Isabella Carter
The Johnson Amendment is an addition to the US tax code, named after Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, which prohibits tax-exempt charitable organisations, including churches, from participating in political campaigns. The amendment has been criticised for violating freedom of speech, and there have been numerous efforts to repeal it. However, opponents of the change argue that removing this limitation could be an existential danger to the charitable sector.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Year introduced | 1954 |
| Named after | Senator Lyndon B. Johnson |
| Applies to | 501(c)(3) organizations |
| Purpose | Prohibits tax-exempt organizations from participating in political campaigns or endorsing candidates for public office |
| Concerns | Possible violations of the First Amendment, including freedom of speech and freedom of religion |
| Efforts to repeal | Multiple attempts by conservative Christians and other groups; President Trump signed an executive order restricting enforcement but fell short of a full repeal |
| Current status | The IRS reinterpreted the ban in 2025, allowing churches to endorse candidates |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Johnson Amendment's historical context
The Johnson Amendment was introduced by Lyndon B. Johnson while he was a U.S. senator in 1954. The amendment was added to the Internal Revenue Code, 501(c)(3), and requires charitable organizations, including churches and affiliated groups, to refrain from political campaign activities if they want to keep their tax-exempt status. This includes prohibiting public statements of support or opposition to any candidate for public office. However, certain non-partisan activities, such as voter education, registration, and get-out-the-vote drives, are allowed.
The historical context of the Johnson Amendment is steeped in politics. In 1954, two wealthy Texans used tax-exempt organizations they headed to support a young state senator who opposed Johnson in the primary election. Johnson won but was reportedly angered by the opposition from tax-exempt entities. The amendment was passed without debate or discussion, and Johnson provided no explanation for its wording.
Over the years, there have been numerous efforts to preserve and repeal the Johnson Amendment, with passionate arguments on both sides. Some argue that the amendment violates the free speech rights of nonprofit and religious leaders, while others believe that removing the limitation would endanger the entire nonprofit sector. There have been concerns that a repeal could lead to churches becoming partisan super PACs, with political contributions funnelled through them without disclosure or regard for campaign financing laws.
In recent years, conservative Christian groups have actively worked to challenge the amendment, arguing that it infringes on their free speech and religious freedom rights. In 2017, President Trump signed an executive order that halted the enforcement of consequences for implied endorsements by churches. While this did not repeal the amendment, it directed the Department of Treasury to treat churches and secular organizations similarly regarding implied endorsements.
In 2024, a lawsuit was filed by the National Religious Broadcasters and other religiously affiliated organizations, challenging the amendment as an unconstitutional infringement of their First Amendment rights. This led to a significant shift in 2025, when the IRS announced that churches could endorse political candidates in their "usual channels of communication" without tax-related consequences. This functionally nullified a core aspect of the Johnson Amendment, but efforts to completely eliminate the law through Congress or the Supreme Court continue.
Supporters of Virginia's Constitutional Amendment 1: Who and Why
You may want to see also
The amendment's constitutionality
The Johnson Amendment, introduced to the US tax code in 1954, prohibits 501(c)(3) organisations, including religious organisations, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Violations of the Amendment can be punished by the IRS through fines, revocation of tax-exempt status, or both.
The Amendment has been criticised for violating freedom of speech, and opponents have attempted to repeal it through lawsuits, legislation, and lobbying. Conservative Christian groups have been particularly active in this regard, arguing that the government should not regulate speech from the pulpit. However, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the Amendment's constitutionality, and while two US Court of Appeals circuits have upheld the Amendment as constitutional, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals has considered it in violation of the First Amendment.
In 2017, President Trump signed an executive order that did not repeal the Amendment but directed the Department of Treasury to not find churches guilty of implied endorsements where secular organisations would not be. In 2025, the IRS created an exception to the Johnson Amendment, stating that churches could endorse political candidates in their usual channels of communication without tax consequences. This has been criticised as creating a mechanism for undisclosed and tax-deductible political contributions.
Despite these changes, the Johnson Amendment remains in effect, and the debate continues over its constitutionality and its role in protecting or threatening the nonprofit sector.
Founding Father Who Wrote Two Amendments
You may want to see also
Efforts to repeal the amendment
Efforts to repeal the Johnson Amendment have been led predominantly by Christian faith leaders and conservative politicians. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump announced his interest in repealing the rule. Once elected, he vowed to "totally destroy" the Johnson Amendment. In 2017, he signed Executive Order 13798, directing the US Department of Treasury not to pursue any matters that might find a church or religious organization guilty of acting outside of the Johnson Amendment. However, this executive order did not repeal the amendment or allow ministers to endorse political candidates from the pulpit.
In 2017, Republican lawmakers introduced legislation that would allow all 501(c)(3) organizations to support political candidates, provided that any associated spending was minimal. However, the final version of the legislation passed in December 2017 did not include the House repeal of the Johnson Amendment due to a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian that it violated the Byrd Rule for reconciliation legislation.
Conservative Christian groups have also attempted to challenge the Johnson Amendment through legal means. Starting in 2008, the Alliance Defending Freedom organized pastors to speak about candidates and elections from the pulpit, intending to provoke the IRS into a legal confrontation. Despite these efforts, the IRS did not enforce the rule, allowing candidates of both parties to campaign in churches.
In 2025, the IRS carved out a significant new exception to the Johnson Amendment, stating that churches are allowed to endorse political candidates in their "usual channels of communication" without tax-related consequences. This change functionally nullified a core tenet of the law, giving Christian conservatives a major victory in their efforts to eliminate restrictions on church political organizing.
Despite these efforts to repeal the Johnson Amendment, there has been significant opposition from nonprofit and philanthropy advocacy groups, as well as religious leaders and organizations. They argue that repealing the amendment could damage public trust in nonprofits and religious organizations, and that it could lead to undisclosed political campaign contributions being funnelled through 501(c)(3) organizations, creating a mechanism for "dark campaign funding".
Constitutional Amendments: What's on the Ballot This Year?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The amendment's impact on free speech
The Johnson Amendment, introduced to the US tax code in 1954, prohibits 501(c)(3) organisations, including religious organisations, from engaging in political campaign activities or intervening in elections to public office. While the amendment does not prevent these organisations from engaging in voter education activities, voter registration, and get-out-the-vote drives, it has been criticised by some as a violation of free speech.
Proponents of changing the amendment argue that it infringes on the free speech rights of nonprofit and religious leaders by restricting their ability to participate in the political process. They contend that the government should not regulate speech coming from religious leaders and that the amendment violates the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. In support of this, Republican lawmakers introduced legislation that would allow all 501(c)(3) organisations to support political candidates with minimal spending.
On the other hand, opponents of changing the amendment view removing the limitation as an existential threat to the nonprofit sector. They argue that altering the amendment would damage public trust in nonprofit and religious organisations and could lead to these organisations becoming overly politicised. Additionally, there are concerns that repealing the amendment would make political contributions funnelled through 501(c)(3) organisations tax-deductible and not subject to the same disclosure requirements as other organisations, creating a loophole in campaign financing laws.
Despite efforts to challenge the Johnson Amendment, it remains in effect. However, in 2017, President Trump signed an executive order promoting free speech and religious liberty, which eased the amendment's restrictions. The order directed the Department of Treasury to not find churches guilty of implied endorsements where secular organisations would not be. Additionally, in 2025, the IRS created an exception, allowing churches to endorse political candidates in their usual channels of communication without tax consequences.
Understanding the Constitution: Protecting Citizens from Illegal Searches and Seizures
You may want to see also
The role of the IRS in enforcing the amendment
The Johnson Amendment, proposed by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson and enacted in 1954, added political campaign activity restrictions to the Internal Revenue Code. The amendment prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches and other religious institutions, from directly or indirectly participating in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office. This restriction applies to all tax-exempt organizations under Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3), which includes public charities and private foundations.
The role of the IRS in enforcing the Johnson Amendment is crucial. The IRS has the authority to investigate and take action against organizations that violate the restrictions on political campaign activity. If an organization engages in prohibited political activity, the IRS can revoke its tax-exempt status, which means the organization would be subject to taxation and potentially face financial penalties. The IRS may also impose excise taxes on the organization's managers or leaders who agreed to the political campaign activity.
In enforcing the amendment, the IRS reviews various materials to determine whether an organization has violated the restrictions. This includes examining the organization's website, social media presence, newsletters, emails, flyers, and any other materials disseminated to the public. The IRS also considers the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature and extent of the political activity, the intent of the organization, and the impact of the activity on the election.
To ensure compliance, the IRS provides guidance and education to tax-exempt organizations about the rules and restrictions under the Johnson Amendment. They offer workshops, publications, and online resources to help organizations understand their obligations and how to remain compliant while still exercising their right to engage in certain limited political activities.
When investigating potential violations, the IRS will typically send a letter to the organization requesting additional information or explaining the concerns. The organization has the opportunity to respond and provide documentation or explanations that may demonstrate compliance or mitigate any unintentional violations. The IRS may then decide to take further action, including revocation of tax-exempt status, based on the information gathered during the investigation.
In summary, the IRS plays a vital role in enforcing the Johnson Amendment by monitoring tax-exempt organizations' compliance with political campaign activity restrictions. Through education, investigation, and enforcement actions, the IRS ensures that organizations abide by the rules while still allowing them to engage in non-partisan activities that promote civic engagement and encourage voters' participation.
The 1935 Constitution Amendment: Why Change Was Needed
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Johnson Amendment is an amendment to the US tax code, which prohibits tax-exempt organizations from participating in political campaigns or endorsing candidates. It was introduced in 1954 by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson.
The amendment was introduced to prevent tax-exempt organizations from influencing politics. Johnson was motivated by two tax-exempt organizations that had campaigned against him in the 1954 primary election.
Opponents of the amendment argue that it violates the freedom of speech of nonprofit and religious leaders, preventing them from engaging in the political process. They see it as a threat to the nonprofit sector. There are also concerns that if churches were to endorse political candidates, it could damage public trust in these institutions.
Yes, there have been several attempts to repeal the amendment, including lawsuits and lobbying. In 2025, the IRS said that churches were exempt from the amendment, allowing them to endorse political candidates. However, the amendment has not been officially repealed and is still in effect.
