Fact check: How do tax-exempt status rules affect nonprofit organizations' political protest activities?

1. What advocates and critics both claim about the Johnson Amendment — the legal thrust that matters

The dominant claim across sources is that the Johnson Amendment bars 501(c)^[4] charities from participating in political campaigns, which preserves their nonpartisan status and tax-exempt privileges; proponents argue it shields charities from partisan capture and keeps donor incentives aligned with public service ^[1]. These analyses also report widespread organizational support for retaining the rule because it keeps charities focused on community needs rather than electoral politics. At the same time, the literature notes ongoing debates about how broadly “political intervention” is defined in practice, which creates operational uncertainty for nonprofits engaging in protest-related activities ^[1].

2. What the IRS has said in enforcement actions that practitioners should heed

A concrete enforcement precedent cited is an IRS ruling that a 501(c)^[4]’s shared website with a related 501(c)^[5] constituted prohibited political intervention, demonstrating that organizational design and communications channels matter as much as the content of speech ^[3]. This ruling—published in late 2025—signals that even indirect or shared platforms can trigger sanctions if they facilitate partisan messaging. Practitioners must therefore avoid commingling digital assets, fundraising appeals tied to campaigns, or coordinated content that benefits a political actor to limit exposure to regulatory action ^[3].

3. How lobbying and protest activities are distinguished under current rules

Sources emphasize that limited lobbying is permitted for 501(c)^[4] organizations, with statutory tests and expenditure limits separating acceptable direct or grassroots lobbying from prohibited campaign intervention ^[2]. The distinction hinges on whether communications urge support or opposition to specific candidates versus advocating for policy positions or civic engagement in a nonpartisan manner. Recent guidance reiterates reporting requirements for lobbying expenses, meaning that protest-related policy advocacy can be lawful if framed as issue-based, not candidate-focused, and if expenditure thresholds are respected ^[2].

4. Practical consequences for nonprofit involvement in protests and demonstrations

When nonprofits join or organize protests, content and context determine permissibility: nonpartisan, issue-focused protest that avoids endorsing or opposing candidates generally fits within 501(c)^[4] rules, while activities coordinated with or promoting a political campaign risk jeopardizing tax-exempt status ^{[1] [6]}. Operational ties—shared branding, staff overlap, or joint fundraising—with partisan groups amplify that risk. The recent IRS example shows how enforcement can hinge on such factual patterns, prompting nonprofits to document decision-making, maintain firewalls, and keep protest messaging strictly focused on public policy rather than electoral outcomes ^[3].

5. Why organizational form changes how protesters should plan activities

The analyses distinguish between 501(c)^[4] charities and 501(c)^[5] “social welfare” organizations, the latter having broader leeway to engage in political activity though without tax-deductible donations. This structural choice affects how a nonprofit can legally participate in protests: charities may prioritize education and nonpartisan mobilization while creating or partnering with separate (c)^[5] entities if they intend to engage in partisan or electoral advocacy ^{[3] [2]}. Proper separation—distinct governance, accounting, and web presence—is essential to avoid cross-contamination and IRS scrutiny ^[3].

6. Compliance playbook distilled from recent analyses and rulings

Experts recommend maintaining clear written policies, separate digital and financial systems, and documented training so protest involvement stays within lawful boundaries. The IRS shared-website ruling reinforces the need to segregate communications and platforms between charitable and partisan arms. Organizations should track lobbying expenditures, limit candidate-related content, and consult counsel before partnering with politically active groups. These measures reduce risk that peaceful protest participation will trigger revocation or penalties tied to political intervention ^{[3] [2]}.

7. Conflicting perspectives and potential agendas to watch

Advocates for retaining strict nonpartisanship present the rules as protective of public trust and charitable missions, while critics argue they constrain free speech or blunt civic engagement; both positions appear across the cited analyses ^{[1] [6]}. Enforcement examples may be used by partisans to argue either for stronger policing of nonprofit impartiality or for loosening restrictions to enable political advocacy. Readers should treat organizational statements and policy proposals as partially motivated by institutional or ideological interests and weigh enforcement facts accordingly ^{[1] [3]}.

8. Bottom line for nonprofits planning protest activity today

Nonprofits can lawfully participate in protests so long as activities remain nonpartisan, issue-focused, and operationally separate from partisan actors; limited lobbying is permitted but must be tracked. The IRS ruling about shared web infrastructure is a recent, concrete reminder that form and medium matter—shared platforms or joint campaigns with partisan groups can tip lawful advocacy into prohibited political intervention, risking tax consequences. Organizations should adopt segregation practices, document intent, and seek legal counsel for high-risk engagements to preserve tax-exempt status ^{[3] [2]}.