Why was the Johnson Amendment passed and long
uncontroversial? Lyndon B. Johnson
was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1948 and successfully ran for
re-election in 1954. During that re-election campaign, he was opposed by some
tax-exempt organizations, including churches.
Johnson thought it was not fair for tax-exempt
groups and their leaders to engage in direct support or opposition to
candidates running for political office. His amendment was passed with little
opposition and has long been widely recognized as upholding the principle of
separation of church and state.
Even though the amendment was drafted by a
prominent Democratic Senator, it was signed into law by President Eisenhower, a
Republican. There was widespread agreement across the political spectrum that
mixing tax-exempt status with partisan political endorsements was
inappropriate.
From the beginning, though, there was some opposition
to the enactment of that 1954 amendment.
What was the basis for disapproval of the Johnson
Amendment? Even though they thought it was absolutely
right for their churches to be exempt from paying taxes, some conservative
Christians thought the Johnson Amendment was an infringement on their freedom
of speech.
Since they saw the amendment as a freedom of
speech violation, they thought it was unconstitutional and needed to be nullified
or just ignored, as to a certain extent, it has been through the years.
Pastors, they claim, have the responsibility to
speak out on moral issues, and doing so naturally includes mentioning the names of politicians
who are aligned with what is deemed to be immoral. Such opposition has grown
over the years among those affiliated with the Christian Right and now with MAGA.
With the growth of the latter groups over the
past decades, conservative pastors have largely felt constrained to speak out, especially
in opposition to abortion and LGBTQ rights and against politicians who are pro-choice
and pro-gay.
In recent years, Robert Jeffress, pastor of First
Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas, has been one prominent pastor who has expressed
strong disapproval of the Johnson Amendment. He has been one of Trump’s most
ardent supporters, and in April, he voiced that disapproval at the Easter prayer
service in the White House.
At the President’s request, soon afterward, he sent
a letter to Trump, outlining what he called “wrongful weaponization of the law”
and the “unlawful targeting” of his church. He has also said, “What a pastor
says in a church service is none of the government’s … business.”*2
Jeffress and many other conservative pastors
think they have the right to give moral instruction to their “flock,” including
guidance in political matters. On the website of Jeffress’s church, however, they
claim that their weekly telecasts are seen by hundreds of thousands of viewers.
Any pastors who have their sermons streamed on
the internet have no basis for saying they are just giving moral instruction to
their church members. To promote political candidates, as Jeffress is wont
to do, is a clear violation of the Johnson Amendment.
Why is ignoring the Johnson Amendment now a bad policy?
Since politically conservative church
members overwhelmingly vote Republican, if pastors in such churches promote
political candidates, that will make little difference. Most conservative
evangelicals will vote for Republicans no matter what.
On the other hand, since members of progressive
churches (such as the one I am a member of) overwhelmingly vote Democratic, pastors
of such churches mentioning the name of a candidate will make little
difference.
The problem is in churches where the adult members
are politically “purple.” Pastors promoting candidates by name in such churches
could and probably would influence many to vote for the candidate promoted by
the pastor. This is why the Johnson Amendment needs to be heeded.
On July 30, over
1,000 charitable nonprofits launched a national sign-on letter to defend
nonpartisanship and public trust (see here). The letter strongly objects
to efforts by the Trump administration to weaken the Johnson Amendment, which
protects nonprofits from partisan politics.
As Amanda Tyler says, this ignoring of
the Johnson amendment “threatens to turn churches into PACs”—and that can’t be
good for either the government or churches.*3
_____
*1
According to Wikipedia, “The Johnson Amendment is a provision in
the U.S. tax code … that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit
organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Section
501(c)(3) organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization in
the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to
universities and churches. The amendment is named for then-Senator Lyndon
B. Johnson of Texas.” In July 1954, it was enacted into law.
*2
This was reported in a July 30 article in the New York Times (see
here). The title of that article is “How Conservative Christians Cracked a
70-Year-Old Law,” and if you are interested in reading more about this issue, I
recommend that article. Also, I didn't quote from it, but here is a link to another good article, published yesterday, on the subject.
.jpg)