logo
Bill would allow charitable nonprofits to endorse candidates

Bill would allow charitable nonprofits to endorse candidates

Miami Heralda day ago

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

Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?
Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?

Yahoo

time8 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?

This coverage is made possible through Votebeat, a nonpartisan news organization covering local election administration and voting access. Sign up for Votebeat Texas' free newsletters here. Republicans representing Texas in Congress are considering this week whether to push their state Legislature to take the unusual step of redrawing district lines to shore up the GOP's advantage in the U.S. House. But the contours of the plan, including whether Gov. Greg Abbott would call a special session of the Legislature to redraw the maps, remain largely uncertain. The idea is being driven by President Donald Trump's political advisers, who want to draw up new maps that would give Republicans a better chance to flip seats currently held by Democrats, according to two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. That proposal, which would involve shifting GOP voters from safely red districts into neighboring blue ones, is aimed at safeguarding Republicans' thin majority in Congress, where they control the lower chamber, 220-212. The redistricting proposal, and the Trump team's role in pushing it, was first reported by The New York Times Monday. Without a Republican majority in Congress, Trump's legislative agenda would likely stall, and the president could face investigations from newly empowered Democratic committee chairs intent on scrutinizing the White House. Here's what we know about the plan so far: On Capitol Hill, members of the Texas GOP delegation huddled Monday night to discuss the prospect of reshaping their districts. Most of the 25-member group expressed reluctance about the idea, citing concerns about jeopardizing their districts in next year's midterms if the new maps overextended the GOP's advantage, according to the two GOP aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private deliberations. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Lubbock, was skeptical of the idea. 'We just recently worked on the new maps,' Arrington told The Texas Tribune. To reopen the process, he said, 'there'd have to be a significant benefit to our state.' The delegation has yet to be presented with mockups of new maps, two aides said. Each state's political maps must be redrawn once a decade, after each round of the U.S. census, to account for population growth and ensure every congressional and legislative district has roughly the same number of people. Texas lawmakers last overhauled their district lines in 2021. There's no federal law that prohibits states from redrawing district maps midcycle, said Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's civil rights division. Laws around the timing to redraw congressional and state district maps vary by state. In Texas, the state constitution doesn't specify timing, so the redrawing of maps is left to the discretion of the governor and the Legislature. Lawmakers gaveled out of their 140-day regular session last week, meaning they would need to be called back for a special session to change the state's political maps. Abbott has the sole authority to order overtime sessions and decide what lawmakers are allowed to consider. A trial is underway in El Paso in a long-running challenge to the state legislative and congressional district maps Texas drew after the 2020 U.S. Census. If Texas redraws its congressional maps, state officials would then ask the court to toss the claims challenging those districts 'that no longer exist,' Levitt said. The portion of the case over the state legislative district maps would continue. If the judge agrees, then both parties would have to file new legal claims for the updated maps. It isn't clear how much maps could change, but voters could find themselves in new districts, and Levitt said redrawing the lines in the middle of the redistricting cycle is a bad idea. 'If the people of Texas think that their representatives have done a bad job, then when the [district] lines change, they're not voting on those representatives anymore,' Levitt said. 'New people are voting on those representatives.' The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Democrats' national arm for contesting state GOP mapmaking, said the proposal to expand Republicans' stronghold in Texas was 'yet another example of Trump trying to suppress votes in order to hold onto power.' 'Texas's congressional map is already being sued for violating the Voting Rights Act because it diminishes the voting power of the state's fast-growing Latino population,' John Bisognano, president of the NDRC said. 'To draw an even more extreme gerrymander would only assure that the barrage of legal challenges against Texas will continue.' When Republicans in charge of the Legislature redrew the district lines after the 2020 census, they focused on reinforcing their political support in districts already controlled by the GOP. This redistricting proposal would likely take a different approach. As things stand, Republicans hold 25 of the state's 38 congressional seats. Democrats hold 12 seats and are expected to regain control of Texas' one vacant seat in a special election this fall. Most of Texas' GOP-controlled districts lean heavily Republican: In last year's election, 24 of those 25 seats were carried by a Republican victor who received at least 60% of the vote or ran unopposed. The exception was U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz, R-Edinburg, who captured 57% of the vote and won by a comfortable 14-point margin. With little competition to speak of, The Times reported, Trump's political advisers believe at least some of those districts could bear the loss of GOP voters who would be reshuffled into neighboring, Democratic-held districts — giving Republican hopefuls a better chance to flip those seats from blue to red. The party in control of the White House frequently loses seats during midterm cycles, and Trump's team is likely looking to offset potential GOP losses in other states and improve the odds of holding on to a narrow House majority. Incumbent Republicans, though, don't love the idea of sacrificing a comfortable race in a safe district for the possibility of picking up a few seats, according to GOP aides. In 2003, after Texas Republicans initially left it up to the courts to draw new lines following the 2000 census, then-U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Sugar Land Republican, embarked instead on a bold course of action to consolidate GOP power in the state. He, along with his Republican allies, redrew the lines as the opening salvo to a multistate redistricting plan aimed at accumulating power for his party in states across the country. Enraged by the power play, Democrats fled the state, depriving the Texas House of the quorum it needed to function. The rebels eventually relented under threat of arrest, a rare power in the Texas Constitution used to compel absent members back to return to Austin when the Legislature is in session. The lines were then redrawn, cementing the GOP majority the delegation has enjoyed in Washington for the past two decades. However, what's at play this time is different than in the early 2000s, when Republicans had a newfound majority in the Legislature and had a number of vulnerable Democratic incumbents they could pick off. Now, Republicans have been entrenched in the majority for decades and will have to answer the question of whether there's really more to gain, said Kareem Crayton, the vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice's Washington office. 'That's the tradeoff. You can do that too much so that you actually make them so competitive that the other side wins,' Crayton said. 'That's always a danger.' Texas Republicans are planning to reconvene Thursday to continue discussing the plan, according to Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Irving, and Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Houston, who said they will attend the meeting. Members of Trump's political team are also expected to attend, according to Hunt and two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. She's based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@ Disclosure: New York Times has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Missouri approves stadium aid for Kansas City Chiefs and Royals and disaster relief for St. Louis
Missouri approves stadium aid for Kansas City Chiefs and Royals and disaster relief for St. Louis

San Francisco Chronicle​

time13 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Missouri approves stadium aid for Kansas City Chiefs and Royals and disaster relief for St. Louis

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri lawmakers on Wednesday approved hundreds of millions of dollars of financial aid to try to persuade the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals to remain in the state and help the St. Louis area recover from a devastating tornado. House passage sends the legislative package to Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe, who called lawmakers into special session with a plea for urgent action. Kehoe is expected to sign the measures into law. Missouri's session paired two otherwise unrelated national trends — a movement for new taxpayer-funded sports stadiums and a reevaluation of states' roles in natural disasters as President Donald Trump's administration reassess federal aid programs. The stadium subsidies already were a top concern in Missouri when a deadly tornado struck St. Louis on May 16, causing an estimated $1.6 billion of damage a day after lawmakers had wrapped up work in their annual regular session. The disaster relief had widespread support. Lawmakers listened attentively on Wednesday as Democratic state Rep. Kimberly-Ann Collins described with a cracking voice how she witnessed the tornado rip the roof off her house and damage her St. Louis neighborhood. Collins said she has no home insurance, slept in her car for days and has accepted food from others. 'Homes are crumbled and leveled,' said Collins, adding: 'It hurts me to my core to see the families that have worked so hard, the businesses that have worked so hard, to see them ripped apart.' Lawmakers approved $100 million of open-ended aid for St. Louis and $25 million for emergency housing assistance in any areas covered under requests for presidential disaster declarations. They also authorized a $5,000 income tax credit to offset insurance policy deductibles for homeowners and renters hit by this year's storms — a provision that state budget director Dan Haug said could eventually cost up to $600 million. The Chiefs and Royals currently play football and baseball in side-by-side stadiums in Jackson County, Missouri, under leases that expire in January 2031. Jackson County voters last year defeated a sales tax extension that would have helped finance an $800 million renovation of the Chiefs' Arrowhead Stadium and a $2 billion ballpark district for the Royals in downtown Kansas City. That prompted lawmakers in neighboring Kansas last year to authorize bonds for up to 70% of the cost of new stadiums in Kansas to lure the teams to their state. The Royals have bought a mortgage for property in Kansas, though the team also has continued to pursue other possible sites in Missouri. The Kansas offer is scheduled to expire June 30, creating urgency for Missouri to approve a counter-offer. Missouri's legislation authorizes bonds covering up to 50% of the cost of new or renovated stadiums, plus up to $50 million of tax credits for each stadium and unspecified aid from local governments. If they choose to stay in Missouri, the Chiefs plan a $1.15 billion renovation of Arrowhead Stadium. Though they have no specific plans in the works, the St. Louis Cardinals also would be eligible for stadium aid if they undertake a project of at least $500 million. Many economists contend public funding for stadiums isn't worth it, because sports tend to divert discretionary spending away from other forms of entertainment rather than generate new income. But supporters said Missouri stands to lose millions of dollars of tax revenue if Kansas City's most prominent professional sports teams move to Kansas. They said Missouri's reputation also would take a hit, particularly if it loses the Chiefs, which have won three of the past six Super Bowls. 'We have the chance to maybe save what is the symbol of this state,' Rep. Jim Murphy, a Republican from St. Louis County, said while illustrating cross-state support for the measure. The legislation faced some bipartisan pushback from those who described it as a subsidy for wealthy sports team owners. Others raised concerns that a property tax break for homeowners, which was added in the Senate to gain votes, violates the state constitution by providing different levels of tax relief in various counties while excluding others entirely.

House GOP approves ‘technical changes' to Trump agenda bill
House GOP approves ‘technical changes' to Trump agenda bill

The Hill

time13 minutes ago

  • The Hill

House GOP approves ‘technical changes' to Trump agenda bill

House Republicans on Wednesday greenlit a series of 'technical changes' to the party's tax cut and spending package, removing language that would have thrown their effort off course in the Senate. The chamber approved the tweaks — which were tucked inside a procedural rule for a separate measure — in a 213-207 vote, weeks after Republicans passed the sprawling package full of President Trump's legislative priorities. The adopted rule also tees up a final vote on the White House's bill to claw back $9.4 billion in federal spending. House GOP leaders moved to make the changes after the Senate parliamentarian scrubbed through the legislation — a procedure known as the 'Byrd bath' — and identified provisions and language that do not comply with the strict rules for the budget reconciliation process, which the GOP trifecta is using to circumvent a Democratic filibuster in the Senate and approve the bill by a simple majority. Leaving the legislation as it was risked the parliamentarian ruling that it was not compliant, which would have resulted in the threshold for passage in the Senate increasing from a simple majority to 60 votes — allowing Democratic opposition to block it. The changes to the Trump agenda bill — officially titled the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act — pertain to defense funding, energy policy and changes to Medicaid. For defense, Republicans nixed $2 billion for the enhancement of military intelligence programs; $500 million for the development, procurement and integration of maritime mines; and $62 million to convert Ohio-class submarine tubes to accept additional missiles. On the energy front, meanwhile, the changes removed a provision that would have reinstated leases for a proposed copper and nickel mine that had been renewed under the first Trump administration but revoked under Biden. The mine would have been located near an area known as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, a nature preserve that contains canoe routes and species including black bears, moose and foxes. While leaders moved to strike some portions of the bill, they still plan to fight for those provisions when the package hits the Senate floor. 'We disagree; ultimately we're going to try it again on the Senate floor,' House Majority Leadere Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Tuesday. ' We disagree with the parliamentarian. … But you can't take the risk on any of them. You cannot take the risk because if any one of them is ruled on the Senate floor to be fatal, it's a 60-vote bill. The whole bill is a 60-vote bill — you can't take that risk.' With the changes made, the House is now expected to formally send the package to the Senate, where Republicans are mapping out their own changes to the behemoth bill. Some GOP senators want to decrease the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, others are pushing to increase the spending cuts in the bill, and a subset are pressing for a smaller rollback of the green energy tax credits that Democrats approved in 2022. Any changes to the House bill in the Senate, however, risks party leadership losing support in the lower chamber, which will have to approve the Senate's tweaks before the bill can head to Trump's desk for signature. Party leaders are still hoping to enact the package by July 4, but that timeline is coming into serious question as Republicans remain at odds over a series of high-stakes issues. Rachel Frazin contributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store