Johnson Amendment Repeal Removed from Final GOP Tax Bill
“A Democratic senator announced Thursday night that the repeal included in the House version of the tax bill, which would allow churches and other nonprofits to endorse candidates without losing their tax-exempt status, was removed during the reconciliation process with the Senate version, which did not include a repeal.” CToday
I do not think it’s unfair at all for it to say “we’ll refrain from taxing you but we need you limit at least a little what you do to directly influence government.” Churches are asking the gov. not to bother them with taxation. The gov. saying “Fine, but don’t bother us either beyond this point.”
It’s not about being fair but about being constitutional. The government has no right to control to free exercise of religion by any means, including tax policy. This has nothing to do with other rules. When the government offers certain benefits in exchange for certain tax treatment, they are violating the free exercise clause.
We are not talking about whether one person can force their religious choices on another (such as in healthcare), or whether someone can threats of violence. We are not even talking about determining what a religious organization is, though it is not that hard given the very old and accepted definition of religion. It’s not even about a wall of separation or overlapping spheres.We are talking simply about whether the government can charge a religious institution to exercise its religious rights.
I have no intention of addressing politics or endorsing candidates. I wouldn’t do it even if they gave me money to do it. But that’s not the point here.
Aaron’s notes actually re-confirm for me why the 16th Amendment was a bad idea in the first place. Whenever you have direct taxes like the income tax, a powerful mechanism is introduced to “guide” or control peoples’ choices. Going off the top of my head, Schedule A tells me I ought to give to charity, spend money on medical care and state and local taxes, get a big mortgage on my house, and the like. I’m told elsewhere in the tax code to have kids and put them in daycare, spend money on tuition, etc..
And then on the flip side, these charities funded in part through Schedule A and other tax provisions use the tax free status to say that these institutions cannot endorse candidates. OK, where did Washington’s (?) dictum about government being a dangerous servant and a fearful master go? It seems to be right out the window.
So I’d argue that the Johnson amendment—actually aimed first at other nonprofits than churches if I remember correctly—is the tip of an iceberg of government involvement that we’d never have had if we’d rejected the 16th Amendment. It’s not the biggest deal, as any halfway intelligent pastor can communicate which candidates are acceptable without naming them or giving them a pulpit, but it is the tip of the iceberg.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The fact is that most of the motivation for removing this long standing policy is more freedom to be more political. This will certainly be a result if the status quo is reversed. So… it’s inseparable from what the church will do.
The motivation for removing it is irrelevant. The freedom for religious exercise must include the freedom for religions to exercise their religion. The only way to do that is to keep religious institutions free from government interference, including interference by tax policy. We know that government “pick winners and losers” by tax policy (tax breaks, subsidies, etc.). The only way to avoid that is tax exemption.
Much depends on how the issue is framed. If one starts out with the conclusion that a religious organization should be permitted to endorse candidates and remain tax free, and that this is inseparable from freedom of speech, then there is no way to defend Johnson.
But this is assuming what needs to be proved.
All 501c(3) nonprofits are prohibited from endorsing political candidates. This is because the tax exemption is seen as a kind of government funding — which, relative to for-profit entities, it is. So the issue is whether churches should be allowed to be the exception to the rule and allow the government to essentially pay them to endorse candidates. There are multiple reasons why this is not a good idea.
Churches already have some tax advantages over other nonprofits that arguably amount to subsidies. I don’t think these are unjust, but these advantages cannot be limitless. The line has to be drawn somewhere. It’s good where it is. Agitation against Johnson may well eventually result in churches being under all the same rules as regular 501c(3)s.
So, there is simply no way for the government to be neutral about taxation. Exemption is picking a winner.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion