IRS: CONGREGATIONS CAN (SORT OF) ENDORSE CANDIDATES

In a court filing just yesterday, the IRS told a federal judge that churches (and synagogues and mosques and all other religious congregations) are free to endorse political candidates without losing their tax-exempt status.

But isn't that illegal? Technically, yes.

This is surprising news that seems to be flying under the radar but could end up meaning a lot. For decades, the so-called Johnson Amendment has prohibited 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations from endorsing political candidates. That includes schools, hospitals, cultural nonprofits—and yes, religious congregations.

It seemed pretty straightforward. A nonprofit is a nonprofit, after all, right?

Well, not exactly.

Congregations have always been treated as a different species of 501(c)(3) nonprofit. One significant difference is that they don’t have to register to be considered one. They are automatically treated as such by the IRS. Another major distinction is that they're not required to file annual financial disclosures like the Form 990 that all the other nonprofits have to deal with.

Why are they exempted from these requirements? It's generally understood to be a First Amendment accommodation—a way for the government to keep its hands off religion entirely, which includes asking too many questions about how congregations spend their money.

In their filing the IRS basically said this: If a rabbi or preacher or priest or imam wants to say “vote for Stanley” or “do not vote for Herman," that’s fine with them. (They did not remove the prohibition on paying to advertise that endorsement.)

Their reasoning was kind of folksy. They described the kinds of things that come up during the normal course of a service or sermon (or, I surmise, even a potluck) as sort of like "family discussions." They’re not considered official campaign activity unless the congregation takes out an ad or spends money to promote the endorsement.

In other words, if it happens in the pulpit, it’s tolerable to the IRS. At least for now.

Whether this is a good idea is a much longer discussion. Some will argue that it blurs the line between religion and politics. Others will say that in reality there is no such line because some people’s political choices are so deeply tied to their moral or religious beliefs, that it’s unrealistic (and, as they might argue, unfair) to draw a bright line between the two.

Whatever side winds up winning, one thing is undeniable. This isn’t a dramatic change. It’s more of a formal shrug in response to what’s already been happening for a long time as many congregations have been skirting or outright ignoring the Johnson Amendment for years without consequence.

I will never be one to endorse a candidate. But if pressed for an answer about whom I would have endorsed in the past, I would say that I'd have to go with Dwight D. Eisenhower.

I mean, the guy basically won World War II. And as president he built the interstates. (Who doesn't like the interstates?) Also, he never yelled. I have that on good authority.

Few people did not like Ike. And no one fought about him on Facebook.

In any case, no one should expect any real candidate endorsements from me.

Unless the IRS approves time travel as a tax-exempt clergy activity. In that case, you can expect more glowing words about Ike.