MLFA Nonprofit Governance Department
Definition of Political Campaign Intervention & What it Prohibits
There are various types of tax-exempt entities, 501(c)(3)s being the most common. A 501(c)(3) organization is granted that status because it proves to the IRS that it operates exclusively for one of the purposes listed in the IRC, charitable, educational, religious, or scientific. These types of organizations are prohibited by the Johnson Amendment from participating in political campaign intervention.
Political campaign intervention is defined as direct or indirect participation or intervention in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office. This prohibition extends to all candidates, federal, state, and local.
The prohibition includes the following activities:
- Endorsing candidates
- Donating to campaigns
- Rating candidates
- Distributing or publishing materials favoring specific candidates (whether directly or implied)
- Using your organization’s resources to support or oppose a candidate, including use of phones, computers, internal lists, property, and other resources.
Types of Political Activity 501(c)(3)s Are Allowed to Undertake
501(c)(3) organizations are permitted to engage in neutral nonpartisan political activities which are designed to educate voters and encourage civic participation.
This includes:
- Voter registration drives
- Voter carpools
- Publishing neutral bipartisan voter guides
- Issuing bipartisan candidate questionnaires covering a broad range of issues
- Hosting neutral Candidate forums at which all candidates are invited to speak
- Advocating for a policy position on an issue
- Supporting or opposing a ballot initiative
- Allowing candidates to speak in their personal capacity, without mention of their campaign and without asking individuals to vote or donate, is permitted. Organizations must be careful of the language they use when introducing the candidate, and carefully review what a candidate is going to say prior to allowing them to speak. It is prudent to consult with legal counsel before a candidate’s appearance to ensure IRS guidelines are followed.
Houses of Worship & First Amendment Considerations
The general prohibition against political campaign intervention codified in the law includes houses of worship. There are those who are of the opinion that the Johnson Amendment should not apply to houses of worship, arguing that it violates the free exercise clause of the first amendment. This opinion has recently given rise to a lawsuit against the head of the Internal Revenue Service, which the IRS chose to settle through a consent decree. See National Religious Broadcasters, et. al., v. Billy Long, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. In this consent decree the IRS attempted to give us a new interpretation of the Johnson amendment as it relates to houses of worship only. However, this move by the IRS is highly problematic because it reinterprets the black letter of the law, and does so outside of proper legal channels for law making. Such changes in interpretation can be done by courts, by an act of congress, or using the rule-making procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedures Act. None of these methods were utilized. Legal practitioners argue that the consent decree is therefore not enforceable law.
The consent decree created a narrow carve out, stating that houses of worship can endorse candidates during religious services. If considered good law, the decree still does not allow houses of worship to expend funds or resources to intervene in political campaigns. What it does seem to allow is the endorsement of a candidate under the following specific conditions: A house of worship can, in good faith, speak to its congregation through customary channels of communication on matters of faith, in connection with religious services, and concerning electoral politics viewed through the lens of religious faith.
Since the entry of the consent decree, many groups have sought to intervene in the case, arguing against the decree’s validity, and it may be slated for consideration by the Supreme Court this year (2026).
Several news outlets have reported that the IRS has altered its internal audit and enforcement protocols based on the consent decree. Supposedly, IRS investigations arising out of endorsements from the pulpit are temporarily frozen, but we have not seen any IRS publications reflect this change. Therefore, it is speculation, and legal guidance cannot be based on speculation.
Suggested Course of Action
Houses of worship should maintain internal policies and procedures which prohibit political campaign intervention. The consent decree is not concrete law that can be relied upon, it even contradicts IRS publications on the issue. Therefore, houses of worship, along with all other 501(c)(3) organizations should ensure that they only engage in neutral bipartisan political activities that are authorized by the IRS.
