Churches and other non-profits can now endorse political candidates

[2aguy]

Earlier this month, the Internal Revenue Service reinterpreted the ban, known as the Johnson Amendment, saying for the first time that churches could endorse candidates from the pulpit. The change, which came via a legal settlement, functionally nullifies a core tenet of the law, giving Christian conservatives their most significant victory involving church political organizing in 70 years. Their ultimate goal is still to totally eliminate the law, through Congress or the Supreme Court, removing all its limits on their political activities.

“Now churches are free,” said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which has been working to challenge the law for years. “The leash is gone.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/us/johnson-amendment-church-free-speech.html

Though the Johnson Rule has been in place for 70 years, we knew for instance where evangelicals, stood politically. They were just prohibited from saying so from the pulpit or advertising for a particular candidate.

The question is regardless of the repeal of the Johnson rule is it a good idea for Churches to start spouting politics from the pulpit and turning surmons into stump speeches for political candidates.

Will it turn off congregants? Will it just segregate people more as you seek churches that support your candidate?

What do you think?

You mean non-black, democrat party churches can now also endorse political candidates and speak on political topics.......

 

[konradv]

Nightclubs, concert halls are not guaranteed rights, they are like driving, a privilege.

Religions have a right, they are like protests, they are protected by the 1st Amendment. That is why the courts ruled so heavily that rights were denied when the protests kept going and churches were closed. The courts have decided, not me, go argue it with them.

MAGA has a love/hate relationship with the courts! They’re the law, until Trump says no.

 

[Marener]

Nightclubs, concert halls are not guaranteed rights, they are like driving, a privilege.

Religions have a right, they are like protests, they are protected by the 1st Amendment. That is why the courts ruled so heavily that rights were denied when the protests kept going and churches were closed. The courts have decided, not me, go argue it with them.

A church is to the freedom of religion as a concert hall is to freedom of expression.

I know conservatives seek to make religion some “super right” that takes precedence over others, but that has no constitutional basis.

Courts were all over the map on this issue. Some in favor but most opposed. It was never decided on a national basis and most lawsuits became moot.

 

[struth]

Earlier this month, the Internal Revenue Service reinterpreted the ban, known as the Johnson Amendment, saying for the first time that churches could endorse candidates from the pulpit. The change, which came via a legal settlement, functionally nullifies a core tenet of the law, giving Christian conservatives their most significant victory involving church political organizing in 70 years. Their ultimate goal is still to totally eliminate the law, through Congress or the Supreme Court, removing all its limits on their political activities.

“Now churches are free,” said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which has been working to challenge the law for years. “The leash is gone.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/us/johnson-amendment-church-free-speech.html

Though the Johnson Rule has been in place for 70 years, we knew for instance where evangelicals, stood politically. They were just prohibited from saying so from the pulpit or advertising for a particular candidate.

The question is regardless of the repeal of the Johnson rule is it a good idea for Churches to start spouting politics from the pulpit and turning surmons into stump speeches for political candidates.

Will it turn off congregants? Will it just segregate people more as you seek churches that support your candidate?

What do you think?

Nice to see freedom of speech returned

This amendment named after the demklan bigot LBJ, was met to suppress the civil rights movement and aimed at folks like MLK

 

[Papageorgio]

A church is to the freedom of religion as a concert hall is to freedom of expression.

I know conservatives seek to make religion some “super right” that takes precedence over others, but that has no constitutional basis.

Courts were all over the map on this issue. Some in favor but most opposed. It was never decided on a national basis and most lawsuits became moot.

Liberal NY courts ruled in favor of religion, take it up with them.

 

[Papageorgio]

Nice to see freedom of speech returned

This amendment named after the demklan bigot LBJ, was met to suppress the civil rights movement and aimed at folks like MLK

There is no freedom of speech violation, the church open and freely became a non profit and they knew the rules prohibited them from endorsing a political candidate. They could have become a non profit that could be political but then donors can’t write off their donations.

 

[struth]

There is no freedom of speech violation, the church open and freely became a non profit and they knew the rules prohibited them from endorsing a political candidate. They could have become a non profit that could be political but then donors can’t write off their donations.

Why does being a non profit mean you lose your free speech?

How come that’s not enforced across the board?

Where did you get the idea that people can’t write the donations off to other non profits?

 

[Papageorgio]

Why does being a non profit mean you lose your free speech?

How come that’s not enforced across the board?

Where did you get the idea that people can’t write the donations off to other non profits?

Depends on how you file for you non-profit, church’s file a 501C 3, which rules prohibit political speech. If they filed under a different 501 C then you can.

With a churches 501C 3 donors can write the donation off their taxes, they are eligible for property tax rates in most states, lots of advantages for not being political.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sub-saharan churches have been doing it for decades. Why not let everyone do it?

Thanks for stopping by to make up a lie, racist.

 

[MisterBeale]

Agreed.

Endorsing a candidate is a political action not a religious one.

WW

Whatever.

If it happens in the context of worship, and church leaders tell their flocks which candidates will best represent the interests of their faith, it still isn't any business of the government to get involved in that according to the Constitution.

That is the job of America's religions, to lead the masses to a more moral and righteous nation. They can't do that with the threat of Big Brother coercing them.

duh.

 

[pknopp]

I do agree with you, churches should be taxed, and no special privilege but when you allow protests and not allow churches to congregate, then there is an issue.

Taxed on what?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Thanks for stopping by to make up a lie, racist.

You've never seen politicians campaigning at the pulpit in sub-saharan churches? Moron.

 

[d0gbreath]

It will only serve to decrease the sizes of the congregations.