IRS says churches can endorse candidates

[JAHS]

IRS says churches can endorse candidates, which could impact Utah politics

SALT LAKE CITY — In a decision that could have potentially big impacts on Utah politics, the Internal Revenue Service has said that churches can now endorse political candidates without fear of losing their tax-exempt status.

The IRS made the declaration in a court filing in a Texas lawsuit involving an Evangelical media coalition that sued challenging what's known as "the Johnson Amendment" as a violation of their First Amendment free speech rights. Though not really enforced, the Johnson Amendment allowed faiths to weigh in on social issues, but prohibited religions from endorsing or opposing political candidates.

"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," the IRS filing said, adding:

"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."

Read more in the link above

--------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt this will change the position of the church as far as endorsing candidates is concerned.

 

[bluebell]

I really hope the church doesn’t alter its policies. 

[The Nehor]

Religion, already an exciting way to evade campaign finance laws. Now you don’t even have to pretend you aren’t a PAC.

[longview]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Religion, already an exciting way to evade campaign finance laws. Now you don’t even have to pretend you aren’t a PAC.

Religions have just as much right to participate in public square discussions as ANY other entities. If unions can do it, so can churches. Multiple candidates were given free access to the pulpits for campaign visits. Remember Hillary's fake ebonics speech at black churches?

The difference is the LDS church wants to minimize as much as possible any contentions between members and to focus on every individual's careful personal convictions. Joseph Smith taught that teaching correct principle will enable the people to better govern themselves. "A Republic IF you can keep it."

[MustardSeed]

Well, I believe that would end the church as we know it.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Well, I believe that would end the church as we know it.

I think it would be a disaster.  There would be no hope for unity in a ward or stake ever again.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Religions have just as much right to participate in public square discussions as ANY other entities. If unions can do it, so can churches. Multiple candidates were given free access to the pulpits for campaign visits. Remember Hillary's fake ebonics speech at black churches?

I don’t because it never happened. She used a generic southern dialect.

1 hour ago, longview said:

The difference is the LDS church wants to minimize as much as possible any contentions between members and to focus on every individual's careful personal convictions. Joseph Smith taught that teaching correct principle will enable the people to better govern themselves. "A Republic IF you can keep it."

I hope so. We have seen what happens when an LDS governor thinks they have been led by God to lead and the conspiracies that spring up about apostolic support. Making that support overt would lead to all kinds of disasters.

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Religions have just as much right to participate in public square discussions as ANY other entities. If unions can do it, so can churches.

This isn't necessarily true. As a society, we tend to give religion certain freedoms and privileges with regard to their religious status. In exchange for those freedoms and privileges, they traditionally give up certain other freedoms and privileges. Traditionally, this has been one of them. There is some discussion of this idea in the Federalist papers. The idea of the separation of Church and State was envisioned as a two-way street. The state would not impose itself on religion more than necessary. And religion would not try to remake the state. The idea of religion being a unifying agent that has the potential to unite people in all of the states in support of a particular candidate or cause was a concern for the founding fathers. This represents a fundamental difference between religions and other entities.

Having said that, the statement from the IRS has some ambiguities - the statement (emphasis mine):

Quote

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. ... 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.

This is a challenge because it leaves some uncertainty beyond the immediate scope of a congregation (the local church). A statement from the First Presidency to be read in an LDS Church service might be allowed. A declaration in general conference likely would not be allowed - or signage on the church lawn or their sign out front. A church that streams its service, might not be allowed to have political commentary in what they stream. So, until there is more clarification, if the suggested model is that of family communications, then there is a lot of gray area here.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, longview said:

The difference is the LDS church wants to minimize as much as possible any contentions between members and to focus on every individual's careful personal convictions. Joseph Smith taught that teaching correct principle will enable the people to better govern themselves. "A Republic IF you can keep it."

Given we are assigned wards and don’t get to choose which to attend outside of moving to a different house, it is essential in my opinion to keep politics out of church outside of a few crucial moral issues in order that all members can feel they are welcomed an a part of the ward family.

[Tacenda]

I edited out my political comment, but still this does stem from the Republicans I guess. But hopefully the LDS church won't go through with it.

https://theconversation.com/irs-says-churches-may-endorse-political-candidates-despite-a-decades-old-federal-statute-barring-them-from-doing-that-260854

Edited July 15, 2025 by Tacenda

[blackstrap]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 

Seems to me that was exactly what the " Johnson Amendment " did.

Personally, I do not want the Church to endorse any particular candidate or party over the pulpit. Is it true that Deseret News presented an article about Mike Lee recently?

[Calm]

They have published several opinion pieces by him.  As long as they give the opportunities to other politicians of differing views, I see that as a good thing.

https://www.deseret.com/authors/mike-lee/

There was also these ones:

https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/07/15/elmo-grok-and-anti-semitism-online/

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2025/07/14/utah-public-lands-indigenous-native-american-history/

https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/07/10/mike-lee-urges-supreme-court-hear-religious-freedom-football-case/

https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/07/08/utah-senator-mike-lee-has-the-youngest-chief-of-staff-in-the-us-senate/

Edited July 16, 2025 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

7 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Is it true that Deseret News presented an article about Mike Lee recently?

This is where things get a little easier to sort out. The Deseret News is a for profit corporation: it does not claim to be a religious organization. So while it may be owned by the LDS Church, and its contents may even be directed by the LDS Church, as long as it does not claim to be a religious organization or to be entitled to the benefits that are given to religious organizations, and as long as the LDS Church does not foot the bill for it using religious exempted resources, it is not considered to be a religion. The political speech of the Deseret News is regulated in the same way as any other news organization - and its rights are protected purely as free speech and not under any claim of religious privilege.