There is never a dull moment when Donald Trump is running for office. Now that he’s involved in politics he’s proposing to repeal the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations from intervening in political campaigns. After thanking the evangelical community for their amazing support in a recent speech, Trump claimed that the IRS is hindering the free speech rights of charitable nonprofits, specifically faith-based organizations, by disallowing their support or opposition of political candidates. While this is an obviously self-serving stance for the Republican Party, the attack on the Johnson Amendment is not new and it’s not entirely about free speech. It’s mostly about the monetary campaign contributions that are prohibited by the Amendment.
If the Amendment were repealed, churches and other charitable nonprofits would be allowed to make contributions to political campaigns and use charitable resources to engage in campaigning for or against specific candidates. If you think that sounds a lot like a political action committee (PAC), you’re right. Which means donations to charities would likely not be 100% tax deductible since political campaign contributions are not deductible by law. While this may not significantly impact donation levels, it would certainly change the landscape of charitable work and fundraising. Would charities be able to continue accomplishing the community-based initiatives they do if the public views charities as potentially abusive vehicles for partisan causes?
The argument for repealing the Johnson Amendment is somewhat diminished by the fact that certain nonprofits can already get involved in political campaigns, within limits. In addition to PACs, Section 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) nonprofits are allowed to participate in political campaigns as long as campaign activities are not the organization’s primary activity. Charitable 501(c)(3) nonprofits have chosen to give up certain rights and follow a myriad of rules, including refraining from campaign intervention, in exchange for the benefit of charitable status.
Charities exist to benefit the public interest, which means charitable assets cannot inure to private interests. The specific prohibition on campaign intervention by charities seems to fit within this general rule since support or opposition of a candidate is benefiting the interest of a select group rather than the community as a whole. Even with the Johnson Amendment, the voice of charities doesn’t go entirely unheard in politics since they can currently advocate for issues-based causes, conduct nonpartisan “get out the vote” campaigns and even engage in limited amounts of lobbying to support or oppose legislation. If a charity can’t fulfill its mission without participating in political campaigns, maybe that organization should have been established as a different type of nonprofit in the first place. The options already exist without repealing a long-standing law.
