logo
Bill would allow charitable nonprofits to endorse candidates

Bill would allow charitable nonprofits to endorse candidates

Miami Herald10-06-2025

SALT LAKE CITY, June 10 (UPI) -- Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill that would amend a provision in the Internal Revenue Code to allow nonprofit entities, including houses of worship, to endorse or oppose political candidates.
Under the current provision in the tax code, called the Johnson Amendment, a charitable nonprofit may not participate in, or intervene in -- including publishing or distributing statements -- any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.
The Free Speech Fairness Act would change that by permitting statements by organizations that have Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status "if such statements are made in the ordinary course of carrying out [their] tax-exempt purpose."
Entities with 501(c)(3) status -- including churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship -- are exempted from taxation, and donations to them are tax-deductible for the donors. Penalties for violating the Johnson Amendment include revocation of the organization's tax-exempt status.
Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., who, with Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., introduced the bicameral legislation March 31, said the act is needed to uphold free speech protections. The Senate bill is in early legislative stages, while the House bill has been referred to the Ways and Means Committee.
"Fundamental American values must extend to everyone, including pastors, social workers, or non-profit employees and volunteers," Lankford said in a news release. "Everyone should have their constitutional rights to assembly, free speech, freedom of religion and free press protected."
The legislation would affect only the prohibition related to political candidate support or opposition. Nonprofits presently can engage in a limited amount of lobbying and advocacy for or against issues in the political arena, including ballot measures, according to the IRS.
Rick Cohen, chief communications officer and chief operating officer of the National Council of Nonprofits, said nonprofits already "can and should and do speak out on issues" within the tax code limits.
"All [the Johnson Amendment] is saying is you can't get involved in pushing a candidate for office, and there are plenty of ways to be effective in your work without crossing that line," Cohen said of the Johnson Amendment.
The amendment, enacted in 1954, is named for then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson, who championed the law. It does not prevent religious leaders from endorsing candidates outside their position as clergy, such as talking to friends and family or supporting their candidacy on their personal social media pages.
There have been attempts throughout the years to eliminate the Johnson Amendment. During his first term, President Donald Trump in 2017 signed an executive order stopping its enforcement, but the law remains on the books.
Alessandro Terenzoni, vice president of public policy at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the Johnson Amendment protects the integrity of elections and nonprofits.
"Repealing or weakening this law would change the character of nonprofits as we know them," Terenzoni said. "It could transform houses of worship into political action committees, flooding our elections with even more dark money."
He said polls have repeatedly shown a broad cross-section of Americans, including faith leaders, evangelical Christians and Republicans, do not want houses of worship endorsing or opposing candidates.
"Congressional leadership would be wise to remember that when the Johnson Amendment was threatened during Trump's first administration, more than 4,500 faith leaders, 5,500 nonprofit organizations and 106 religious and denominational organizations weighed in to strongly oppose weakening or repealing the current law," Terenzoni said.
There is an array of opinions among churches on whether they should be involved in politics or talk about political issues, according to Jeremy Dys, senior counsel for First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit public interest law firm. The houses of worship, not the government, should make the call, he said.
"So if you decide you don't want to talk about politics in your church, that's fine," Dys said. "If you decide you do want to talk about politics or what your faith brings to bear upon a political discussion, we support your right to do that, as well."
He said Johnson added the amendment language to the IRS code because he had been opposed by Texas churches in his re-election campaign.
"That type of restraint on speech has no business in our country that otherwise values freedom of speech," Dys said. "Congress would do well to just simply eliminate the Johnson Amendment."
Separate IRS investigations of possible Johnson Amendment violations by two churches represented by attorneys with First Liberty and the Jones Day law firm were closed this spring.
In Florida, Jill Woolbright, a candidate running for re-election to the Flagler County School Board, stopped by New Way Christian Fellowship in Palm Coast on a Sunday in 2022 and addressed the congregation during the service about the importance of her faith and why she was running for office. Then, the pastor prayed for her, Dys said.
"And that was enough for the IRS to come after the church," he said.
The agency sent a letter to the church in June 2024, saying it had information that indicated New Way may have conducted "political campaign intervention activities." Allowing one candidate for office to speak at an event without providing all candidates with the same opportunity could be a violation, the letter said.
Dys and John Gore, an attorney at Jones Day, said the basis for the investigation was unconstitutional.
"Indeed, government inquiry into a church's exercise and expression of its beliefs during worship services is irreconcilable with the First Amendment's core protections of religious independence and free exercise, free speech and free association," they said in a letter to the IRS.
The agency closed its investigation in April, saying it had determined that the church's activities "continue to allow you to be exempt from paying federal income tax."
For Grace Church St. Louis in Missouri, it was important its members be involved with their government at every level, Dys said. Its civic engagement group researched websites of candidates running in the 2022 local school board elections, posted the information on the church's website and made a physical copy available at the church, he said.
The candidates included church members Linda Henning, who was running for a seat on the Ritenour School Board, and Jeff Mintzlaff, who was running in the Kirkwood School Board race. Their fellow congregants were encouraged by the church to support them for being willing to run for office, which prompted the IRS to start an investigation, Dys said.
The lawyers called the examination an improper government intrusion into a church's religious affairs. Ultimately, the agency backed off and affirmed what Grace Church is doing is legal and constitutional and the investigation was closed in May, Dys said.
Woolbright, Henning and Mintzlaff all lost their races.
A lawsuit filed against the IRS by four nonprofit religious organizations -- the Washington, D.C.-based National Religious Broadcasters; two Texas churches, Sand Springs Church in Athens and First Baptist Church Waskom; and Intercessors for America, a Virginia ministry organization that leads a movement of prayer and fasting for the nation's leaders -- is seeking a declaration that the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional.
The Internal Revenue Code prohibits only nonprofits organized under Section 501(c)(3) from communicating their views about political candidates, according to the suit, which was filed Aug. 28 in U.S. District Court in Tyler, Texas. All for-profit corporations and all nonprofits organized under any other section of the code can speak freely, the suit says.
Hundreds of newspapers are organized under Section 501(c)(3), yet many openly endorse political candidates, the suit adds.
"Plaintiffs simply contend that they should also have the same freedom of speech," the suit concludes.
The National Council of Nonprofits said the suit contributes to the further politicization of the charitable sector and society.
"It will be opposed vigorously by the National Council of Nonprofits and all who are committed to serving communities rather than ideologues, self-serving politicians and their political operatives," the national council said.
Surveys conducted in 2017 showed 72% of the public supported keeping the Johnson Amendment in place and nearly 90% of evangelical leaders said it is wrong for preachers to endorse candidates from the pulpit, the council said.
Cohen said nonprofits prefer to stay above the partisan fray because it helps them do their work effectively no matter who's in office.
"We want our houses of worship to be a place where all are welcome and the same applies for all other nonprofits," Cohen said.
"All they care about is that if you're donating or volunteering, that you want to help make the world a better place. And when you come through their door, it's about whether you need their services or not, not your political leanings."
Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Israeli hostage remains recovered, Netanyahu confirms
Israeli hostage remains recovered, Netanyahu confirms

UPI

time16 minutes ago

  • UPI

Israeli hostage remains recovered, Netanyahu confirms

People react as they gather to watch a live stream reporting on the release of Israeli-American soldier hostage Edan Alexander, in hostages square outside the Kirya military base in Tel Aviv, Israel, in May. File photo Abir Sultan/EPA-EFE June 22 (UPI) -- The bodies of three Israeli hostages have been recovered from the Gaza Strip, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. Yonatan Samrano, Ofra Keidar and Staff Sgt. Shai Levinson's remains were retrieved Saturday as part of a military operation. Keidar, 71, was killed at a kibbutz and her remains were taken into Gaza. Levinson, who engaged in the Oct. 7th attack, was 19 at the time of this death, according to the IDF. Samerano's remains were discovered by the Israeli army. "I thank our commanders and fighters for a successful operation, for their determination and courage," Netanyahu said following the return of the remains. The Israel Defense Forces has recovered a total of eight bodies from Gaza this month as the latest battle between the two adversaries ignited on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas launched a cross-border attack on Israel, killing more than 1,200 people and taking 251 others hostage. The return of the hostage remains comes amid a U.S. attack on three Iranian nuclear facilities Sunday, which bolsters Israel's efforts to cripple Iran's nuclear ambitions. Israel has recently started its own attacks on Iran. "The campaign to return the abductees continues continuously and is taking place in parallel with the campaign against Iran," Netanyahu continued. "We will not rest until we return all our abductees home -- both the living and the dead." The IDF did not say where the remains were recovered.

War Powers Act Explained as Thomas Massie, Ro Khanna Push House Resolution
War Powers Act Explained as Thomas Massie, Ro Khanna Push House Resolution

Newsweek

time19 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

War Powers Act Explained as Thomas Massie, Ro Khanna Push House Resolution

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A bipartisan group of House lawmakers, led by Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California introduced a War Powers Resolution Tuesday, just days before President Donald Trump authorized a military strike on three key nuclear facilities in Iran. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities abroad without Congressional consent. The current legislative push invokes the act's provisions and highlights persistent congressional frustration over what many see as executive overreach in the deployment of military force. Khanna called for Congress to return to Washington, D.C., to vote on the measure, which he said Sunday had up to 50 co-sponsors across both parties. Why It Matters The House resolution spotlights a critical debate over constitutional war powers at a moment when U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts risks escalation. Lawmakers are seeking to reinforce Congress's authority to declare war amid rising tensions between Iran and Israel and amid U.S. military actions that, according to critics, may exceed presidential powers. The House initiative mirrors concurrent moves in the Senate, where Democratic Virginia Senator Tim Kaine and others have advanced parallel resolutions to restrict executive military action in Iran without legislative consent. This legislative surge reflects mounting concerns about the scope and legality of recent U.S. military activity abroad. United States Capitol Building, Washington DC, October 27, 2024. United States Capitol Building, Washington DC, October 27, 2024. Getty What To Know Massie introduced the War Powers Resolution on Tuesday, emphasizing that the U.S. Constitution vests the power to declare war with Congress, not the President. Massie invited participation from lawmakers across the aisle, underscoring bipartisan concern about unauthorized military actions, Newsweek previously reported. Khanna quickly co-sponsored the measure and publicly called for Congress to reconvene and vote. "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution," Khanna said in a press release. "Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," Khanna said. "Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." "Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace," Rep. Khanna concluded. The resolution has garnered support from 50 House members, including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Pramila Jayapal. The list remains heavily Democrat, though more Republicans may break with the party in the coming days as the aftermath of Trump's military strikes continue to play out. What People Are Saying Rep. Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, said in an official statement "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk. Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation. Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace." President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post, in part: "Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is. Actually, MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him. He is a negative force who almost always Votes "NO," no matter how good something may be. He's a simple minded "grandstander" who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon, while at the same time yelling "DEATH TO AMERICA" at every chance they get." What Happens Next The House War Powers Resolution is scheduled for a mandatory floor vote within 15 days under the chamber's rules. Parallel debates are ongoing in the Senate. As U.S. lawmakers weigh the resolution, the outcome may set new precedents for executive military authority and the balance of war powers between Congress and the White House.

Full List of Congress Members Backing War Powers Resolution Against Trump
Full List of Congress Members Backing War Powers Resolution Against Trump

Miami Herald

time41 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

Full List of Congress Members Backing War Powers Resolution Against Trump

Representatives Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, introduced a bipartisan House resolution last week in a bid to curb President Donald Trump's ability to escalate tensions with Iran. After the U.S. military carried out strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday, Massie told CNN that he believed the resolution would have enough co-sponsors to "be able to force a vote unless [House Speaker Mike] Johnson pulls some shenanigans." Trump on Saturday evening announced what he described as a "very successful attack" against three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan The president's decision came after Israel and Iran have exchanged consistent strikes since June 13. Israel had urged the U.S. to target Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that Tehran was moving close to creating a nuclear weapon. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes—not for weapons. The strikes have sparked concerns from some Democrats and some Republicans about a wider war breaking out—with some lawmakers accusing the president of violating the U.S. Constitution with the strikes. Massie and Khanna introduced their War Powers Resolution in an effort to prohibit U.S. military involvement in Iran last Tuesday, amid the backdrop of escalating tensions with Iran. "The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked the United States," Massie said in a press release announcing the resolution. "Congress has the sole power to declare war against Iran. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution." Khanna shared similar concerns in a statement emailed to Newsweek on Sunday after the strikes on Iran moved forward. "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," the congressman said. "Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, introduced companion legislation to the House resolution the day before his House colleagues. "It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States. I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict," the senator said in a press release. Representative Ro Khanna, a California DemocratRepresentative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky RepublicanRepresentative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York DemocratRepresentative Val Hoyle, an Oregon DemocratRepresentative Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan DemocratRepresentative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington DemocratRepresentative Donald Beyer, a Virginia DemocratRepresentative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Greg Casar, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Ayanna Pressley, a Massachusetts DemocratRepresentative Delia Ramirez, an Illinois DemocratRepresentative Summer Lee, a Pennsylvania DemocratRepresentative Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota DemocratRepresentative Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, an Illinois DemocratRepresentative Nydia Velazquez, a New York DemocratRepresentative James McGovern, a Massachusetts DemocratRepresentative Chellie Pingree, a Maine DemocratRepresentative Mark Pocan, a Wisconsin DemocratRepresentative Veronica Escobar, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Paul Tonko, a New York DemocratRepresentative Becca Balint, a Vermont DemocratRepresentative Bonnie Watson Coleman, a New Jersey DemocratRepresentative Henry "Hank" Johnson, a Georgia DemocratDelegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Washington, D.C., DemocratRepresentative Sara Jacobs, a California DemocratRepresentative Janice Schakowsky, an Illinois DemocratRepresentative Lateefah Simon, a California DemocratRepresentative Christopher Deluzio, a Pennsylvania DemocratRepresentative Gwen Moore, a Wisconsin DemocratRepresentative Mike Thompson, a California DemocratRepresentative Yassamin Ansari, an Arizona DemocratRepresentative Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi DemocratRepresentative Luis Correa, a California DemocratRepresentative Betty McCollum, a Minnesota DemocratRepresentative Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio DemocratRepresentative Mark DeSaulnier, a California DemocratRepresentative Stephen Lynch, a Massachusetts DemocratRepresentative Andre Carson, an Indiana DemocratRepresentative Mary Gay Scanlon, a Pennsylvania DemocratRepresentative Joaquin Castro, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Maxwell Frost, a Florida DemocratRepresentative Al Green, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Debbie Dingell, a Michigan DemocratRepresentative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland DemocratRepresentative Melanie Stansbury, a New Mexico DemocratRepresentative Sylvia Garcia, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Teresa Leger Fernandez, a New Mexico DemocratRepresentative Diana DeGette, a Colorado DemocratSenator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities told Newsweek: "Iran has several options when it comes to retaliation, but will need to weigh them carefully. A stronger response may be useful for signaling Tehran's continuing resolve to internal and external audiences but it could also bring further U.S. military action and deeper U.S. involvement. Iran could target U.S. military bases and personnel in the Middle East." President Donald Trump on Truth Social on Saturday evening: "ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU!" Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday: "The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT by attacking Iran's peaceful nuclear installations. The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior. In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people." Iran's foreign minister said after the attack that his country reserves "all options to defend its sovereignty." The U.S. military is preemptively preparing for any attack from Tehran in response. It's unclear whether the War Powers Resolution sponsored by Khanna and Massie, which aims to curb Trump's ability to take military action against Iran, will move forward in the House. However, with Republican control of both chambers of Congress, it is not widely expected to succeed. Related Articles Video of Bernie Sanders Reacting to Trump's Iran Strike Live Goes ViralJD Vance Issues Warning on Trump Admin's 'Biggest Red Line' for IranPutin Ally Says Countries Now Ready to Supply Iran With Nuclear Weapons'Operation Midnight Hammer': What We Know About the Iran Strikes 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store