"The push to repeal the Johnson Amendment has primarily come from the Christian right, which surely is one of the factors that had led mainstream nonprofit associations to defend these rules. But I think this reaction is mistaken, particularly because under newly declared Internal Revenue Service rules, religious congregations are now free to "endorse political candidates to their congregations." In short, churches can now engage in campaigns, while secular nonprofits cannot. It is hard to understand how or why this status quo benefits mainstream nonprofits."
"Before the Johnson Amendment became law, nonprofits were neither apolitical nor nonpartisan. In the 19th century, voluntary organizations pushed for reforms in prisons, animal welfare, and-most significantly-the abolition of slavery. While it was uncommon for them to endorse candidates, advocacy was their lifeblood. Over time, the Johnson Amendment has dampened this culture of advocacy. For the record, the Johnson Amendment was not designed to protect nonprofits."
The Johnson Amendment, enacted in 1954, prohibits nonprofits from endorsing or opposing political parties or candidates. Repeal efforts have come largely from the Christian right, prompting mainstream nonprofit associations to defend the rule. Newly declared IRS guidance permits religious congregations to 'endorse political candidates to their congregations,' allowing churches to engage in campaigns while secular nonprofits remain barred. The resulting asymmetry undermines mainstream nonprofits and constrains a historical nonprofit role in advocacy, which once supported reforms such as abolition and prison changes. Given a rising threat of authoritarianism, strict nonpartisanship among nonprofits is portrayed as increasingly untenable.
Read at Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]