So the IRS Just Lets Churches Endorse Candidates. No Big Deal I Guess???
It's not a law, not a court ruling, and definitely not the end of democracy. But messing with the 70 year old Johnson Amendment is worth paying attention to.
Well, the sky isn’t falling. At least not this week. But the IRS did quietly sign off on something that’s worth a raised eyebrow—maybe even a skeptical sip of coffee.
In a proposed legal settlement, the agency agreed that churches can now endorse political candidates during worship services without risking their tax-exempt status.
No, this isn’t a repeal of the Johnson Amendment. And no, Congress didn’t vote on it. In fact, it’s not even official yet—just a proposed consent judgment between the IRS and a couple of churches in Texas, plus a religious broadcasting group.
But the real headline? The IRS now says that when pastors talk politics from the pulpit, it’s basically just "family discussion."
Totally different from campaign intervention.
Not at all the same thing as a PAC rally.
You know—just a casual chat about God’s will for your ballot.
A Quick History Lesson (Because That’s What We Do Here)
The Johnson Amendment was passed in 1954, back when Lyndon B. Johnson was still a Texas senator. It added a single sentence to the tax code: if you’re a 501(c)(3) nonprofit—including a church—you can’t "participate in, or intervene in" any political campaign.
The goal wasn’t to ban moral leadership or silence clergy. It was to keep nonprofits (especially churches) from becoming campaign machines funded by tax-deductible donations. And for the most part, it worked. Sort of.
The IRS has famously enforced the Johnson Amendment exactly once—against a church that bought newspaper ads opposing Bill Clinton in 1992. Otherwise, the rule’s been more of a speed bump than a wall.
Still, it sent a message: pulpits aren’t podiums for party politics.
So Why the Sudden Change?
Because two Texas churches and the National Religious Broadcasters association sued. They claimed that the Johnson Amendment violated their First Amendment rights—freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, the whole kitchen sink. They also argued that nonprofit newspapers can endorse candidates, so why not churches?
The IRS, rather than going to war over it, basically shrugged and said, “Yeah, okay, fine. If it’s during a worship service and part of your normal religious communication, we won’t count it as politicking.”
They even used Merriam-Webster definitions of "participate" and "intervene" to support the claim that religious speech about candidates doesn’t count as campaign involvement. A bold strategy.
Here’s What It Doesn’t Do
It doesn’t let churches run political ads or donate to candidates.
It doesn’t apply to all churches—just the plaintiffs. (For now.)
It doesn’t overturn the Johnson Amendment. That would take Congress.
But it does signal that churches can now endorse candidates more openly—at least from the pulpit—without fear of losing tax-exempt status.
Which could be... kind of a big deal.
So Is This the End of Church/State Separation?
Nope. But it is another crack in the wall.
And if you’ve been reading this Substack for a while, you know that I’m not exactly new to this conversation.
From Bruton Parish Church (built with taxes on liquor and slaves) to the Puritan theocracies of New England, we’ve had a long, weird, tangled relationship between church and state in this country.
The Johnson Amendment was never perfect. But it was at least an effort to keep things tidy.
Now we’ve got a situation where a pastor can create an entire sermon around why everyone who doesn’t vote for candidate X is going straight to hell, and the IRS will just nod politely and say, "Nice homily."
Why It Matters (Even If You’re Not a Church Person)
Quick answer — more dark money in our politics.
“But how,” you may ask, “since the churches can’t give money to campaigns?”
Let’s look at a couple of things:
1. Loopholes & Functionality
If a church doesn't donate directly to a campaign, but:
Endorses a candidate during worship
Streams that endorsement on YouTube or social media
Encourages a “vote for X” message in church bulletins, emails, sermons, or small groups
…then functionally, it's doing free, tax-deductible political promotion — just without filing any campaign finance disclosures.
It’s not technically dark money. But it’s untraceable influence, amplified by tax exemption.
2. Donors Might Exploit This
Let’s also look at the thing systemically:
Wealthy donors could start channeling large gifts to politically active churches, knowing their money will fund operations that support specific candidates.
As long as the money is “for ministry,” and the sermon happens to include an endorsement? The IRS isn’t going to intervene now.
No campaign finance disclosure. No contribution limits. And a tax deduction for the donor.
That’s what critics mean when they say this could open the door to “dark money.”
But Here’s Something to Remember:
Although the plaintiffs that got this whole thing started were Evangelical, even most evangelicals don’t want pulpit endorsements.
Polls consistently show that Americans—left, right, religious, secular—prefer some daylight between faith and campaign season.
And finally, because some of us—like me, your friendly neighborhood M.Div., church deacon, and Army veteran—believe that protecting sacred space from political theater is one way we honor both God and democracy.
So, no, the sky’s not falling.
But if you hear something hit the roof, maybe just check it out.
I’d Love to Hear From You
Has your faith community ever struggled to establish a line between faith and politics?
Do you think churches (synagogues, mosques, temples, groves, and covens) should be allowed to endorse candidates?
Imagine a church or faith group that you would describe as wrong, or even “evil.” How would you feel about their endorsements of candidates 1) that you oppose, and 2) you support?
If a church endorsed a candidate you supported, would you be inclined to “let it slide?”
Leave a comment or share this piece with someone thinking deeply about the future of religion and democracy.
If this resonates, explore more from my ongoing series on faith, democracy, and sacred boundaries:
Why I’m Rethinking My Vote: Church, State, and the Line Politicians Shouldn’t Cross
How a flag, a veteran’s personal history, and a politician in the vestry showed where the line between church and state should be drawn.If Christian Nationalists Win, Your Taxes Will Support Their Church
A whirlwind tour through the hidden history of American theocracy — from Puritan Massachusetts to Mormon Deseret.Lauren Boebert: That Sh*t Will Get You Killed in the Theocracy You Crave
Hypocrisy always makes for good satire.Want to Bring Theocracy to America? Cotton Mather Seekest Thee
An imaginary job description on LinkedIn hits uncomfortably close to home.
Check out NPR’s piece, IRS says churches can now endorse political candidates if you haven’t seen it yet.
Hello, Enthusiast! I’m a former military intelligence analyst turned nonprofit lifer—with two decades in housing, crisis response, recovery services, disability support, and mental health advocacy. The G.I. Bill funded my M.Div., which I used to study world religions and contemplative practice.If this kind of writing speaks to you — and you'd like to support more of it — please consider subscribing or sharing with a friend.
Tips go a long way in helping support this writer, so if you’re feeling flush, please consider tossing a coin into the tip jar. Many thanks, my friend!
It's time to take away the tax-exempt status away from these religious cults.