IRS Just Completely Over The Whole 'Separation Of Church And State' Thing
Johnson Amendment, Schmonson Amendment!
Since 1954, nonprofits — including churches — have been barred from endorsing political candidates, thanks to the Johnson Amendment, introduced by future president Lyndon B. Johnson when he was but a wee senator. It’s a very good amendment, one that keeps politicians from using these tax-exempt organizations as campaign tools.
Donald Trump hates that amendment and tried, in his first term, to get rid of it. Back then, there were still some guardrails of sanity in place and he was unable to do so. This time, the IRS has decided that it will just ignore the part of the amendment that bars churches in particular from “any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”
The announcement was made in a court document filed on Monday in response to a lawsuit from the National Religious Broadcasters and two Texas churches that were initially seeking an end to the amendment entirely and for both churches and nonprofits to be allowed to endorse political candidates.
Rather than do that, the IRS decided that churches alone will be allowed to endorse candidates, allowing priests, pastors, and other church leaders to tell their congregants who to vote for in order to avoid the fiery pits of hell. In fact, they decided that this was the “correct” interpretation of the Johnson Amendment, despite the fact that it has never been interpreted that way since its very inception.
One would have to imagine that if Lyndon B. Johnson did not intend for churches to not be allowed to endorse political campaigns, he might have mentioned that in the twenty years he lived after the amendment passed, during which he served as both vice president and president.
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.
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.
Except they do and we know they do. We know it’s nothing akin to a “family discussion,” and even if it were, it bears mentioning that families are not tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations.
It’s a dangerous change, because not only will it allow politicians to use churches as tools, it will allow churches to use politicians as tools, giving them even more political power than they already have. Church leaders will now be able to leverage the votes of their congregations in order to get politicians to do what they want. There’s a pretty big difference between a regular person offering an endorsement of a political candidate and the leader of one’s church doing so, as a regular person generally does not have the fate of anyone’s eternal souls in their hands.
Granted, the IRS has not been great about actually enforcing the Johnson Amendment, so a lot of this was happening anyway — but the fact that it’s now officially allowed is a pretty heavy brick through the wall of church and state.
PREVIOUSLY ON WONKETTE!
That is of course, until a Universalist Church gay priest openly endorses a Democrat, then all bets are off.
Dear IRS,
If you're okay with this, then tax the motherfuckers already. Fair is fair.
Kisses,
EQ