How do 501(c)(3) rules concretely limit pastoral speech and church political activity?
Executive summary
Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code bars tax‑exempt charities — including churches — from “participating in, or intervening in” political campaigns for or against candidates, a prohibition commonly known as the Johnson Amendment, which has been federal law since 1954 and administered by the IRS [1] [2]. Practically this means pastoral endorsements made as part of church activity, use of church resources to support candidates, or campaign contributions by the church can trigger excise taxes, revocation of tax‑exempt status, or other enforcement actions, though recent IRS litigation positions have begun to narrow enforcement in specific contexts [3] [4] [5].
1. What the law actually prohibits and why it matters
The statutory rule in IRC §501(c) prohibits organizations from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of — or in opposition to — any candidate for public office, and the IRS treats contributions or public statements made on behalf of the organization in favor of or against a candidate as clear violations [3] [6]. That prohibition is the tradeoff for tax‑exempt status and tax‑deductible contributions: charities promise to remain nonpartisan in exchange for preferential tax treatment, which the nonprofit community and the IRS say preserves the integrity of the tax system and political competition [7] [1].
2. How pastoral speech is attributed to the church
Speech by a pastor is treated differently depending on context: opinions expressed personally outside church channels can be personal speech, but endorsements made during religious services, in church publications, on church platforms, or using church resources are attributed to the organization and risk being deemed campaign intervention [8] [9]. The IRS guidance and legal interpretations therefore focus not just on content but on venue, attribution, and use of institutional resources when deciding whether a pastor’s words are private or organizational [3] [8].
3. Concrete enforcement mechanisms and penalties
If a church engages in prohibited campaign activity the IRS can assess an excise tax on the organization (historically described as 10% of political expenditures) and potentially impose a smaller excise on responsible managers; in extreme cases revocation of tax‑exempt status is possible, and other administrative penalties may follow [4]. Enforcement also relies on facts and context — whether the activity was paid for by the church, whether it was selective or partisan, and whether church channels were used — so the IRS looks for objective indicia of institutional endorsement [4] [9].
4. What activity is still allowed and where the gray lines are
Nonpartisan civic engagement — such as voter registration drives, neutral voter education, or presenting public forums without bias — is permitted when it does not favor or oppose specific candidates, but activities that have evidence of bias or that favor a candidate will cross the line [3]. Similarly, churches can engage in public policy advocacy and teach on moral issues from the pulpit, but explicit endorsements or coordinating with campaigns are prohibited under longstanding IRS rules [10] [3].
5. Recent shifts, litigation, and competing interpretations
Although the Johnson Amendment has been long standing, political pressures and litigation have prompted the IRS in recent years to signal a narrower enforcement posture: the agency has filed positions and settlements indicating houses of worship speaking to their congregations through “customary channels” about electoral politics “viewed through the lens of religious faith” may not automatically be treated as campaign intervention — a change that legal analysts frame as selective and fact‑specific rather than a statutory repeal [5] [11] [6]. Critics warn that such shifts create uncertainty and could privilege churches (which have lighter reporting requirements) over other nonprofits or make political giving effectively tax‑deductible, while proponents argue it restores religious free speech [2] [11] [12].
6. Practical implications for pastors and congregations
In practice pastors must make fine distinctions: personal endorsements outside church settings should be framed as individual views, institutional communications should avoid naming or urging support for candidates, and any use of church funds, facilities, staff, or publications for campaign purposes is especially risky [8] [9]. Where ambiguity persists, many churches adopt written policies, segregate political activity into separate non‑tax‑exempt affiliates, or advise clergy to label statements as personal — tactics the law contemplates and that courts and practitioners recommend to manage legal exposure [13] [8].
7. Stakes, motives, and the political debate
The debate over 501(c) restrictions combines legal, fiscal, and political motives: defenders of the rule point to neutrality and tax policy; opponents claim it chills religious speech and preferentially constrains churches that cannot opt out of 501(c) status; and lawmakers, litigants, and the IRS have periodically shifted positions reflecting partisan goals or litigation strategy, which means the practical limits on pastoral speech are both legally rooted and politically contested [1] [13] [12].