Fighting Dark Money by Defending the Johnson Amendment (National Religious Broadcasters, et al. v. IRS, et al.)

The Johnson Amendment is a decades-old provision of federal tax law that prohibits all 501(c)(3) organizations — including religious, charitable and educational nonprofits — from endorsing or opposing political candidates. In exchange, these groups receive significant public benefits: exemption from federal income tax and the ability to receive tax-deductible contributions. The rule preserves the nonpartisan nature of the charitable sector and protects taxpayers from subsidizing political campaigns.  

Congress — the only branch with the power to change the law — has refused to do so. By seeking to write an exception for religious 501(c)(3)s into the Johnson Amendment via a court order, the Trump administration’s IRS is attempting to work around the authority of Congress and around the checks and balances that maintain our rule of law.

In National Religious Broadcasters v. IRS, four 501(c)(3) groups — including two churches — sued the IRS, seeking a court-approved settlement that would permanently shield religious groups from Johnson Amendment enforcement for participating or intervening in political campaigns.  

Under the proposed settlement, the IRS would not treat certain communications by religious groups or houses of worship endorsing or opposing candidates as “participation” or “intervention” in a political campaign, so long as they are delivered through “customary channels of communication” on matters of faith. 

What’s at Stake? 

While the case is being argued only in respect to the named plaintiffs, an exemption would be broadly applied to religious 501(c)(3)s nationwide. Allowing any religious organization to engage in partisan politics would have drastic consequences:  

• A new class of “dark money” groups. Religious nonprofits could accept unlimited, tax-deductible donations to fund electioneering without disclosing donors, making them a new class of existing groups that donors can funnel unlimited, secret money through, commonly known as “dark money.”  
• Taxpayer-subsidized partisanship. Politicized 501(c)(3)s would pose an even greater threat to transparency in elections, since — unlike 501(c)(4)s — 501(c)(3)s can offer their donors charitable tax deductions for their contributions. Wealthy special interests could receive a tax benefit for their secret spending through a religious 501(c)(3).  
• Weakened campaign finance transparency. IRS and Federal Election Commission enforcement gaps already allow many politically active nonprofits to avoid disclosure; the proposed settlement would widen this loophole further and make it harder to uphold campaign finance laws that protect our elections. 

CLC’s brief explains that the Johnson Amendment is constitutional and essential to  protecting both electoral integrity and the credibility of the nonprofit sector. If the settlement were approved, it would dismantle a core safeguard in campaign finance law. Religious nonprofits could become conduits for unlimited, undisclosed taxpayer-subsidized political spending — further eroding public trust in elections and charitable institutions alike.

Campaign Legal Center, Public Citizen and Common Cause have urged the court to reject the settlement, preserve the Johnson Amendment and uphold longstanding rules that keep tax-exempt charities focused on public service, not partisan politics.