The Johnson Amendment Under Attack
Whoa! Wait a minute. You can’t do that! You can’t unilaterally change the IRS code that was voted into law 70 years ago. That’s Congress's job. But in this new world of Christian religious liberty, it seems that even the rule of law is rapidly changing.
Let’s go back to the mid 1950’s and consider the toxic politics during The Red Scare. Lyndon Johnson was at the time a senator from The State of Texas. Johnson, ever the anti-communist, was accused of being soft on liberals and of having communist leanings. The deep pockets of oil tycoon H.L. Hunt helped to drive Sunday morning conversations about communists from the pulpit. Johnson, seeking re-election, saw the writing on the wall that he needed to find protection from what could become a Christian voting block acting against his re-election. In response to this ‘scare’, Johnson crafted the legislation we now call The Johnson Amendment.
What is The Johnson Amendment and what does this IRS code describe? Paragraph (3) of subsection © within section 501 of Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code) of the U.S. Code describes organizations which may be exempt from U.S. Federal Income Tax. The entirety of the code can be found here, but the subsection of interest to our conversation reads:
..and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
The Johnson Amendment seems pretty clear as written, ‘any political campaign on behalf of any candidate’. But when challenged in 2024 by National Religious Broadcasters, et al. Plaintiffs v. Billy Long, IRS Tax Commissioner, The IRS stated that The Constitution and The Judiciary Act of 1789, gave them the right to interpret IRS Code in new ways. Here is a quote directly from taxnotes.com that describes the IRS decision and their new interpretation of The Johnson Amendment:
When a house of worship in good faith speaks to its congregation, through its customary channels of communication on matters of faith in connection with religious services, concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith, it neither “participate[s]” nor “intervene[s]” in a “political campaign,” within the ordinary meaning of those words. To “participate” in a political campaign is “to take part” in the political campaign, and to “intervene” in a political campaign is “to interfere with the outcome or course” of the political campaign. See Participate, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary (2025); Intervene, Merriam-Webster's Dictionary (2025). Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates. Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted.
As properly interpreted, sure. We’re all just family, right? This overt act of Christian nationalism creates a tool for tax deductible political donations. This interpretation, or act of religious liberty on behalf of The IRS results in privilege for these Christians. This case will be remanded to the courts and litigated up to and including SCOTUS. And we can guess how SCOTUS will rule.
We will continue to fight to maintain The Johnson Amendment as originally written and interpreted in 1954.