Should the Johnson Amendment (forbids religions and charities from endorsing candidates) be repealed?

[Bob Crockett]

23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Anyone here heard of the Johnson Amendment?

It forbids 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations -- including charities, universities and churches -- from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Doing so could cause them to lose their tax-exempt status.

At today's National Prayer Breakfast, President Trump reiterated his intent, voiced during his election campaign, to repeal the Johnson Amendment.

Ordinarily I might oppose such a move. But now, with Fred Karger gunning for the Church, trying to deprive it of its tax-exempt status (altogether unjustifiably, in my view), repeal of the Johnson Amendment might be a thing that is needed to help protect the Church against ill-intentioned parties like Karger and his ilk.

So now, I'm not sure how I feel about repealing the amendment.

I'm bringing it up for discussion here.

Yet non-profit trade organizations and unions endorse candidates all the time.   

[rockpond]

23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Anyone here heard of the Johnson Amendment?

It forbids 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations -- including charities, universities and churches -- from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Doing so could cause them to lose their tax-exempt status.

At today's National Prayer Breakfast, President Trump reiterated his intent, voiced during his election campaign, to repeal the Johnson Amendment.

Ordinarily I might oppose such a move. But now, with Fred Karger gunning for the Church, trying to deprive it of its tax-exempt status (altogether unjustifiably, in my view), repeal of the Johnson Amendment might be a thing that is needed to help protect the Church against ill-intentioned parties like Karger and his ilk.

So now, I'm not sure how I feel about repealing the amendment.

I'm bringing it up for discussion here.

I think it should be repealed.  I agree with you, Scott, that I don't think it will change the Brethren's position on the matter and the Church will still avoid endorsing candidates but the church should have that right, if they want it, without fear of losing tax exemptions.  (I was shocked that the DN asked Trump to resign from the election even though I didn't vote for him.)

That said, I don't see that it really impacts what Karger is trying to do since the case he hopes to build is around political involvement, not candidate endorsements.

[Bob Crockett]

Whereas I would vigorously defend the right of religions to their tax-exempt status, the real solution is to repeal tax exemptions for charities and non-profits (ensuring, however, that a contribution is not "income") and drastically lowering the tax rate all around.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

It protects government from religion. Do we as a multi-religious society want our government controlled by one religion. IE: Iran.

Well, if it's the right religion. 
It's going to happen eventually anyway.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Well, none of the current church leaders have ever been able to do it, because they would jeopardize the church's tax-exempt status. So the fact that they haven't done so in recent member isn't really meaningful.

 

I think it's self evident given that the Deseret News put out that editorial against Trump. If there was any support for Trump in the FP or the 12 I doubt the DN would have run that editorial. 

You can dismiss this and file it under unconfirmed rumors, but I did read a post by someone who claimed they were at a dinner late last year with Elder Oaks. They claimed that Elder Oaks said that none of the apostles were voting for Trump, and he was bad news. This was before the election. Obviously I can't confirm that and it's third hand stuff.

 

The Church leadership does not micro-manage the Deseret News, and they definitely didn't mandate the editorial to which you refer.

So all you really have to support your position is supposition and rumor.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, if it's the right religion. 
It's going to happen eventually anyway.

Not too sure we'd meet the USSC definition of a sincerely held religious belief.

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think it should be repealed.  I agree with you, Scott, that I don't think it will change the Brethren's position on the matter and the Church will still avoid endorsing candidates but the church should have that right, if they want it, without fear of losing tax exemptions.  (I was shocked that the DN asked Trump to resign from the election even though I didn't vote for him.)

That said, I don't see that it really impacts what Karger is trying to do since the case he hopes to build is around political involvement, not candidate endorsements.

You may be right about Karger. But his activities have recently impacted my views in general about tax exemption for churches, and I'm starting to lean toward favoring the rollback of anything that would favor secularism above religion as pertaining to involvement in the political sphere, the Johnson Amendment included.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You may be right about Karger. But his activities have recently impacted my views in general about tax exemption for churches, and I'm starting to lean toward favoring the rollback of anything that would favor secularism above religion as pertaining to involvement in the political sphere, the Johnson Amendment included.

The Johnson Amendment restricts both religious and secular non-profits alike.  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

It protects government from religion. Do we as a multi-religious society want our government controlled by one religion. IE: Iran.

I beg to differ. You've turned the intent on its head. It protects religion from government intrusion and oppression.

The purpose of the establishment clause in the First Amendment is to prevent the government from favoring one religion above all others (i.e. a state-sponsored religion). Thus religions in general are protected by it.

It never was intended to forbid individual religions from making their voices heard and their influence felt in the political or public sphere.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The Johnson Amendment restricts both religious and secular non-profits alike.  

I agree.

Upon recent reflection, I'm not so sure that's such a bad thing.

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church leadership does not micro-manage the Deseret News, and they definitely didn't mandate the editorial to which you refer.

So all you really have to support your position is supposition and rumor.

I don't find it plausible that the Deseret News would publish the editorial it did on Trump if there were any support for Trump among the most senior church leadership. 

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't find it plausible that the Deseret News would publish the editorial it did on Trump if there were any support for Trump among the most senior church leadership. 

It's far less plausible that the newspaper would have polled the senior Church leadership before writing an editorial. That just doesn't happen.

I work for the Deseret News, and I know how things function here.

Furthermore, the individual Church leaders don't typically express their preferences for political candidates. They scrupulously avoid doing that, because they don't want to be accused of personally influencing election outcomes.

They won't even allow the Church News to write stories about Mormon politicians while they are running for office.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's far less plausible that the newspaper would have polled the senior Church leadership before writing an editorial. That just doesn't happen.

I work for the Deseret News, and I know how things function here.

I'm skeptical that there is as much separation as all that, but I don't think it's worth arguing about. 

 

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Furthermore, the individual Church leaders don't typically express their preferences for political candidates. They scrupulously avoid doing that, because they don't want to be accused of personally influencing election outcomes.

Again, they have to avoid doing so directly, for tax reasons. Church leaders don't seem to be shy about trying to influence politics in the areas where it won't put the church's tax exempt status in jeopardy. 

 

 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm skeptical that there is as much separation as all that, but I don't think it's worth arguing about. 

 

Again, they have to avoid doing so directly, for tax reasons. Church leaders don't seem to be shy about trying to influence politics in the areas where it won't put the church's tax exempt status in jeopardy. 

 

 

Are you saying that if an apostle publicly declared who he was going to vote for (not at a church function but on his personal Facebook page or something unconnected to the church) the church could lose its tax exempt status?

Edited February 3, 2017 by bluebell

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying that if an apostle publicly declared who he was going to vote for (not at a church function but on his personal Facebook page or something unconnected to the church) the church could lose its tax exempt status?

I think an attorney would have to take a guess at that.  But the Johnson Amendment prohibits all non-profit organizations (whether religious or secular) from endorsing or opposing political candidates.

I would think that an apostle stating who he plans to vote for on a personal facebook page would not count as the organization "endorsing" a candidate.

But, I imagine someone like Karger might conceivably try to argue that when the church-owned newspaper asked Trump to exit the race, it (the church) was opposing a candidate.  Hopefully a judge would see the separation between the non-profit church and its for-profit newspaper.  But I'm not an attorney so take my opinions on this for what they are worth (hint:  not much).

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

It protects government from religion. Do we as a multi-religious society want our government controlled by one religion. IE: Iran.

If I saw that as a credible threat I would worry about it.

[Gray]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying that if an apostle publicly declared who he was going to vote for (not at a church function but on his personal Facebook page or something unconnected to the church) the church could lose its tax exempt status?

I think it would be a gray area. It could be seen as signaling the church's position, since Apostles often speak for the church. I think they try to play it very safe. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm skeptical that there is as much separation as all that, but I don't think it's worth arguing about.

 

Not hard to see why you don't think it worth arguing about. You really don't have a good argument to employ, just your own supposition contradicting  someone (like me) with an insider's view.

 

Quote

Again, they have to avoid doing so directly, for tax reasons. Church leaders don't seem to be shy about trying to influence politics in the areas where it won't put the church's tax exempt status in jeopardy.

 

As the Church leaders have made clear on numerous occasions, they do not involve the Church in partisan politics, but they do reserve the right to speak out on moral issues. Their motivation for doing so has nothing to do with tax-exempt status.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think an attorney would have to take a guess at that.  But the Johnson Amendment prohibits all non-profit organizations (whether religious or secular) from endorsing or opposing political candidates.

I would think that an apostle stating who he plans to vote for on a personal facebook page would not count as the organization "endorsing" a candidate.

But, I imagine someone like Karger might conceivably try to argue that when the church-owned newspaper asked Trump to exit the race, it (the church) was opposing a candidate.  Hopefully a judge would see the separation between the non-profit church and its for-profit newspaper.  But I'm not an attorney so take my opinions on this for what they are worth (hint:  not much).

It would open a real can of worms for the Church to be adjudicated as having forfeited its tax-exampt status in that way. The Christian Science Monitor, which has long been one of the foremost newspapers and news services in the nation, is also owned by a church but has never been backward about editorializing on political issues, as robust newspapers are wont to do.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 1:46 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Anyone here heard of the Johnson Amendment?

It forbids 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations -- including charities, universities and churches -- from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Doing so could cause them to lose their tax-exempt status.

At today's National Prayer Breakfast, President Trump reiterated his intent, voiced during his election campaign, to repeal the Johnson Amendment.

Ordinarily I might oppose such a move. But now, with Fred Karger gunning for the Church, trying to deprive it of its tax-exempt status (altogether unjustifiably, in my view), repeal of the Johnson Amendment might be a thing that is needed to help protect the Church against ill-intentioned parties like Karger and his ilk.

So now, I'm not sure how I feel about repealing the amendment.

I'm bringing it up for discussion here.

I am opposed to the repeal.  Church's not only have special tax exempt status.  In addition they are not required to file a Form 990 nor provide audited financial statements for public use.  I would be happy to see the repeal of the Johnson Amendment if Church's are willing to give up their tax exempt status.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As the Church leaders have made clear on numerous occasions, they do not involve the Church in partisan politics, but they do reserve the right to speak out on moral issues. Their motivation for doing so has nothing to do with tax-exempt status.

Regarding what I bolded in your post... I don't think that's quite accurate.  And I think it's where Karger is going to try to make his claim.  The church certainly got involved in Prop 22 and Prop 8 in California to a degree that was more than "speak[ing] out on moral issues".  Similarly with the marriage equality proposition in Arizona.  There may be more but those are the ones in which I have first hand knowledge.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not hard to see why you don't think it worth arguing about. You really don't have a good argument to employ, just your own supposition arguing someone (like me) with an insider's view.

Respectfully, I don't think you have enough inside knowledge to really provide much more insight. I couldn't tell you what goes on in board meetings and executive committee meetings in my company, even though I'm an "insider". 

 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

As the Church leaders have made clear on numerous occasions, they do not involve the Church in partisan politics, but they do reserve the right to speak out on moral issues. Their motivation for doing so has nothing to do with tax-exempt status.

I'm not sure how you could possibly know that their motivation has nothing to do with tax-exempt status. Especially when a violation of the current law would cost the church millions. That seems like a strong motivating factor. 

And of course they do get involved in politics all the time, in ways that do not threaten the church's tax exempt status. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Regarding what I bolded in your post... I don't think that's quite accurate.  And I think it's where Karger is going to try to make his claim.  The church certainly got involved in Prop 22 and Prop 8 in California to a degree that was more than "speak[ing] out on moral issues".  Similarly with the marriage equality proposition in Arizona.  There may be more but those are the ones in which I have first hand knowledge.

Neither Prop 22 nor Prop 8 are what I would call partisan politics. I mean politics favoring one political party or candidate over another. The Church never does that. If you have an example of the Church doing so, I'm all ears.

And the Church's involvement in the two examples you give was based on moral, not political, positions.

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, Gray said:

Respectfully, I don't think you have enough inside knowledge to really provide much more insight. I couldn't tell you what goes on in board meetings and executive committee meetings in my company, even though I'm an "insider". 

 

I'm not sure how you could possibly know that their motivation has nothing to do with tax-exempt status. Especially when a violation of the current law would cost the church millions. That seems like a strong motivating factor. 

And of course they do get involved in politics all the time, in ways that do not threaten the church's tax exempt status. 

As I just explained to rockpond, I'm referring to partisan politics, where one political party or candidate is favored over another. I repeat, the Church does not do that.

Again, if you can provide a contemporary example where it has, I'm listening. But I'm not holding my breath.

Again, the Church only speaks out on moral issues as pertaining to public affairs.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I am opposed to the repeal.  Church's not only have special tax exempt status.  In addition they are not required to file a Form 990 nor provide audited financial statements for public use.  I would be happy to see the repeal of the Johnson Amendment if Church's are willing to give up their tax exempt status.

Those are points worthy of consideration.

As I said, I've not yet staked out a position on whether or not the amendment should be repealed.

One compelling argument against a repeal is that organizations that, in effect, receive a tax subsidy should not be allowed to use it for political campaigning (even though, as a practical matter, some churches do this and get away with it despite the Johnson Amendment when the IRS declines to prosecute them).

Edited February 3, 2017 by Scott Lloyd