title= What Would Repealing the Johnson Amendment Mean? |last=Jackson |first=Elizabeth |date= 2016-10-06 |newspaper= Church Law & Tax |language=en |access-date= 2017-02-04 }}{{Cite news |url= https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/how-trump-is-trying-to-put-more-money-in-politics/493823/ |title= Trump Wants to Make Churches the New Super PACs |last=Green |first=Emma |date=2016-08-02 |newspaper= The Atlantic |language=en-US |access-date= 2017-02-04 }} This concern was validated by Congressional testimony from Thomas Barthold, Chief of Staff of Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, saying of a repeal provision later removed from the tax bill passed in late 2017 "it's a diversion of some of the substantial growth in political contributions into a deductible form that is not deductible today."{{Citation|title=Markup of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. See 00:54:39 to 00:57:07|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rUjwgqNyMY|language=en|access-date=2018-06-15}}

Other concerns include the potential damage to public trust in nonprofit and religious organizations if they were to begin endorsing candidates. Polls have shown that majorities of both the general public and of clergy oppose churches endorsing political candidates.{{Cite news|url=https://www.nae.net/pastors-shouldnt-endorse-politicians/|title=Pastors Shouldn't Endorse Politicians – National Association of Evangelicals|date=2017-03-29|work=National Association of Evangelicals|access-date=2018-02-26|language=en-US}}{{Cite news|url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-people-and-perhaps-most-clergy-dont-want-political-endorsements-in-church/ |title= Most People — And Perhaps Most Clergy — Don't Want Political Endorsements In Church |last=Lewis |first=Andrew R. |date=2017-02-03 |publisher=FiveThirtyEight |language=en-US |access-date=2017-02-04}} The National Council of Nonprofits, a network of more than 25,000 nonprofit organizations, released a statement opposing the proposed repeal legislation.{{Cite news|url=https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/article/last-minute-change-tax-reform-bill-hardens-nonprofit-opposition|title=Last-Minute Change to Tax Reform Bill Hardens Nonprofit Opposition|date=2017-11-09|newspaper=National Council of Nonprofits|access-date=2017-11-10}} Independent Sector, a coalition of nonprofits, foundations, and corporations has also stated their opposition to the proposal to repeal the Johnson Amendment.{{Cite news |url= http://independentsector.org/news-post/statement-johnson-amendment/ |title= Statement on Johnson Amendment and Political Activity by Charities |date= 2017-02-02 |newspaper= Independent Sector |access-date= 2017-02-04}} Numerous efforts to preserve the protections of the Johnson Amendment include a letter in support of nonprofit nonpartisanship signed by more than 5,500 organizations,{{Cite web|url=https://www.givevoice.org/sites/default/files/community-letter-in-support-of-nonpartisanship-5-12-update.pdf|title=Community Letter in Support of Nonpartisanship|website=Give Voice}} a Faith Voices letter signed by more than 4,300 religious leaders,{{Cite web|url=https://www.faith-voices.org/|title=Keep Our Houses Of Worship Independent & Nonpartisan – Sign The Letter Today!|website=Faith Voices|language=en-US|access-date=2018-02-26}} a letter that more than 100 denominations and major religious organizations signed,{{Cite web|url=http://bjconline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Letter-from-faith-groups-opposing-politicization-of-houses-of-worship.pdf|title=Letter from Faith Groups}} and a letter from the National Association of State Charity Officials.{{Cite web|url=https://www.givevoice.org/sites/default/files/NASCO%20Letter%20to%20Congressional%20Leaders%20re%20Johnson%20Amendment%208.23.2017.pdf|title=NASCO Letter to Congressional Leaders re: Johnson Amendment}}

There have also been concerns from clergy and lay Christians about the potential that a total repeal would cause churches to transform into partisan super PACs.{{citation needed|date=March 2018}}

The Catholic Church does not allow church funds to be spent on behalf of political candidates nor endorsements from the pulpit regardless of the legal permissibility.{{Cite web|url=http://www.usccb.org/about/general-counsel/political-activity-guidelines.cfm|title = Political Activity Guidelines | USCCB}} In a 2017 interview, Archbishop William E. Lori, who chaired the conference's religious liberty division, said of the amendment, "As a general rule, it is not a good idea for churches to engage in partisan politics. I believe that, generally, that proves to be a great distraction from our central task and mission, which is to preach the Gospel. Furthermore, I think it would have a tendency to unnecessarily divide our congregations." He went on to say that people should be wary of any attempt to change the Johnson Amendment.{{cite web|title=Archbishop Lori on New President, New Challenges for Religious Liberty|url=https://www.ncregister.com/interview/archbishop-lori-on-new-president-new-challenges-for-religious-liberty}}

{{portal|Freedom of speech|Religion|United States}}

• {{Annotated link |501(c) organization}}
• {{Annotated link |Charitable contribution deductions in the United States}}
• {{Annotated link |Charitable organization}}
• {{Annotated link |Internal Revenue Code}}
• {{Annotated link |Separation of church and state in the United States}}

{{clear}}

{{Reflist|30em}}

• {{cite journal |last1=Caron |first1=Wilfred R. |last2=Dessingue |first2=Deirdre |title=I.R.C. §501(c)(3): Practical and Constitutional Implications of Political Activity Restrictions |journal=Journal of Law & Politics |year=1985 |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages= 169–200 }}
• {{cite journal |first=James D. |last= Davidson |title= Why Churches Cannot Endorse or Oppose Political Candidates |journal=Review of Religious Research |volume=40 |issue=1 |year=1998 |pages= 16–34 |doi= 10.2307/3512457 |jstor= 3512457 }}

{{Lyndon B. Johnson|state=collapsed}}

Category:1954 in American law

Category:501(c)(3) organizations

Category:Internal Revenue Code

Category:United States election law

Category:United States legislation about religion