The Johnson Amendment, a provision in the U.S. Tax Code since 1954, prohibits all 501(C)3 nonprofit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. The amendment is named for then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson of Texas, who introduced it in July 1954.

When the 119th Congress passed the “One Beautiful, Big Bill” last week, it contained a provision that would effectively block the enforcement of the Johnson Amendment against religious organizations for even the most egregious violations — including pouring church assets directly into political campaigns. In a court ruling on Monday, the Internal Revenue Service confirmed that churches can endorse political candidates. 

Hans/Pixabay

The legislation and the court ruling have already generated some significant Jewish responses. 

“This court filing is deeply concerning, furthering an assault on the bedrock principle that charitable organizations must remain nonpartisan in law, fact and purpose to serve their missions and communities,” Diane Yentel, president of the National Council of Nonprofits, said in a statement. “This action — long sought by President Trump — is not about religion or free speech, but about radically altering campaign finance laws.”

Jewish groups and a broad array of other religious institutions had opposed earlier attempts during the first Trump administration to undo the Johnson Amendment and will likely be active in their opposition to this week’s decision. In their 2017 letter to congressional representatives, Jewish leaders wrote:

“Charitable nonprofits and houses of worship can only be successful if we maintain public trust in our integrity and commitment to mission. Politicizing them for the benefit of politicians and partisan donors would destroy that trust. 

… Under current law, charitable nonprofits enjoy broad latitude to speak on important public matters, advocate on policy issues, encourage people to vote, and even host candidate debates and forums. Repealing or weakening the Johnson Amendment risks dividing charities and houses of worship along partisan lines. At a time when our political climate is already so polarized, we stand firmly against any measure that would bring politics into our organizations and reduce our effectiveness.”

At the outset of this nation, religious leaders were directly involved in spreading the messages of political parties. In the 19th century, particular religious groups were linked to specific political parties based on factors like ethnicity, religion, and stances on issues including prohibition and slavery. With Joseph Smith, a leader of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, seeking the presidential nomination in 1844, church leaders encouraged their followers to vote as a bloc. Nineteenth-century rabbis were publicly active on the political scene in connection with the Civil War, race, church-state matters and US foreign policy concerns.

In 1964, the Central Conference of American Rabbis declared that its members “should be free to take a public position in political campaigns.”  This led to a split among Reform rabbis over whether to publicly speak out against Alabama Gov. George Wallace’s presidential campaign.

Commenting on the challenges facing the American rabbinate in connection with the heightened political divisions in this nation, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, former president of the Union for Reform Judaism, noted in 2016: “We talk about values, and we talk about issues. You’re making a distinction that’s impossible to make: You’ll always be seen as a rabbi, and you’re jeopardizing the nonpartisan nature of your synagogue, and that’s to be avoided.”

In 2007, the IRS issued a ruling to help clarify the limitations on religious institutions and non-profits in connection with the Johnson Amendment:

“All 501(c)(3) organizations can stay within the law regarding the ban on political activity. This ban applies to campaign activity regarding a candidate. Churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS document provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation.” 

During his first term, Trump sought to repeal the Johnson Amendment, arguing that it restricts the free speech rights of churches and other religious groups. On May 4, 2017, he signed an executive order “to defend the freedom of religion and speech” for the purpose of easing the Johnson Amendment’s restrictions; in 2018, a group of congressional policymakers failed in their attempt to remove the Johnson Amendment.

While religious institutions and nonprofit organizations are likely to challenge this recent court ruling, the door has now been opened to expand political activities involving the synagogue community and the broader Jewish communal sector. In 2017, during this president’s first term, I had occasion to write about the implications surrounding the removal of the Johnson Amendment.

Already experiencing internal political divisions, synagogues — and more directly, their rabbinic leaders — will be facing new challenges in managing the expectations of congregants and the likely pressure from political candidates and parties to lend support on behalf of their respective campaigns. What one might anticipate is the identification of specific congregations as “Democratic” or “Republican,” where denominational labels will be replaced by political designation. The implication of this policy change could have broad and transformative impact as rabbis seeking positions in the future will now be politically labeled. 

In its statement this week, the URJ noted serious implications of this decision for Jewish clergy:

“At a time when religious communities routinely livestream services and share sermons online, thereby offering a backdoor for spreading partisanship far beyond actual congregants, we reject the IRS’s claim that political endorsements by clergy are similar to ‘a family discussion concerning candidates.’ This decision fails to recognize the realities of modern spiritual life and could expose clergy, including rabbis and cantors, to unjust scrutiny as they fulfill their sacred duty to teach, guide and inspire.”

No doubt, some congregational leaders will move to establish synagogue codes of conduct (where they don’t already exist) that will reject such an effort to politicize their congregational community and reaffirm their nonpartisanship. As for the Jewish religious organizations and rabbis who have been for some time actively engaged in politics by endorsing candidates, this ruling will simply empower them to be more involved in advancing their political preferences.

These developments do not exist in a vacuum. The Trump administration has been signaling by its actions its desire to lower the wall of separation between church and state, with its support for church-based schools and the creation of a Faith Office within the White House and a Commission on Religious Liberty. 

While many of the core political and cultural artifacts of American life and policy are undergoing rapid and radical change, the long-held legal tenet regarding church-state separation has now been deeply altered. The implications of these actions can profoundly transform the character and substance of religious life in this nation. For the Jewish community, such a ruling can potentially redefine the role, purpose and meaning of American Judaism.

Steven Windmueller is professor emeritus of Jewish communal studies at Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion in Los Angeles.