Jonah Patel
The Johnson Amendment, a 1954 amendment to the US tax code, prohibits tax-exempt organizations from participating in political campaigns. It has been a highly debated topic, with some arguing that it violates the free speech rights of nonprofit and religious leaders, while others see it as a protection of the sanctity of the nonprofit sector. The amendment has faced numerous attempts at repeal, including by former US President Donald Trump, who claimed that it restricted religious expression. Despite these efforts, the Johnson Amendment remains in place, and the debate surrounding it continues.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Year | 1954 |
| Named After | Lyndon B. Johnson |
| Purpose | Prevent tax-deductible money from being used to support or oppose candidates for public office |
| Prohibits | Tax-exempt organizations from participating in political campaigns |
| Applies To | 501(c)(3) organizations |
| Does Not Apply To | Churches, according to the IRS in 2025 |
| Criticism | Violates the free speech rights of nonprofit leaders |
| Efforts To Preserve | Letter in support of nonprofit nonpartisanship signed by more than 5,500 organizations |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Johnson Amendment and the First Amendment
The Johnson Amendment, introduced in 1954, prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. It was named after then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, who was concerned about two tax-exempt organizations that had campaigned against him. The amendment restricts these organizations from participating in political campaigns to prevent tax-deductible money from influencing political candidates.
While the Johnson Amendment has been criticized for allegedly infringing on freedom of speech and religious expression, others argue that it protects the integrity of the nonprofit sector by limiting the influence of politics on tax-exempt organizations. The debate surrounding the amendment centers on the balance between free speech and the separation of politics and tax-exempt entities.
Those who oppose the Johnson Amendment argue that it violates the First Amendment's freedom of speech and religious expression. They believe that pastors and religious leaders have the right to speak out on contemporary issues and candidates as part of their religious duty. Additionally, they argue that the government is imposing an "unconstitutional condition" by linking tax-exempt status to non-participation in politics.
On the other hand, supporters of the amendment view it as a necessary safeguard against the politicization of tax-exempt organizations. They argue that removing this limitation could lead to churches and religious organizations becoming heavily involved in politics, potentially influencing elections with tax-deductible donations. This could result in a blurring of lines between religion and state, which goes against the principle of separation of church and state.
Despite President Trump's repeated promises to "totally destroy" the Johnson Amendment, it remains in place. The President does not have the unilateral authority to repeal it, as only Congress can repeal a law or amend the tax code. The debate around the Johnson Amendment continues, with passionate arguments on both sides.
In summary, the Johnson Amendment, named after Lyndon B. Johnson, restricts tax-exempt organizations from participating in political campaigns. The amendment has faced opposition due to concerns over freedom of speech and religious expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. However, supporters argue that it protects the integrity of the nonprofit sector and maintains a separation between religion and state. The ongoing debate highlights the complexities of balancing free speech and the influence of politics in tax-exempt entities.
Amending the Constitution: The Article That Empowers Change
You may want to see also
Religious freedom of speech
The Johnson Amendment, enacted in 1954, is a provision in the US tax code that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. This has sparked debate, with critics arguing that it restricts the free speech rights of religious leaders, and supporters citing the government's lack of obligation to subsidize lobbying.
Those who oppose the amendment believe that it violates the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. They argue that pastors may feel it is their religious duty to speak out on contemporary issues and candidates, and that the government should not regulate speech from the pulpit. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative group seeking a greater role for religion in public life, has attempted to challenge the amendment through the Pulpit Freedom Initiative, urging ministers to violate the statute in protest.
Supporters of the amendment, however, argue that it is necessary to prevent religious organizations from becoming major players in politics, as tax-free donations could be used to support political candidates if clergy are allowed to participate in campaigns. They also cite concerns about potential damage to public trust in non-profit and religious organizations if they begin endorsing candidates. Polls show that majorities of both the general public and clergy oppose churches endorsing political candidates.
In a significant development, the IRS has recently clarified its stance on the Johnson Amendment, affirming free speech rights while outlining compliance risks. The focus will now be on explicit activities such as direct endorsements and campaign contributions. This clarification reaffirms that religious organizations can discuss political and moral issues consistent with their beliefs, provided they do not engage in partisan campaigning using organizational resources.
The Right to Abortion: Constitutional Amendments Explored
You may want to see also
Tax-deductible donations to churches
Donations to churches can be tax-deductible, but there are certain requirements that must be met. The most common deduction is for cash donations, and these can be made by check, credit or debit card, or electronic funds transfer. It is important to keep a record of the donation, such as a receipt, cancelled check, or bank statement, as these will be needed to claim a deduction. If a single cash donation is greater than $250, a written acknowledgment of the donation from the church is also required. This should include the donation amount and a description of any goods or services provided in exchange. If goods or services were received, the deduction must be reduced by their value.
The total of cash donations to a church in a year typically cannot exceed 60% of the donor's adjusted gross income (AGI). If it does, the donor cannot deduct 100% of their donations in the current tax year, but any amounts that cannot be deducted can be carried over to the next five tax returns. For tax years 2020 and 2021, the contribution limit was increased to 100% of AGI for qualified cash donations to charities.
In addition to cash, donations of property to a church may also be tax-deductible, subject to certain rules. The donor must assess the fair market value of the property, which can be done using any reasonable valuation method, and this value is the amount that can be deducted. If the donation exceeds $5,000, a written appraisal is required as documentation of its value.
It is worth noting that the above rules apply specifically to tax-deductible donations to churches. The Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax-exempt organizations such as churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates, has raised constitutional concerns regarding freedom of speech and religious expression. However, the potential impact on campaign finance and public trust in nonprofit and religious organizations has led to efforts to preserve the amendment.
Understanding the Fifth Amendment: Your Rights Explained
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Nonprofit organisations and political campaigns
Nonprofit organizations are prohibited from engaging in political campaigning if they wish to maintain their tax-exempt status. This restriction is known as the Johnson Amendment, which was introduced by then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson in 1954. The amendment applies to any 501(c)(3) organization, including churches and other religious organizations, and prohibits them from directly or indirectly participating in, intervening in, or endorsing any candidate or political campaign.
The Johnson Amendment has been the subject of much debate, with some arguing that it violates the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise. Conservative groups and religious organizations, in particular, have sought to repeal the amendment, claiming that it restricts their religious expression and free speech. They argue that pastors and religious leaders should be able to speak out on contemporary issues and candidates without fear of retribution.
However, others have opposed the repeal of the Johnson Amendment, citing concerns about the potential damage to public trust in nonprofit and religious organizations if they were to endorse political candidates. There are also concerns about the financial implications, as tax-free donations to churches and nonprofits could then be used to support political candidates, allowing religious organizations to become major financial players in politics.
Despite the controversy, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has not been particularly active in enforcing the Johnson Amendment. The IRS uses a "'facts and circumstances' test" to determine whether an organization has violated the prohibition on political campaigning, considering the context of the organization's activities and the political climate.
Nonprofit organizations can still engage in nonpartisan activities such as voter registration, voter education, and legislative advocacy, as long as they do not intervene in elections or support or oppose specific candidates. These activities are crucial in educating the public about issues that affect their communities and helping them participate in the democratic process.
The States' Rights: The 10th Amendment Explained
You may want to see also
The role of Congress in repealing the amendment
The Johnson Amendment, a provision in the US tax code since 1954, prohibits tax-exempt organisations such as churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates. It was named after then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, who introduced it to prevent tax-exempt organisations from campaigning against politicians with more liberal political orientations.
Despite President Trump's promise to "totally destroy" the amendment, the president does not have the authority to do so alone. Only Congress can repeal a law, in this case, an amendment to the tax code. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump called for the repeal of the amendment, and in 2017, he signed the "Presidential Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty." This executive order did not repeal the amendment but halted the enforcement of its consequences by directing the Department of Treasury that "churches should not be found guilty of implied endorsements where secular organisations would not be."
Congressional efforts to repeal the Johnson Amendment have been criticised for several reasons. One concern is that political campaign contributions funnelled through 501(c)(3) organisations would be tax-deductible for donors, and such contributions would not be disclosed since churches are exempt from reporting requirements. This would create a mechanism where political contributions could be made without regard to other campaign financing laws. Thomas Barthold, Chief of Staff of Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, validated this concern in his Congressional testimony.
Another concern is the potential damage to public trust in nonprofit and religious organisations if they were to begin endorsing candidates. Polls have shown that majorities of both the general public and clergy oppose churches endorsing political candidates. Furthermore, there are concerns that a total repeal would cause churches to transform into partisan super PACs. The Catholic Church, for example, does not allow church funds to be spent on behalf of political candidates or endorsements from the pulpit, regardless of legal permissibility.
In conclusion, while there have been efforts in Congress to repeal the Johnson Amendment, these attempts have faced significant criticism and opposition from various quarters, including nonprofit organisations, religious leaders, and the general public. The potential implications for campaign finance, public trust, and the transformation of churches into partisan entities have all been points of contention.
Amending the US Constitution: Understanding the Process
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Johnson Amendment is a 1954 amendment to the US tax code that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from participating in political campaigns, specifically by endorsing or opposing a candidate.
The purpose of the Johnson Amendment was to prevent tax-deductible money from being used to support or oppose candidates for public office.
No, the Johnson Amendment has not been repealed. Despite President Trump's repeated promises to "get rid of" and "totally destroy" the amendment, and his signing of an executive order restricting its enforcement, the law remains in place.
Those who support repealing the Johnson Amendment argue that it violates the free speech rights of nonprofit and religious leaders by limiting their ability to engage in the political process. They also argue that it restricts religious expression.
Opponents of repealing the Johnson Amendment believe that it is necessary to protect the nonprofit sector from politics and that removing this limitation could be an existential danger to the sector. They also argue that repealing the amendment could damage public trust in nonprofit and religious organizations.
