The Senate is planning to vote Wednesday on a motion to proceed to the GOP’s tax-reform bill. If passed, the legislation would increase the standard deduction, eliminate a number of exemptions, and eliminate restrictions on pastors endorsing candidates from the pulpit.
If that last one seems out of place, it’s because Congressional Republicans are pushing to overturn a 63-year-old change to the tax code that was made by one of U.S. history’s most powerful Democratic senators.
In 1954 Senator Lyndon Johnson was running for re-election in his home state of Texas and faced a primary challenge from a millionaire rancher-oilman. A non-profit conservative political group published material recommending voting for Johnson’s challenger. To get back at this group, Johnson subsequently introduced an amendment to the tax code that would prohibit tax-exempt organizations from attempting to influence political campaigns. The present ban is codified in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and frequently referred to as the “Johnson amendment.”
Many legal scholars claim Johnson did not intend for his amendment to apply to churches (many of which endorsed him). The effect on religious organizations was merely the collateral effect since they held the same nonprofit status as groups whose speech Johnson wanted to limit. The effect on churches has also been rather minimal: Since it was adopted, only one church (Branch Ministries in New York) appears to have lost its nonprofit status because of engaging in political speech.
Strong Opinions, Minimal Change
Despite its mostly symbolic status, many conservative groups have made repealing the Johnson Amendment a legislative priority. Repeal was added as a plank in the GOP platform in 2016, and in February 2017 Republican members of Congress introduced the Free Speech Fairness Act, which would allow pastors, churches, and other tax-exempt entities to promote or oppose candidates in an election campaign. That same month President Trump signed an executive order stating his administration will not allow the IRS to enforce the Johnson amendment provision.
Some religious groups, including the United Methodist Church, the National Council of Churches and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, oppose the repeal. As the The New York Times notes, they believe “rolling back the Johnson amendment would be the biggest threat to the stability and mission of their organizations in a generation.”
“It will bring the partisan divide to our doors,” Jatrice Martel Gaiter, the executive vice president of external affairs for Volunteers of America, told the Times. “If the Senate doesn’t stop this, there will be havoc in the nonprofit sector.”
Both sides of the issue, however, seem to be exaggerating the effects. The Republican tax-reform legislation adopts the language of the Free Speech Fairness Act, which closely matches a proposal made by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA). In a 2013 study, the ECFA proposed a way to fix the Johnson amendment without fully repealing the law. They suggested exempting speech that would be of no added cost or a minimal cost to the organization. For example, a candidate endorsement during a sermon would be allowed but an expensive advertising campaign on behalf of a politician would still be prohibited.
The proposed legislation in the tax-reform bill doesn’t even mention churches directly, but merely says an organization’s nonprofit status can’t be revoked for political speech if it: “(A) is made in the ordinary course of the organization’s regular and customary activities in carrying out its exempt purpose, and (B) results in the organization incurring not more than de minimis incremental expenses.”
Will It Politicize the Pulpit?
Whether because of the law or a lack of interest in promoting candidates, few churches engage in direct political speech. A Pew Research Center conducted in 2016 found that only about one-in-ten churchgoers have heard direct support for (9 percent) or opposition to (11 percent) a specific candidate.
Among those who have heard religious leaders speak out for a candidate, Hillary Clinton was the name mentioned most often, with 6 percent of recent churchgoers saying their clergy have spoken out in support of her in the past few months. Donald Trump’s name was most commonly mentioned among those who have heard clergy speak out against a particular candidate, with 7 percent hearing him mentioned in this context.
According to Pew, compared with other groups, black Protestants were more apt to say they had heard their clergy speak out directly about political candidates. Fully 28 percent of black Protestants say their clergy spoke out in support of Clinton, and an additional 8 percent said church leaders supported Bernie Sanders. In addition, one-in-five black Protestants say their clergy had spoken out against Donald Trump, and 7 percent had heard religious leaders speak out against Clinton.
Free Speech Is for Pastors, Too
Many Christians have a natural aversion to the politicizing the pulpit. But even those who think it might not be prudent recognize that danger in allowing the government to decide what can and cannot be said in churches.
Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and a TGC Council member, has said, “While I don’t think a church normally should endorse candidates for office from the pulpit, that’s only because I believe the mission of the church ought to stand prophetically distant from political horsetrading.”
“That’s a matter of gospel prudence, though, not a matter of legal right and wrong,” Moore said. “A congregation should decide when to speak and what to say. Such decisions shouldn’t be dictated by bureaucrats at the IRS or anywhere else. The [Commission on Accountability and Policy for Religious Organization] is right that the chilling of the speech of churches is easily abused by politicians. That’s why I support the freedom of speech for churches and pastors, even when they say more or less than what I would say from the pulpit.”