U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–624 PDF 2017

EXAMINING A CHURCH’S RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, 

BENEFITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 4, 2017 

Serial No. 115–29 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Jason Chaffetz, Utah, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matthew Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

John Sarbanes, Maryland 

JONATHAN SKLADANY, Staff Director 

REBECCA EDGAR, Deputy Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

KEVIN EICHINGER, Senior Professional Staff Member 

JACK THORLIN, Senior Counsel 

KILEY BIDELMAN, Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, BENEFITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES

Jim Jordan, Ohio, Chairman 

Mark Walker, North Carolina, Vice Chair 

Darrell Issa, California 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Mark Meadows, North Carolina, Chairman 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia, Vice Chair 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 4, 2017 ................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Mandi Ancalle, General Counsel for Government Affairs, Family Research Council 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Ms. Catherine Engelbrecht, Citizen, Cat Spring, Texas 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Ms. Christiana Holcomb, Legal Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22 

Rabbi David Saperstein, Former Director and Counsel, Religious Action Center 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 29 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31 

APPENDIX 

Letter for the Record of the National Council of Nonprofits, submitted by 

Mr. Krishnamoorthi ............................................................................................. 68 

Statement for the Record of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission 

of the Southern Baptist Convention, submitted by Mr. Jordan ....................... 96 

Statement for the Record of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, submitted by Mr. Krishnamoorthi ............................................................. 97 

Statement for the Record of Americans United for Separation of Church 

and State, submitted by Mr. Krishnamoorthi ................................................... 106 

Statement for the Record of the Center for Inquiry, submitted by Mr. 

Krishnamoorthi .................................................................................................... 114 

Letter of Support for the Free Speech Fairness Act, submitted by Mr. Hice ..... 115 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

EXAMINING A CHURCH’S RIGHT TO FREE 

SPEECH 

Thursday, May 4, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, BENEFITS AND

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES JOINT WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn The Capitol, Hon. Jim Jordan [chairman of the Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative Rules] 

presiding. 

Present: Representatives Jordan, Meadows, Walker, Hice, Issa, 

Massie, Grothman, DeSantis, Blum, Krishnamoorthi, Connolly, 

Norton, Clay, and Plaskett. 

Also Present: Representative Raskin. 

Mr. JORDAN. The Subcommittee on Health Care Benefits and Administrative Rules and the Subcommittee on Government Operations will come to order. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time, and we will certainly have to do that in a few minutes, 

because votes are going to be coming. 

And we want to thank our witnesses, and we’ll get to you in just 

a minute. You know how this works. We do the opening statements, then we get to your important statements, but even before 

that, the chair notes the presence of our colleague, Congressman 

Raskin of Maryland. We appreciate your interest in this topic and 

welcome your participation today. 

I ask unanimous consent that Congressman Raskin be allowed to 

fully participate in today’s hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

We’ll do a quick opening statement and then I’ll turn to our 

ranking member for the same, and then we’ll try and get through 

as many of you as we can before we have to recess for votes. 

I want to thank everyone for joining us today. We convened this 

hearing to highlight the First Amendment and examine those 

places in our great country where that right, that right to free 

speech is being stifled and sometimes even silenced by government. 

And unfortunately this is nothing new. In the recent past, we’ve 

seen the IRS bogging down conservative social welfare organizations, that’s a nice way of saying it, with an endless application 

process, holding them in bureaucratic limbo for years and thereby 

curbing their First Amendment rights. Never forget what they did, 

systematically and for a sustained period of time targeted people 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

for their political beliefs. That should not happen in our great country. 

We have seen public universities not allowing conservative voices 

to be heard and we’ve seen government agencies levy enormous 

fines for small, many times even returned, campaign donations for 

candidates who might not have even made it on the ballot. 

The First Amendment is the First Amendment for a reason. Our 

founders knew the ability to criticize our government was of paramount importance. We must never forget those great words: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or 

prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of 

speech, or of the press or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. 

To be clear, this freedom doesn’t just protect a citizen’s right to 

speak out in the town square; it also protects speech. Maybe it’s 

a poster you draw, maybe it’s where you choose to give your money, 

maybe even what you wear. 

Since our founding, nonprofits, like churches, have had the ability to speak freely and educate their membership about candidates 

or policies that align or contradict their interest and values. That 

was until 1954, when as a political retribution, then Senator Johnson, with no real debate, had inserted language into a tax law that 

would bar nonprofits from speaking in a political manner. 

Since then, churches and other c(3)’s have had to decide whether 

or not to directly violate the law and risk potentially losing their 

tax status altogether or to practice a, quote, studied vagueness or 

self-censorship trying to carefully navigate what would or would 

not draw the attention of the IRS speech cop. 

Today we begin what I hope will be a series of hearings on the 

First Amendment and where government agencies may in fact be 

infringing and limiting individual’s First Amendment liberties. So 

we look forward to this series of hearings and look forward to what 

we’re going to hear today from our witnesses. 

And with that, I’d like to recognize our ranking member, Mr. 

Krishnamoorthi. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome 

to our witnesses. 

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the exercise of free speech by 

all, including churches and other charitable organizations. In fact, 

there is a news item today, it has been reported that President 

Trump will issue an executive order to redirect or direct the IRS 

to use its discretion in enforcing the Johnson amendment. 

In fact, this order will have little effect. IRS rarely brings enforcement actions against houses of worship that engage in political 

activity, but this hearing is about something far more significant 

than the President’s actions. Only Congress can make changes to 

the law, and today’s hearing is about what changes the Republican 

majority will attempt to make to the tax deductibility of political 

contributions, and whether those changes are justified, furthermore, what would be the intended and unintended consequences of 

those changes. That will be the subject of this hearing. 

This hearing is not about free speech. It is about a scheme to 

flood political campaigns with dark money. Let’s be clear. Current 

law does not prevent churches or charities from speaking out on 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

any issue. They can speak about all the hot button issues of the 

day. They can lobby the government. In fact, a group of 99 religious 

and denominational organizations recently sent a letter to congressional leadership explaining that they are currently able to, and I 

quote, use their pulpits to address the moral and political issues of 

the day. They also can, in their personal capacities and without the 

resources of their houses of worship, endorse and oppose political 

candidates. 

Houses of worship can engage in public debate on any issue, host 

candidate forums, engage in voter registration drives, encourage 

people to vote, help transport people to the polls, and even, with 

a few boundaries, lobby on specific legislation and invite candidates 

to speak. 

I’d ask unanimous consent that the letter written by 99 religious 

and denominational organizations be entered into the hearing 

record. 

Mr. JORDAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. In other words, current law does not restrain the freedom of speech of houses of worship. However, and 

this is important, current law does prohibit fat cat political spenders from laundering their contributions through churches and nonprofits and getting a tax deduction to boot, but that is what some 

in this room want to do. They want to funnel dark money into the 

political system through churches. In short, this hearing is about 

money, not speech, pure and simple. 

Over 1,000 national and State nonprofit organizations wrote a 

letter to Congress saying that current law, quote, shields the entire 

501(c)(3) community against the rancor of partisan politics so the 

charitable community can be a safe haven where individuals of all 

beliefs come together to solve community problems free from partisan divisions. 

It screens out doubts and suspicions regarding ulterior partisan 

motives of charitable organizations, as undoubtedly would occur if 

even just a few charitable organizations engaged in partisan politics. 

I’d ask unanimous consent that the letter written to us by nonprofit organizations be entered into the hearing record. 

Mr. JORDAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Given that nonprofit organizations, including charities, churches, and other houses of worship support 

existing law, which prevents churches and charities from becoming 

politicized, why would anyone want to alter the existing law? The 

answer? To extend the avenues through which dark money can 

flow into political campaigns. That is what this hearing is really 

about. The consequences would be severe. 

According to the nonprofit’s letter, allowing political money into 

churches and nonprofits would, and I quote, damage the integrity 

and effectiveness of all charitable organizations, and spawn litigation as innovative partisans seek to expand gray areas in the proposed legislation. 

In addition, the proposal, I quote, would damage the Federal 

Treasury as people take tax deductions for political contributions 

they could then funnel through charitable nonprofits, undercut fair 

elections by providing a loophole to avoid campaign contribution 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

disclosure laws, and empower politicians to exert pressure for access to charitable foundation assets and charitable funds for their 

own partisan campaigns rather than the public good. 

So today’s hearing is not about free speech, it is about a plan to 

inject more dark money in politics through churches and nonprofit 

organizations. This is a very, very bad idea. It will have a corrosive 

effect on the churches that become super-PACs and passthroughs 

for these campaign contributions and it will further corrode our democracy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the chairman the Subcommittee on Government 

Operations, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the chairman. I thank him for his leadership. I thank all of you for being here. 

Rabbi, it’s good to have you back, I guess, in your nonofficial capacity, but it’s great to have you back as well. 

I couldn’t disagree more with the ranking member in terms of 

the intent. You know, when we look at this particular issue, it’s 

about making sure that the churches have no voice at all. And if 

we do not address it, the way that it goes, and many of you can 

speak to this far more eloquently than I can. But this is not about 

dark money. This is not about anything other than free speech and 

making sure that what has historically been the moral compass of 

this country from its very founding continues to be the voice for the 

American people, and so I would disagree with the characterization 

that is there. 

As we look at this, I look forward to hearing your expert testimony. And I’m going to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you very much, Chairman Meadows and Chairman Jordan for having this joint hearing today. This is a critically 

important topic. It has to do with the Federal Tax Code and the 

prohibitions therein directed towards 501(c)(3), organizations including churches and nonprofits and charitable organizations, from 

engaging in any political speech. It’s been referred to as the Johnson amendment. 

As the chairman referred to earlier, this amendment is an accident in our Nation’s history. It came about, even under the full admission of the IRS, as an attempt to get back to the opposition of 

a legislator. That’s where this came from, and it has been used now 

for over 60 years as a bully stick to intimidate churches and charitable organizations into silence. 

Most of us are not aware of the selfish motive behind this 

amendment. Most people probably think that this is part of our 

Tax Code because it’s rooted in the Jeffersonian principle of separation of church and State, but that’s not where it came from. While 

it’s true that our founders believed that our country should not establish a national church, they did establish the First Amendment, 

which prohibits any law from curbing the free exercise of religion, 

which has as its core the freedom of speech. 

So let’s agree that even if the Jeffersonian wall exists, which 

today is, in my opinion, widely misinterpreted and misapplied, but 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

even if that wall exists, it works both ways. When government acts 

as the gatekeeper of speech, there is no free speech. 

The IRS should not be allowed to violate the Constitution. And 

for over 60 years now, they have done just that by being the gatekeeper, unfairly targeting pastors, churches, nonprofits, et cetera, 

with the tax exempt status of those organizations being used as leverage to get these organizations not to speak on certain issues. 

Prior to being a Member of Congress, I was a pastor. I know full 

well the extent to which the intimidation and the cloud of doubt 

that is laid over our heads on this issue censors so many individuals from being engaged. And not only is this whole thing unconstitutional, but the Johnson amendment itself is extremely vague, 

which results in many people and organizations just censoring 

themselves right out of any involvement. 

And our system of government does not work without involvement of the people, and yet the Johnson amendment has such a 

chilling effect, through fear and intimidation from IRS threats, 

even the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged the harm that is produced by the vagueness of this law. And they stated in Virginia v. 

Hicks that many persons will choose simply to abstain from protected speech, harming not only themselves, but society as a whole, 

and that is indeed what has happened. A church’s mission is undercut, not improved, when the IRS or the government comes in 

and begins editing what can and cannot be said. 

So let me be very clear on my final point, Mr. Chairman. Politicians should not get a free pass when it comes to moral scrutiny, 

and that takes place largely as people have the freedom to express 

their opinions and to weigh that scrutiny up to their religious beliefs. 

The absence of the Johnson amendment does not mandate nor 

certainly license or allow a church to become a political action committee. The issue plainly is the choice to speak according to the dictates and convictions of one’s heart without interference, or threat, 

or punishment, or harassment from our government. 

To speak the conscience of an issue, especially in its relationship 

to the exercise of religion, is a cherished belief and foundation that 

we share as Americans, and it’s simply not the role of government 

to police speech. 

While this is not a legislative hearing, it is for these reasons that 

Majority Whip Steve Scalise and I introduced H.R. 781, the Free 

Speech Fairness Act, which would provide a carve-out to the Johnson amendment and allow 501(c)(3) organizations to engage in political discourse in the normal course of business with de minimus 

associated expenses. 

And while I greatly appreciate the President’s executive order 

today directed to the Department of the Treasury and Justice on 

the Johnson amendment, I believe it’s time that we rid our Nation 

of this unconstitutional law by way of legislative action. 

And with that, I look forward to this hearing. Thank you for 

being here today. And I yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I thank Mr. Meadows as well and Mr. Hice and—Congressman 

Hice for his leadership on this issue for a number of years and his 

involvement with this particular issue. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m sure the title of 

this hearing, Examining a Church’s Right to Free Speech, didn’t 

mean to exclude my Hindu colleague next to me or my Jewish colleague in front of me, Mr. Raskin, I’m sure it was just an oversight, 

because we’re not just talking about churches. 

I’m a Roman Catholic. I studied for the priesthood too, Mr. Hice, 

and my church is protected by this amendment. Your church 

wasn’t accused of being a foreign entity or having allegiance to a 

foreign leader. Mine was. Your church has never been questioned 

in America about whether someone was qualified to be President 

of the United States. Mine was. 

We’ve suffered the sting of prejudice, religious prejudice. And, 

frankly, if we’d been seen as a political agent, that prejudice would 

have magnified exponentially. So I have a different point of view 

based on my own experience growing up in Irish Catholic Boston 

as a kid at 10 years old having to read a headline in Time Magazine and Newsweek Magazine asking the question, can a Catholic 

be President, meaning, our loyalty was subject to question. And 

that gentleman who became President had to go down to Texas and 

defend himself in front of a group of protestant ministers. I don’t 

want to return to that era. If people want to express themselves 

morally, great. 

There’s no evidence proving that any houses of worship are unable to exercise free speech or that any member of a house of worship, including clergy, aren’t able to speak freely on any social and 

moral issue they want to address. In fact, we hear a lot from them. 

Certainly Ms. Ancalle, if I’m pronouncing your name, right, I’ve 

been with Tony Perkins on a platform. He didn’t seem inhibited to 

me. In fact, despite what the misleading title of today’s hearing is 

meant to suggest, the issue is not one of free speech. 

Under current law, churches and other houses of worship can 

speak freely and engage in partisan political activity. That’s under 

current law. This hearing is not about free speech, it’s about 

money. Under current law, churches do not pay taxes. Individuals 

who donate can claim deductions for their donations. Churches do 

not have to reveal publicly who they are. 

If the Johnson amendment were to be repealed, as some are suggesting, 501(c)(3) tax exempt entities and their contributors would 

apparently be allowed to participate in political campaigns with tax 

deductible donations. Under their new status, America would have 

more than 340,000 new political action committees. 

The new PACs that self-identify those houses of worship could 

maintain the anonymity of their donors, and the size of each donor’s contribution would remain a secret. The repeal of the Johnson 

amendment would not change the tax deductibility of donations of 

houses of worship. This means taxpayers would be subsidizing partisan political contributions. In other words, my colleagues are proposing to allow tax deductions now for those political contributions. 

Congress has examined this issue before, and ultimately decided 

to rescind the tax deductibility of political contributions. That was 

during the Reagan years. Under Republican proposals, billionaires 

like Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers could give unlimited 

contributions to houses of worship to be directed toward their faVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:53 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26624.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

vorite candidates, and democratic-leaning donors could do the same 

for Democrats, and all those billionaires could claim tax deductions 

for their political contributions, what they cannot do now. 

Of course, this would also put the ministers and leaders of 

houses of worship, I think, in untenable positions, because now 

they’re not seen as moral men or women of faith, they’re seen as 

political directors, partisan political directors. And I think in the 

long-run, be careful what you ask. That will undermine religion in 

America in terms of confidence of the public. 

They would be clergy members and simultaneously treasures of 

PACs, they would be faith leaders and political operatives soliciting 

and maintaining and distributing millions of dollars to political 

campaigns. How would clergy members balance these competing 

roles and how would churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, 

meeting houses, and cathedrals balance their members’ interests in 

questions of faith and questions of campaign donations? 

Would they self-select into Republican and Democratic houses of 

worship so you know if this denomination is speaking, it is a Republican, and if this one’s speaking, it is a Democrat? That’s what 

happened in the Civil War, and it took 100 years to heal those 

wounds. 

What we’re really discussing is opening the floodgates to allow 

the flow of unlimited amounts of tax deductible money from anonymous donors into political campaigns to houses of worship and diluting the mission and purpose of those religious institutions all 

under the guise of free speech. I believe we should keep those floodgates firmly closed. According to a February 2017 Pew Research 

study, thousands of houses of worship as well as the public at large 

agree. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I want to thank you. And we’ll hold the record open for 5 legislative days for members who would like to submit a written statement. 

Let’s now turn to our panel of witnesses. Again, I want to thank 

you all for being here this morning, and I’m pleased to welcome 

Ms. Ancalle. 

Ms. ANCALLE. Ancalle. 

Mr. JORDAN. Ancalle. All right. General counsel for the Family 

Research Council. Thank you for being with us. 

We have Ms. Catherine Engelbrecht for citizens—a citizen of Cat 

Spring, Texas. 

And we have Ms. Christina Holcomb, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom. 

And we have Rabbi David Saperstein, former director and counsel of Religious Action Center. 

Welcome to you all. 

And pursuant to committee rules, I’d like you to now stand, raise 

your right hand. We’d have to swear you in, and then we’ll get 

right to our testimony. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about 

to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 

Let the record show that each of our witnesses answered in the 

affirmative. 

And let’s go to Ms. Ancalle. You you’re familiar how it works? 

You get 5 minutes, more or less; prefer a little let, but that’s fine. 

You take your 5 if you want, and then we’ll move right down the 

dais there. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF MANDI ANCALLE 

Ms. ANCALLE. Chairman Jordan and members of the subcommittee, thank you for convening this hearing regarding the importance of protecting free speech rights of churches and other nonprofit organizations and their leaders. 

Churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations have important roles 

in society: helping the sick, feeding the poor, counseling the downtrodden, ministering to people in need. Because of their special role 

in society, they are tax exempt. 

For almost 200 years, their work and tax exempt status did not 

compromise their ability to speak freely about political candidates 

and issues; that is, until 1954, when then Senator Lyndon Johnson 

used his political power to weaken organizations politically opposed 

to him by conditioning nonprofit organizations’ tax exempt status 

on their remaining silent on political candidates. 

The Johnson amendment bars 501(c)(3) organizations from, 

quote, participating in or intervening in, including the publishing 

or distributing of statements, any political campaign on behalf of 

or in opposition to any candidate for public office. 

Since its passage, the Johnson amendment has been used to 

muzzle and censor pastors and leaders of nonprofit organizations 

and to chill the political speech of tax exempt organizations, religious and nonreligious, on both sides of the aisle in a variety of 

ways. No one knows precisely what spoken or written comments on 

a candidate will draw an investigation by the IRS. This vagueness 

chills free speech. 

In 2005, All Saints Episcopal Church in California received a letter from the IRS, because in 2004, a pastor there criticized President George Bush and the Iraq war. After 2 years of investigation, 

in 2007, the IRS closed the case without revoking the IRS tax exempt letter, but indicated it thought the pastor’s statements violated the law. I should note that FRC strongly opposed the Bush 

administration’s targeting of All Saints Episcopal Church. 

In addition, the IRS has a history of enforcing the law in cases 

only to later refund the penalty paid by the tax exempt organization. For example, in 2004, an organization called Catholic Answers 

posted two E–Letters questioning whether then presidential candidate John Kerry, also a Catholic, should present himself for Holy 

communion, because of his position on abortion. The IRS investigated the comments and imposed excise taxes against the organization. However, the IRS later refunded the tax with interest, finding the organization’s political activity was, quote, not willful and 

flagrant. 

This inconsistency causes confusion for tax exempt organizations, 

is a wasteful use of IRS resources, and is why 501(c)(3) nonprofit 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
9 

organizations should be able to engage in low cost political communications free from the threat of government prosecutions and harassment. 

Pastors have historically been heavily involved in political matters. Since the birth of our Nation, pastors and churches have been 

at the forefront of shaping public debate and voters’ choices regarding their public servants. This began in 1776 with the black robe 

regiment of pastors, who also served as militarily leaders, and was 

forged during the desegregation movement when pastors like Dr. 

Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke out forcefully from the pulpit on political matters. 

Now, some pastors and organizational leaders may favor the 

Johnson amendment. However, these pastors currently have the 

freedom to operate how they see fit. It is pastors who wish to make 

political campaign statements who are being muzzled. Pastors and 

nonprofit leaders who wish to speak out about political candidates 

should be free do so. It is imperative that the free speech rights 

of pastors and nonprofit leaders be restored. 

In order to restore the First Amendment free speech rights of 

nonprofit organizations, including churches, it is necessary for Congress to act. February 1 of this year, Senator Lankford and Representatives Scalise and Hice reintroduced the Free Speech Fairness Act to roll back the unconstitutional impact of the Johnson 

amendment while still preventing churches from becoming about 

the money or political action committees. 

The Free Speech Fairness Act amends the Johnson amendment 

to allow for political campaign speech that is made in the ordinary 

course of a 501(c)(3) organization’s regular and customary activities, so long as the activities carry out the tax exempt organization’s purpose and so long as the organization does not incur more 

than de minimus incremental costs or trivial costs for the activity. 

Amending the Johnson amendment in this way will allow 

501(c)(3) organizations, religious and nonreligious, conservative 

and liberal, and regardless of their organizational mission, breathing room to communicate about candidates for public office. At the 

same time, the law will continue to prevent tax exempt organizations from financing a candidate or buying political advertisements 

to get the candidate elected. 

Doing good in society should not engender a muzzle and the political speech rights of churches and nonprofit leaders should be restored by rolling back the Johnson amendment through the Free 

Speech Fairness Act. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Ancalle follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 26624.001

ADVANCING FAITH, FAMilY AND FREEDOM 

Written Statement ofMandi Ancalle 

Submitted to the Oversight Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative Rules 

May4, 2017 

Hearing on Rights of Churches to Free Speech 

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNClL 

801 G STREET NW, WASHINGTON, I>. C. 20001 • 202-)9J-2IOO • 202-393-2134 fax • (8oo)225-4008 o,k,-line • www.frc.org 
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 26624.002

Introduction 

Chairman Jordan and Members of the Sub-Committee: Thank you for convening this hearing 

regarding the importance of protecting the free speech rights of churches and other not-for-profit 

organizations and their leaders. 

Churches and other non-profit organizations have important roles in society- helping the sick, 

feeding the poor, counseling the down-trodden ministering to people in need. Because of their 

special role in society, they are tax exempt. For almost two hundred years, their work and nonprofit status did not compromise their ability to speak freely about political candidates and 

issues. That is until 1954, when then-Senator Lyndon Johnson used his political power to weaken 

organizations politically opposed to him by conditioning non-profit organizations· tax-exempt 

status on their remaining silent on political candidates. 

The Johnson Amendment, Section 501(c)(3) bars '"[c]orporations ... organized and operated 

exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational 

purposes" from "participat[ing] in, or interven[ingj in (including the publishing or distributing of 

statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public 

office." Since its passage, the Johnson Amendment has been used to muzzle and censor pastors 

and leaders of non-profit organizations and to chill the political speech of tax-exempt 

organizations, religious and nonreligious, on both sides of the aisle. 

Thus, in order to restore the First Amendment free speech rights of non-profit organizations, 

including churches, it is necessary for Congress to permit 501(c)(3) organizations to make 

statements regarding political campaigns (which may urge the election or defeat of a candidate) 

in the ordinary course of the non-profit's regular and customary activities, as it carries out its tax 

exempt purpose, so long as the non-profit does not incur more than minimal costs in making the 

statement. 

Background 

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides in part, "Congress shall make no law ... 

abridging the freedom of speech." While courts have determined over the years that this right is 

not absolute, the spirit of the amendment affirms the participation of all persons in political 

discourse, even pastors and leaders of non-profit organizations. The Johnson Amendment 

undermines the First Amendment rights of pastors and other non-profits in a variety of ways: IRS 

guidance is vague and fails to clearly establish what speech violates the law, the law is selectively 

enforced, and the law is enforced and then that enforcement is rescinded. 

The vagueness of the IRS guidance is clear through IRS regulations which state, "[c]ertain 

activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances," 

underscoring that no one knows precisely what kind of spoken or written comment on a 

candidate will draw the attention of the IRS. This vagueness chills free speech. For example, a 

non-profit organization focused on environmental issues, and that regularly publishes a 

newsletter on conservation projects, may want to briefly highlight a candidate's efforts in 

connection with a conservation effort. But if the entity does not know if its statement will cause 

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL 

801 G STREET NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 • 202~39J-1100 ,. 202-J9J-2IJ4 fax • (8oo} 115-4008 order lint • www.frc.org 
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 26624.003

the IRS to withdraw its tax-exempt status, it will err on the side of caution and self-censor. This 

is unfortunate because many tax-exempt organizations have much to contribute to the public 

policy debate in their areas of expertise. Moreover, to this day, the IRS has remained secretive 

about "new procedures" it has adopted to monitor churches' political involvement. 

In addition to the vague guidance, the IRS has secret rules for investigating churches, rules that 

were developed in a legal settlement the IRS made with an atheist group. These secret rules have 

reportedly been applied in almost one hundred investigations the IRS has initiated in response to 

a program led by Alliance Defending Freedom and championed by Family Research Council 

called "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," which encourages pastors to speak from the pulpit on political 

matters and political candidates. Despite churches being investigated for their sermons, the IRS 

has not withdrawn the tax-exempt status of these churches. Whether that is due to the IRS being 

frightened by the public perception of prosecuting churches, or because the agency knows the 

Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional when applied in this context, is unclear. Either way, the 

chilling effect of the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional and requires a legislative fix from 

Congress. 

The stifling effect of the Johnson Amendment is exacerbated by the fact that some activist 

organizations rely on the Johnson Amendment in letters to churches warning of impending doom 

at the hands of the IRS if they make political statements that violate their 50l(c)(3) requirements. 

These activist organizations have also reported churches to the IRS, which have led to 

investigations by the IRS that can overwhelm the administrative staff of small churches, even 

though the IRS has not ultimately revoked the church's tax-exempt status. These types of!RS 

actions also chill the speech of pastors. In fact, in 2005, All Saints Episcopal Church, in 

California, received a letter from the IRS because in 2004, a pastor there criticized President 

George Bush and the Iraq war. After two years of investigation, in 2007, the IRS closed the case 

without revoking the IRS letter, but indicated it thought the pastors' statements violated the law. 

The Johnson Amendment may not have been intended to suppress pulpit speech when it was 

passed, but it certainly has the unfortunate effect of being used in this way today. 

The IRS has also selectively enforced the law, targeting certain non-profit organizations while 

ignoring others who engage in similar behavior, causing significant confusion regarding how the 

Johnson Amendment will be applied. The IRS also has a history of enforcing the law in cases, 

only to later refund the penalty paid by the tax-exempt organization. For example, in 2004, a 

charity called Catholic Answers posted two e-letters questioning whether then-presidential 

candidate John Kerry, also a Catholic, should present himself for Holy Communion because of 

his support for abortion. After investigating, the IRS imposed excise taxes against the church. 

However, the IRS later refunded the assessment, with interest, finding the church's political 

activity was not "willful and flagrant." The IRS similarly initiated an investigation of the 

NAACP after its chairman gave one speech that included negative commentary on George W. 

Bush's presidential candidacy. The investigation concluded with the IRS issuing a tax against the 

NAACP. While the IRS subsequently closed the investigation and refunded the excise tax the 

NAACP paid, the organization was dragged through an unnecessary two-year investigation. The 

fact that the IRS would spend resources on such investigations, and impose penalties against 

churches and non-profits, only to refund them later, causes confusion for tax-exempt 

organizations and is a wasteful use of!RS resources. Churches and non-profits are forced to 

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL 

801 G STREET NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 • 202-J9J-2IOO ~ 2.02-J9J-2I34 fax • (8oo) 225•4008 order fine • www.frc.org 
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 26624.004

spend their limited resources complying with and defending against IRS inquiries into alleged 

violations of the Johnson Amendment. The IRS's enforcement of the Johnson Amendment is 

unjust and inequitable. All 50 I ( c )(3) nonprofit organizations, religious and otherwise, should be 

able to engage in low-cost political communications free from the threat of government 

prosecution or harassment. 

Pastors' Historical Involvement in Politics 

Pastors have historically been heavily involved in political matters. Since the birth of our nation, 

pastors and churches have been at the forefront of shaping public debate and voters' choices 

regarding their public servants. This began in 1776 with the Black Robe Regiment of pastors 

who also served as military leaders. One such pastor and service member, Peter Muhlenberg 

said, "I am a clergyman it is true, but I am a member of the society as well as the poorest layman, 

and my liberty is as dear to me as any man." His brother, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, also a 

minister of the gospel, was elected as the first Speaker of the US House of Representatives in 

1789. In fact, the Bill of Rights, which guarantees our First Amendment freedoms of religion 

and speech, bears just four signatures: the clerk of the House of Representatives, the Secretary of 

the Senate, John Adams, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate, and 

Frederick Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

The participation of pastors in political movements was also forged during the desegregation 

movement when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and others spoke out forcefully from the pulpit on 

political matters. Dr. King once wrote," The church must be reminded that it is not the master or 

the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic 

of the state, never its tool." Requiring churches and non-profit organizations to choose between 

their tax-exempt status and political speech relegates the church to a servant of the state. We 

must ask ourselves, what would America look like today had the Black Robe Regiment, Dr. 

King, or the likes of Rev. Lyman Beecher, a leading abolitionist, been muzzled by the IRS? It is 

imperative that the speech rights of pastors and non-profit leaders be restored. 

Free Speech Fairness Act 

February I, 2017, Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Congressmen Steve Scalise (R-La.) and 

Jody !lice (R-Ga.) introduced the Free Speech Fairness Act (S. 264, H.R. 781) in order to roll back 

the unconstitutional impact of the Johnson Amendment, while preventing churches from becoming 

political action committees or lobbying organizations. The Free Speech Fairness Act amends the 

Johnson Amendment to allow for political activity that is made in the ordinary course of a 

50l(c)(3) organization's regular and customary activities, so long as the activities carry out the 

organization's tax exempt purpose, and so long as the organization does not incur more than de 

minimis incremental costs, or minimal costs, for the activity. 

Amending the Johnson Amendment in this way will allow all 50l(c)(3) organizations breathing 

room to communicate about how candidates for public office have addressed issues important to 

the non-profit organization. At the same time, the law will continue to prevent tax-exempt 

FAMJLY RESEARCH COUNCJL 

801 G STREET NW1 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 • 202-39J'"ZIOO • Z02-393-2134 fax • (Boo) 215-4008 ortfa fine • www.frc.org 
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 26624.005

organizations from financing a candidate or buying political advertisements to get the candidate 

elected. These protections are extended to all 50 I ( c )(3) organizations, religious and non-religious, 

conservative and liberal, and regardless of their organizational mission. These changes are not only 

a win for churches and other tax-exempt organizations, but also for all people who want an 

educated electorate. The Free Speech Fairness Act is a win for voters as a whole. 

Why Should the Free Speech Fairuess Act Apply Beyond Churches? 

While churches need protections, other 501(c)(3) organizations also need speech protections, as it 

is impractical to parse protections for churches and their integrated auxiliaries and conventions, 

from other non-profits. In fact, many of the radio stations and television broadcasting organizations 

that air the sermons of pastors are non-profit organizations that would not qualifY as a churchaffiliated organization, and would not receive protection if the legislation only protect churches. 

Thus, these organizations would not be permitted to air sermons in their entirety, but would have 

to censor sermons of pastors if they were to mention political candidates. This would have the 

effect of continuing to chill the speech of pastors whose sermons arc broadcast through other nonprofit organizations. In addition, it is inequitable, and perhaps even unconstitutional, to allow 

churches and their integrated auxiliaries to engage in some political campaign activities without 

also allowing other religious ministries and secular 501(c)(3) charities to do the same. Thus, the 

speech of all non-profits should be liberated through the Free Speech Fairness Act. 

Churches and Non-Profit Leaders Disinterested in Political Speech 

How and whether a particular pastor or non-profit leader engages in political speech on behalf of 

or in opposition to a particular political candidate is not the focus of the Free Speech Fairness 

Act and should not be the focus of this hearing. Rather, the focus should be ensuring the law 

does not prohibit speech protected by the Constitution. Pastors and non-profit leaders who wish 

to speak about political candidates should be free to do so, even though some may elect to 

abstain from such engagement. The government allowing the type of speech that was permitted 

for almost two hundred years, before the passage of the Johnson Amendment, does not effectuate 

a requirement that non-profit entities engage in political speech. The Free Speech Fairness Act 

simply provides a safe space for pastors and other non-profit leaders to speak, without the fear of 

being harassed, singled out for discriminatory treatment, or losing their tax-exempt status, and 

thus, their ability to operate. 

Conclusion 

Penalizing pastors and leaders of other 501(c)(3) organizations, and muzzling them because of 

their non-profit status, is likely an unconstitutional restriction on speech. At the very least, it is a 

problematic censoring of the speech that affects the religious and non-religious alike, and 

ultimately, the very fabric of American culture and politics. Doing good in society, whether as a 

church, a homeless shelter, a refugee resettlement organization, or any other charitable, religious, 

educational, or similar 501(c)(3) organizations, should not engender a muzzle, and the political 

speech rights of churches and non-profit leaders should be restored. While Congress and the 

Administration has much more work to do to restore religious liberty for Americans, addressing 

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL 

Sot G STREET NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. ZOOOI • :zo:z~J9J-2IOO • zo:z.~J93~2134 fax • (Soo) 215•4008 ordtr lint • www.frc.org 
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 26624.006

the Johnson Amendment's stifling of free speech is an essential component of restoring a robust 

understanding of American's First Amendment freedoms. 

FAMILY R.ESEAR.CH COUNCIL 

80IGSTR.EETNW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 * 202~J9J-2IOO • 202~39J-2IJ4fax "{8oo) :25•4008 orrJer/ine • www . .frc.otg 
16 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you so much. 

Ms. Engelbrecht, you’re recognized for your 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CATHERINE ENGELBRECHT 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman 

and members of the committee. My name is Catherine Engelbrecht, 

citizen of Cat Spring, Texas. I am also the founder of True the 

Vote, a national 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to the advancement of voters’ rights and election integrity. 

Given that the topic for today’s hearing is Examining the 

Church’s Right to Free Speech, I particularly thank you for the invitation to participate, because although I am A Christian, I am 

not here to speak on behalf of the church. As it happens, religious 

organizations and charitable organizations, like True the Vote, 

share the same nonprofit class designation, which means we are 

held to the same standard in the eyes of the IRS. 

So that is what brings me to this chamber, to share the story of 

my experiences with the Internal Revenue Service, an agency that 

I have found to be so emboldened through the years of partisan exploitation, that it now presumes itself to be America’s arbiter of 

free speech. 

So in 2010, I filed a 501(c)(3) nonprofit application with the IRS 

on behalf of True the Vote. Since that filing, my private businesses, 

my nonprofit organization, and I personally have been subjected to 

more than 15 instances of audit, inquiry, or investigation by Federal agencies, including the IRS, OSHA, the ATF, and the FBI. 

These inquisitions began only after my filing of True the Vote’s application for tax exemption, an act that unwittingly put me and my 

organization on the radical radar of a political machine that 

seemed to place its own survival above the rights of its citizens. 

Politicians have long used the IRS to intimidate their enemies, 

and an entrenched agency bureaucrat is all too willing to play the 

enforcer. So it is now, and so it was in 1954 when the Johnson 

amendment became part of the IRS revenue code. 

Today, abetted by the Johnson amendment, the IRS can and does 

dictate who can speak, what they can say, and to whom they can 

say it. Under the current code, if your 501(c)(3) organization operates to further purposes of religion or charity or science or education, then this vaguely worded passage baked into a 46,000-page 

Federal code lays in wait for you to muzzle you and to rescind your 

nonprofit status should you say something that the government 

doesn’t like. 

In my case, the IRS sought to control my organization’s speech 

from the outset even before they had given us our 501(c)(3) tax designation. In a letter dated February 8, 2012, one of the many letters we received from the IRS over nearly 3 years of our inextricably protracted application process, the IRS commanded True 

the Vote to submit the time, date, location, and to whom we would 

be delivering detailed contents of speeches for all events, all events 

that we had held since the inception of the organization and for 

every future event to be held over the next 2 years. 

They said that this information was necessary in order to complete their consideration of our application for exemption. It was 

necessary, in their view, to examine everything we had ever said 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 

and to control everything we had yet to say. We declined to comply, 

and in return, our exemption was withheld for another year and 

a half. 

Finally, we had no choice but to file a lawsuit against the IRS 

in the hopes of bringing an end to the abuse. This battle has now 

gone on for 7 very long years, and it continues to this day. In fact, 

just 3 weeks ago, my attorney and I went back into court to face 

21 IRS attorneys and staffers, who in legion continued to argue 

that they’ve done nothing wrong. 

And that is why the Johnson amendment must be repealed, and 

by extension, why the Tax Code must be overhauled, because bureaucrats must be stripped of their deluded belief that they are 

sovereign, because they are not. 

An American citizen’s right to free speech is immutable. Tax exempt status cannot be given or taken away in exchange for that 

right. That’s not how the Constitution should work. 

True the Vote’s story is a clear example of how the Johnson 

amendment purposely was used to silence opposition, but make no 

mistake, we are one of many who live with this ever present 

threat. It’s the reason nonprofits across this country are fast becoming endangered species. They are fearful of organizing. People 

are scared of their government, and that is just what the autocratic 

deep state wants. Freedom is anathema to a government body that 

operates with impunity outside of our representative system. 

And so my recommendations to you are these. First, repeal the 

Johnson amendment, and do not replace it. Any replacement is 

only an opportunity to create more confusing loopholes. 

Next, amend the tax code to include a policy which clearly and 

unquestionably prohibits viewpoint discrimination, and holds accountable any government employee or contractor who violates that 

policy. Make it known that the old ways have come to an end. 

Free speech must be preserved. It’s worth testifying to, it’s worth 

fighting for, because in the end, this is all about liberty, and it is 

never wrong to return liberty to the people. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Engelbrecht follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 26624.007

Testimony of Catherine Engelbrecht 

Presented on May 4, 2017 

to the 

Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative Rules of the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Catherine Engelbrecht. I am the founder 

ofT rue the Vote, a national 501(c)3 organization dedicated to the advancement of voters' rights and election 

integrity. 

The stated topic for today's hearing is "Examining a Church's Right to Free Speech," so I thank you for the invitation 

to participate, because, though I am a Christian, I am not here to speak on behalf of religious organizations. As it 

happens, religious organizations and charitable organizations like True the Vote share the same non-profit class 

designation, so that is what brings me to this chamber; to share the story of my experiences with the Internal 

Revenue Service, an agency so emboldened through years of partisan exploitation that now it presumes itself to be 

America's arbiter of free speech. In fact, it concerns me that we should need to examine any American's right to free 

speech. Free speech is a Constitutional right. Not a privilege. It cannot be taken away, and those who try will, 

ultimately, always fail. 

In 2010, I filed a 501c3 non-profit application with the IRS on behalf of True the Vote. Since that filing, my private 

businesses, my nonprofit organizations, and I, personally, have been subjected to more than fifteen instances of 

audit, inquiry, or investigation by federal agencies, including IRS, OSHA, ATF, and the FBI. These inquisitions began 

only after my filing of True the Vote's application for tax-exemption, an act that unwittingly put both my 

organization and me on the radical radar of a political machine that places its own survival above the rights of its 

citizens. 

Politicians have long used the IRS to intimidate their enemies. Entrenched agency bureaucrats are their all-toowilling enforcers. So it is now, and so it was in 1954 when the Johnson Amendment became part of the IRS Revenue 

Code. Today, abetted by the Johnson Amendment, the IRS can and does dictate who can speak, what they can say, 

and to whom they can say it. 

Under the current code, if your 501c3 organization is operated to further the purposes of religion, charity, science, 

or education, then this vaguely worded passage, baked into a 46,000 page federal tax code, is laying in wait for you, 

to muzzle you and rescind your non-profit status, should you say something the government does not like. 

In my case, the IRS sought to control my organization's speech from the outset, even before they had given us our 

501c3 tax-exempt designation. In a letter dated February 8, 2012, one of many letters we received over nearly 

three years, the IRS commanded True the Vote to submit the time, date, location, and detailed contents of speeches 

-1-
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 26624.008

Testimony of Catherine Engelbrecht 

Presented on May 4, 2017 

to the 

Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative Rules of the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

for all events held since the inception of the organization and for every future event to be held for the next two 

years. This information was, they explained, necessary in order to complete their consideration of our application 

for exemption. 

We declined to comply and our exemption was withheld for another year and a half. Finally. we had no choice but to 

file a lawsuit against them. My fight with the IRS has gone on for seven very long years and continues to this day. 

Just two weeks ago my attorney and I were in court with twenty-one IRS attorneys and staffers, who in legion 

argued that they've done nothing wrong. 

This is why the Johnson Amendment must be repealed and by extension why the tax code must be overhauled. 

Bureaucrats must be stripped of their deluded belief that they are sovereign. They are not. 

Tax-exempt status cannot be granted or revoked in exchange for our rights. That's not how our Constitution works. 

True the Vote's story is a clear example of how the Johnson Amendment is purposely used to silence opposition ... 

but make no mistake, we are one of many who live with this ever-present threat. It's the reason non-profits across 

this country are fast becoming an endangered species. They are fearful of organizing. People are scared of their 

government. And that is just what the autocratic deep state wants. Freedom is anathema to a government body 

that operates with impunity outside our representative system. 

My recommendations to you are these: First, repeal the Johnson Amendment and do not replace it. Any 

replacement is only an opportunity to create more confusing loopholes. 

Next, amend the tax code to include a policy which clearly and unquestionably prohibits viewpoint discrimination 

and holds accountable any government employee or contractor who violates that policy. 

Make it known that the old ways have come to an end. 

Free speech must be preserved. It's worth testifying to; it's worth fighting for. This is about liberty and it is never 

wrong to return liberty to the people. 

Thank you again for this opportunity. 

-2-
20 

Mr. JORDAN. Well said. Thank you, Ms. Engelbrecht. 

Ms. Holcomb. 

We’re going to try—they just called votes, but I think we can get 

through the next—our next two witnesses and then get to votes. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTIANA HOLCOMB 

Ms. HOLCOMB. All right. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Hit that button. 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Excuse me. Let’s try this again. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the first 200 

years of our Nation’s history, America’s churches enjoyed their 

right to free speech. They guided their people on the important 

issues of their day, religious, cultural, and, yes, even political. They 

applied scripture to every aspect of life, including candidates and 

elections. 

But since 1954, that right has been denied to America’s churches. 

With one last-minute amendment, one voice vote, and one stroke 

of the pen, the church’s voice was silenced, and instead, one of the 

most powerful and unaccountable bureaucracies in the Federal 

Government, the IRS, was given the authority to censor the 

church. 

For over 60 years, the Johnson amendment has caused pastors 

to chill their speech. They’re fearful. They want to faithfully preach 

the whole council of God, but don’t want to risk intrusive IRS audits, crippling financial penalties, and even their church’s tax exempt status, so they stay silent. 

Alliance Defending Freedom has been involved in the effort to 

free the pulpit from IRS censorship for nearly a decade now. We’ve 

concluded that not only does the Johnson amendment harm real 

people, real churches, but it violates the Constitution as well, and 

I want to highlight just two of those constitutional violations. 

First, the Johnson amendment is unconstitutionally vague. No 

one, including tax experts, legal experts, and certainly not busy 

pastors, know with any real certainty where the boundaries of that 

law are. Of course, explicit candidate endorsements are prohibited, 

but as explained in greater detail in my written testimony, just 

about anything beyond that is a mystery. 

The IRS guidance on this issue is increasingly vague and confusing. And to make a bad situation worse, IRS enforcement has 

been sporadic and inconsistent. Some churches openly endorse or 

oppose political candidates, and the IRS says nothing. Other 

churches make a passing reference to how Jesus might view a particular policy issue, and they trigger IRS harassment and audits. 

The Constitution requires that its citizens be reasonably informed 

of what the law requires, and the Johnson amendment fails this 

standard abysmally. 

Second, the Johnson amendment violates free speech. Churches 

have a right to speak freely without fearing government censorship. No one surrenders their constitutional rights simply by walking through the church doors, and no church should be forced to 

surrender its free speech in exchange for a tax status. 

The IRS has been transformed into the speech police, censoring 

even what a pastor preaches from the pulpit. For example, as my 

colleague mentioned earlier, a pastor at All Saints Episcopal 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
21 

Church in Pasadena, California, preached a sermon that included 

critiques of the President’s policies, based on that minister’s deeply 

held religious convictions. The IRS pounced and started harassing 

the church with an investigation, forcing that church to hire tax attorneys to defend itself. 

But then after nearly 2 years of this ordeal, the IRS abruptly 

closed out the file without explanation. It left the church with no 

greater clarity on the legal boundaries of the law than when the 

whole ordeal started. All of this has resulted in pervasive chill and 

self-censorship among America’s churches, in violation of their 

right to free speech. 

In conclusion, the status quo is untenable, and America’s churches are looking to you, their elected Representatives, for help. We 

cannot leave this to the judicial branch to resolve. No court has yet 

ruled on the constitutionality of the Johnson amendment’s application to a pastor’s sermon, likely because Federal law allows the IRS 

to control when and with whom and how it gets into Federal court. 

Since 2008, Alliance Defending Freedom has encouraged a legal 

challenge to the Johnson amendment through our Pulpit Initiative, 

but the IRS has refused. So it’s time for Congress to act. 

The Free Speech Fairness Act is the best solution that we at Alliance Defending Freedom have seen to these constitutional problems. The bill creates a much needed relief valve for free speech, 

it allows churches to once again speak as they would in the ordinary course of their ministries without fearing IRS retribution, and 

such a legislative fix would allow America’s churches to once more 

guide their congregations, as the Constitution permits and as their 

religious beliefs require. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Holcomb follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 26624.009

ALLIANCE DEFENDING 

FREEDOM FOR !·AIIH ~OK JCJS"ICio 

Testimony 

Before the United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative Rules 

Subcommittee on Government Operations 

"Examining a Church's Right to Free Speech" 

By 

Christiana Holcomb, Legal Counsel 

Alliance Defending Freedom 

May 4, 2017 
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 26624.010

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

T estirnony of Christiana llolcomb 

Examining a Church's Right to Free Speech 

May 4, 2017 

Thank you for inviting me to testify on the important issue of a Church's Right to Free Speech. 

For the first 200-plus years of our nation's history, America's churches enjoyed their constitutional 

right to free speech. They guided and shepherded their people on the important issues of their 

day-religious, cultural, and, yes, political. They applied Scripture to every aspect of life, 

including candidates and elections. They were, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, "the 

conscience of the state." And as a result, churches were at the forefront of some of the most 

dramatic social and political changes in our nation's history. 1 

But since 1954, that right to free speech has been denied to America's churches. With one lastminute amendment, one voice vote, and one stroke of a pen, the Church's voice was silenced. Her 

pastors, muzzled. And instead, one of the most powerful and unaccountable bureaucracies in the 

federal government-the Internal Revenue Service (IRS}-was given the authority to censor 

churches. 

Remarkably, the Johnson Amendment was passed without any consideration of the constitutional 

rights of churches. Perhaps this can be partly explained by the fact that churches simply were not 

the amendment's intended target. Then-Senator Lyndon Johnson was looking for a way to silence 

two secular nonprofits who were jeopardizing his chances for reelection. So he sponsored an 

amendment to a tax bill designed to shut down his political opponents. And, thus, without debate, 

without legislative analysis, and without congressional hearings, the Johnson Amendment was 

enacted into federal law. 

Even though churches were not the target of the Johnson Amendment, they have been in its crosshairs ever since. For over sixty years, the Johnson Amendment has hung like Damocles sword over 

America's churches. Pastors are fearful. They want to faithfully preach the whole counsel of God 

and apply Scripture to every aspect of life. But they fear that one misstep could incur intrusive IRS 

audits, crippling financial penalties, and risk their church's tax-exempt status. These pastors want 

to be law-abiding citizens, but they are confused about the law's parameters and so they selt~censor 

out of fear of violating the law. 

Put simply, the status quo is untenable. And it is time for Congress to act. 

Alliance Defending Freedom has been involved in the effort to free the pulpit from IRS censorship 

for nearly a decade now. As our attorneys reviewed the Johnson Amendment, we came to the 

conclusion that not only does this tax law harm real people-real churches--but it violates the 

United States Constitution as well. 

I want to highlight just two of those constitutional violations. 

1 See, e.g., Deirdre Dessingue, Prohibition in Search of Rationale: What the Tax Code Prohibits: Why: To What End?, 

42 B.C. L. Rev. 903, 923 (2001) (listing national independence, abolition of slavery, gambling, child labor, 

prostitution, abortion, civil rights, etc.). 

2 
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 26624.011

Testimony of Christiana Holcomb 

Examining a Church's Right to Free Speech 

May 4, 2017 

I. The Johnson Amendment is unconstitutionally vague and unevenly enforced in 

violation of tbe Due Process Clause, leaving churches and legal experts alike to 

guess at the law's requirements. 

The first problem with the Johnson Amendment and its implementing regulations is that no one 

knows with any certainty what the law requires. The Congressional Research Service, in a 2008 

report to Congress on the Johnson Amendment, stated: "The line between what is prohibited and 

what is permitted can be difficult to discem."2 

The Johnson Amendment states that Section 50 I c(3) tax-exempt entities (including churches) may 

not 

participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of 

statements), any political campaign on behalf of(or in opposition to) any candidate 

for public office. 3 

The law clearly prohibits direct endorsements, that much is certain. But it is anyone's guess what 

else the law prohibits. After all, what does it mean to "participate in·· or "intervene in" a campaign? 

Theoretically, the federal agency charged with interpreting and applying this law should have 

enacted clarifying regulations. But the IRS has only muddied the waters. Over the past sixty years, 

the IRS has issued what can charitably be described as increasingly vague and confusing guidance. 

For example, IRS regulations prohibit directly or indirectly participating in or intervening in a 

campaign for political office.4 No one knows what exactly Congress meant by participating or 

intervening in a campaign, but it is far less certain what those activities look like when done 

"indirectly." 

Additionally, the IRS uses a "facts and circumstances test" for evaluating whether a church has 

violated the Johnson Amendment. 5 In essence, the agency says it will consider all the facts and 

circumstances of an incident in determining whether it violates the law. Such a method sounds 

nice in theory, but is a political bludgeon in fact. Federal bureaucrats have the power to apply the 

law at their own whim, leaving citizens with little clue as to the law's parameters. The IRS refuses 

to produce clear guidelines that the average person can follow with reasonable certainty, preferring 

to instead police violations after the fact in an ad hoc manner. 

Worse, the IRS has gone so far as to say that a church could violate the Johnson Amendment 

without even mentioning a candidate by name. It asserts that a nonprofit can "surreptitiously" 

2 ERIKA LUNDER & L. PAIGE WHITAKER, CONG. RESEARCH SERV. RL 34447, CHURCHES AND CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY: 

ANALYSIS UNDER TAX AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS 2 (2008). 

3 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). 

4 See Treas. Reg. 1.501(c)(3)-l(c)(3)(iii). 

'See, e.g., Rev. Ruling 78-248. Note that this "facts and circumstances" language is also available in the Tax Guide 

for Churches and Religious Organizations available on the IRS' website. 
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 26624.012

Testimony of Christiana Holcomb 

Examining a Church's Right to Free Speech 

May 4, 2017 

intervene in a political campaign by using "code words" such as "pro-life," "pro-choice," 

"conservative," or "liberaL"6 

Complicating matters further is the IRS's vague, sporadic, and inconsistent enforcement of the 

Johnson Amendment Some churches openly endorse or oppose candidates for political office, and 

hear nothing from the IRS. Other churches make a passing reference to how Jesus might have 

viewed the Iraq war, and trigger a 22-month audit 7 

Adding to the confitsion are a host of legal scholars and tax experts who disagree about the law's 

boundaries. If the experts cannot decide what the law requires, how can the average citizen or busy 

pastor discern what conduct is permitted by the law? 

Every election cycle, we at Alliance Defending Freedom receive numerous calls from concerned 

pastors, who are fearful of violating the law and inviting intrusive IRS audits, incurring financial 

penalties, and even risking their church's tax-exempt status. These pastors want to be law-abiding 

citizens, they want to honor God by obeying their governing authorities, but they are confused 

about the law's parameters. 

The Johnson Amendment is unconstitutionally vague in violation ofthe Fourteenth Amendment's 

due process guarantee. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that citizens be informed with a 

reasonable degree of certainty of what the law requires so that they can conform their conduct 

accordingly. As the Supreme Court has noted, "Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to 

steer far wider of the unlawful zone ... than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly 

marked. " 8 But the Johnson Amendment is a black hole. Rather than gaining clarity as the decades 

roll by, churches have received increasingly vague guidance from the federal agency charged with 

enforcing the law against them. As a result. churches are in legal limbo, unable to determine what 

the law proscribes and permits. 

II. The Johnson Amendment unconstitutionally authorizes federal bureaucrats to 

muzzle a church's speech in violation of the Free Speech Clause. 

This legal limbo and vagueness fosters an atmosphere of fear among churches who do not want to 

find themselves in the IRS's crosshairs. This results in pervasive chill and massive self-censorship 

among America's church leaders. Because when speech restrictions are vague, "[m]any 

persons ... will choose simply to abstain from protected speech-harming not only themselves but 

society as a whole, which is deprived of an uninhibited marketplace of ideas."9 

6 See Judith E. Kindell & John F. Reilly, Election Year Issues, in EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS CONTINUING 

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR FY 1993, at 400, 411 (1992), available at 

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicn93.pdf. 

7 See ERIKA LUNDER & L. PAIGE WHITAKER, CONG. RESEARCH SERV. RL 34447, CHURCHES AND CAMPAIGN 

ACTIVITY: ANALYSIS UNDER TAX AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS 9-10 (2008) (discussing All Saints Episcopal 

Church). 

8 Graynedv. City of Roc!iford, 408 U.S. 104, 109 (1972) (internal cites and quotation marks omitted). 

9 Virginia v. flicks, 539 U.S. 113, 119 (2003) (citation omitted). 

4 
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 26624.013

Testimony of Christiana Holcomb 

Examining a Church's Right to Free Speech 

May 4, 2017 

Which leads to the second constitutional violation-the Johnson Amendment violates the First 

Amendment's free speech guarantee. 

Churches have a right to speak freely without government censorship. No one surrenders their 

constitutional rights simply by passing through the church doors. And no church should be forced 

to surrender its freedom of speech in exchange for a particular tax status. 

Imagine if the government required churches to give up their Fourth Amendment right to be secure 

against unreasonable searches and seizures in exchange for a particular tax status-it would be 

absurd. Yet the Johnson Amendment demands the equivalent of churches: give up your right to 

free speech, or the IRS will revoke your tax-exempt status. Yet religious speech is at the core of 

First Amendment protection, 10 and it is difficult to think of any speech more at the heart of 

religious speech than that which comes from the pulpit. 

Yet even America's pulpits are not sacrosanct. The IRS specifically asserts its right to censor pulpit 

speech. The IRS's Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations includes specific 

examples of situations that violate the Johnson Amendment, and included within the list is a 

minister preaching a sermon and endorsing a candidate from the pulpit. 11 

One notorious example of the IRS applying the Johnson Amendment to a pastor's sermon from 

the pulpit is the 2005 IRS audit of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California. 12 A pastor 

preached a sermon at All Saints entitled "If Jesus Debated Sen. Kerry and President Bush" that 

included critiques of the president's policies based on that minister's deeply-held religious 

conviction on the issues. The IRS launched a months-long investigation into the incident, but took 

no punitive action. 

Adding to confusion are advocacy groups that use the Johnson Amendment as a bludgeon to 

intimidate pastors and churches into silence on all things political. For example, Americans United 

for Separation of Church and State (AU) is notorious for sending threatening letters to churches 

each election cycle, warning them against "politicking" and misrepresenting the law's 

boundaries. 13 This cultivates and exacerbates an atmosphere of fear among churches who then 

further retreat from fully declaring the whole counsel of God on current cultural issues. 

These threats, legal vagueness, inconsistent enforcement, and muzzle on church speech have 

resulted in a pervasive chill and self-censorship among America's pastors. Pastors want to be law10 See, e.g .. Capitol Square Rev. & Adv. Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753,760 (1995) (religious speech, "far !rom being a 

First Amendment orphan,'' enjoys full and robust protection under the Free Speech Clause). 

11 See INTERNAL REVENUE SERV, PUB. NO. 1828, TAX GUIDE FOR CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS 8 

(2009), available at https:llwww.irs.gov/publirs-pdflpl828.pdf (example 4). 

See ERIKA LUNDER & L. PAIGE WHITAKER, CONG, RESEARCH SERV. RL 34447, CHURCHES AND CAMPAIGN 

ACTIVITY: ANALYSIS UNDER TAX AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS 9-10 (2008). 

ll By way of example, one such threatening letter can be found here: https:l/au.orgifiles/pdf documents/14-9-

25 ReligiousLeaderLettcr.pdf. Alliance Defending Freedom's response to this letter is available here: 

http :I lwww .adfmedia.orglti les/20 14AD FA lJRcsponse.pdf. 
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 26624.014

Testimony of Christiana Holcomb 

Examining a Church's Right to Free Speech 

May 4, 2017 

abiding citizens, but they cannot determine with any certainty the bounds of the law. And as a 

result, they steer so far away from any remotely political statements that they chill a substantial 

amount of protected speech in the process. 

III. Conclusion 

In conclusion, it is time for Congress to act. The status quo is untenable, and America's churches 

need a legislative fix. 

We cannot leave this to the judicial branch to resolve. No court has ever addressed these 

constitutional questions related to the IRS's ability to monitor and censor what a pastor preaches 

from the pulpit. And, as you may know, the IRS holds all the cards in determining when it gets 

into court, how, and with whom. Federal law prohibits anyone from affirmatively suing the IRS 

outright to contest the Johnson Amendment's constitutionality. 14 

In 2008, Alliance Defending Freedom launched its Pulpit Initiative, designed to encourage pastors 

to exercise their constitutional freedoms to apply Scripture to every aspect of life-including 

candidates and elections-and invite the IRS to test the constitutionality of the Johnson 

Amendment in federal court. Beginning in 2008 with 33 churches, pastors preached sermons about 

the candidates running for office and made specific recommendations about how the congregation 

should vote based on their scriptural evaluation. As a courtesy, they then mailed those sermons to 

the IRS. Each year since, the Pulpit Freedom movement has grown and expanded to thousands of 

participating churches. 

The goal was to trigger an IRS enforcement action so that ADF could then challenge the Johnson 

Amendment in federal court. In the nine years since this project began, the IRS has not brought 

any action against a Pulpit Freedom pastor. Only one pastor-of thousands-was briefly harassed 

and audited, but the IRS later dropped that investigation without penalty. At the conclusion of that 

ordeal, the pastor commented that he knew no more about what violated the Johnson Amendment 

than when he started. 

So, the untenable status quo continues. The Johnson Amendment has not changed, nor has the IRS 

guidance. At any given point, the IRS may resume targeting churches. A few years ago, it told one 

atheist group that it had a list of99 churches that merited high-priority investigation. 15 

Alliance Defending Freedom's primary concern is to protect the rights of churches. The Johnson 

Amendment has already done incalculable damage to the constitutional rights of America's 

churches to speak and teach their faith freely. If federal bureaucracies are allowed to continue 

censoring the speech of pastors and intruding into America's pulpits, it is anyone's guess what 

they might attempt to control next. 

14 See 26 U.S.C. § 7421 et seq. (Tax Anti-Injunction Act); see also 28 U.S.C. § 220l(a) (authorizing declaratory 

judgments "except with respect to Federal taxes"), 

15 See Letter of Mary A. Epps, Acting Director, EO Examinations, to The Honorable Tamara W. Ashford, Acting 

Assistant Attorney General (June 27, 2014), attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Motion 

to Dismiss, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Koskinen, No. 12-cv-0818 (D. Wis. July 29, 2014), available 

at https://ffrf.org/images/ A 19508.PDF. 

6 
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 26624.015

Testimony of Christiana Holcomb 

Examining a Church's Right to Free Speech 

May 4, 2017 

Therefore, it is time for Congress to act. The Free Speech Fairness Act (H ,B. 781) is the best 

solution that we at Alliance Defending Freedom have seen to these constitutional problems. The 

bill simply creates a relief valve for free speech, while leaving in place the remaining nonprofit 

boundaries. It allows churches to speak as they would in the ordinary course of their ministries 

without fear of!RS retribution. And such a fix would allow America's churches to once more be 

that conscience of the nation, contributing to the public discourse and national debate as the 

Constitution permits and as their religious beliefs require. 

7 
29 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. 

Rabbi, fire away. 

STATEMENT OF RABBI DAVID SAPERSTEIN 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the committee, really I’m honored to be here with you 

today. 

And I thank you all for your support of my work as serving as 

the U.S. Ambassador for International Religious Freedom. I do 

want to single out Mr. Meadows who is extraordinary in the work 

that he has done in that field. 

Let me just lift out a few of the key concerns here, and the concerns for the houses of worship, for the clergy. First, how divisive 

this will be to bring into our houses of worship the notion of endorsing candidates and dividing those houses of worship along political lines. We have enough divisions of the theology, music, sermons, et cetera, without adding this into the mix here. 

Where do you draw the line? What is a pastor to do if a 

congregant who is a major donor says, I’ll give you a gift this year, 

but only if you endorse such a candidate? What do you do if the 

pastor endorses one candidate who he thinks is worthy, and then 

someone else wants someone else, or a member of the congregation 

asks? What if two members of their congregations are running 

against each other, and this is a pastor having responsibilities to 

both sides? What do you do in these situations? It takes us down 

a very divisive and dangerous path in terms of the well-being of 

congregations, which is why there’s so many polls that show overwhelmingly clergy don’t want this. 

National Association of Evangelicals 2 months ago in its evangelical leaders poll, 90 percent don’t want this. The LifeWay Christian polling entity polls, 90 percent of clergy don’t want this. You 

can go down the polling data. 66 percent of Trump voters don’t 

want it, 62 percent of identified Republicans say this would be bad. 

That shouldn’t be determinative, but it should—you should, I 

would hope, ask, why, and how do we deal with what their concerns are. 

Secondly, do we agree on the description there? I don’t know 

where the line is between the argument that right now pastors 

have and clergy have, of all kind, free speech and churches have 

free speech in the sense they can talk about issues, they can speak 

out on moral issues on the day, on political issues, they can talk 

about issues that candidates raise, they can talk about anything 

that they want to do. 

They can hold candidate forums, they can get people to the polls, 

they can do all kinds of activities as individuals. Clergy can do 

what everyone else can do, endorse, oppose a candidate, run for office, many clergy serve in office while they’re serving their churches. I understand what this debate is over, but it sound to me it is 

over a very limited area where it’s being described as being a pervasive area. Do we agree on that limit? And if so, then it’s a respectful difference between those who say this is speech and those 

who say you have that speech. What isn’t involved is the right of 

people to do that electoral work with subsidies from the government. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
30 

The Supreme Court has held that tax exemptions and deductible 

gifts constitute subsidies by the government. That is the law right 

now. And it has upheld that such restrictions apply to what we’re 

talking about today. 

If that is the debate to us, this is about subsidies and whether 

or not people have a right to have subsidies. Dr. King served his 

entire career with the Johnson amendment in effect. He was never 

restrained in what he could do, he never complained about infringements of his religious freedom because of the Johnson amendment, and I don’t know many clergy who do in that regard, other 

than the question whether they can endorse candidates with government subsidies paying for it. 

Third, this idea of whether or not, if you do away with the Johnson amendment altogether, whether nonprofits and churches become slush funds. Do we all agree that these would be campaign 

contributions that could be given through a house of worship getting a tax deduction with no reporting to the government, or are 

we going to take away some of the exemptions that houses of worship now have and force them to report the contributions of their 

members? 

Finally, there are these efforts to restrict this to just speech, but 

what kind of speech are we talking about? Just sermons? Is de 

minimus—Mr. Hice, is de minimus one sermon, is it one sentence 

in every sermon, is it 50 sermons, is it 50 bulletin articles, is it 50 

emails going out? That doesn’t cost additional money to do it anyway. De minimus will be no clearer than the current system is in 

that regard. 

The 501(c)(3) partisan restrictions are not just bad—are protective of our religious communities, and changing that is not just bad 

legal policy, it is bad religious policy as well. 

And I urge you to maintain the Johnson amendment that served 

so well to protect our nonprofits and houses of worship from being 

turned into campaign slush funds, and dividing their members 

along partisan political lines. 

[Prepared statement of Rabbi Saperstein follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 26624.016

Testimony of 

Rabbi David Saperstein 

Before the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Subcommittees on Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative 

Rules and Subcommittee on Government Operations 

on 

The Johnson Amendment 

March 4, 2017 

President Trump has publicly stated that one key priority for him in the area of 

religion is to "totally destroy" the so-called "Johnson Amendment," a provision of 

the federal law that prohibits houses of worship, like all tax-exempt organizations, 

from endorsing or opposing political candidates and political parties or spending 

money for such purposes. 

The President has given different explanations for this policy. One is that 

churches "will lose their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political 

views." Not so. They may express their views on political issues as they see fit. 

They may even lobby on those views, albeit the amount of money they can spend 

on such activities is regulated in the same way it is regulated for secular taxexempt organizations. 

The President has said: "I think maybe that will be my greatest contribution to 

Christianity and other religions-is to allow you, when you talk religious liberty, 

you have the right to do it. You don't have any religious freedom, if you think 

about it." Clearly a bit of an exaggeration in light of the restrictions on religious 

worship, attacks on houses of worship, blasphemy laws, ethnic cleansing and 

genocidal actions from non-state actors faced by billions across the globe, which I 

had to address over the past two years as the U.S. Ambassador at Large for 

International Religious Freedom. I take seriously any sincere claim about 

infringement of religious liberty in the United States or around the world, 

including those religious liberty concerns expressed by colleagues here, but to 

suggest that there is no religious freedom if electioneering is not allowed from 

the pulpit, in a country that is the envy of most religious communities elsewhere, 

1 
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 26624.017

diminishes the vastness of the struggle for religious freedom in too many 

countries. 

There are eight compelling reasons why the Johnson Amendment should not be 

changed and the current restrictions left in place. 

First, repealing current law would almost certainly have a divisive impact on 

houses of worship. There are enough divisions over theology and music and 

liturgy and pastors, without importing America's explosively divisive electoral 

differences. Our houses of worship are among the few places that people of 

different cultural, political, ethnic divides can find the sense of unity and comity 

so desperately needed in our nation today. What is a pastor to do if a congregant 

who is major donor now makes his church gift contingent on an endorsement 

from the pulpit for his or her preferred candidate? What if a congregant asks a 

pastor for an endorsement when the pastor has endorsed other candidates in 

other elections? Once down that path, painful pressure to endorse any 

congregant running for office arises. What if two congregants are running against 

each other for the same office? Does the pastor have to choose between who 

will get her endorsement and who won't- even as the pastor is trying to minister 

to the needs of the candidates and their families? 

As Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals, 

observed: 

"Most pastors know the parishioners have diverse political opinions and 

fear being pressured to choose and endorse some while alienating others. 

They are grateful for the rule that keep them out of political endorsement 

differences and battles." 

Second, relatedly, while constitutional rights are not subject to majoritarian view, 

if we are talking rather about wise versus unwise or counterproductive legislation, 

the will of the people ought to be considered as one factor in your decisionmaking. 

Polls overwhelmingly demonstrate that the public, parishioners and clergy are 

opposed to such partisan politicking from houses of worship. They don't want 

their houses of worship plunged into our current partisan arms races nor a 

2 
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 26624.018

pasrtisan political wedge dividing their sense of comity and community. And 

overwhelmingly clergy do not want this for their parishioners or their houses of 

worship either. 

In one recent poll (Sept. 2016) on the subject, done by the Christian polling 

company lifeway, they found that 8 in 10 people said it is inappropriate for 

pastors to endorse candidates in church. Among clergy, 9 out of 10 oppose it. A 

more recent Public Religion Research Institute poll found only 22% of Americans 

favor such a policy. Looked at through the lens of party affiliation, 62% of 

Republicans and 78% of Democrats reject this idea. 

A Feb. 2017 National Association of Evangelicals "Evangelical Leaders Survey" 

upheld the Lifeway survey findings: 90% of evangelical leaders do not think that 

pastors should endorse politicians from the pulpit. As George 0. Wood, general 

superintendent of Assemblies of God (hardly a liberal denomination, theologically 

or otherwise) commented on the poll: 

"Our focus should be on the gospel. If we begin to endorse candidates, 

then we are politicizing the Church, diluting our message, and bringing 

unnecessary division among our people. It is sufficient that we can speak on 

issues without endorsing specific candidates for office." 

These views are affirmed by a letter you received last month from 4,500 nonprofit groups cutting across religious, political, ideological lines urging strongly 

that the Johnson Amendment be maintained. So too a letter you received from 

99 national, regional and state denominations and faith groups. 

Now I mention these polls, these letters, these statements from prominent 

religious leaders because there are three witnesses on the opposing view and I 

urge that this Committee take seriously the breadth of the denominations and 

religious leaders who support maintaining the restrictions. 

Third, pastors and other clergy have free speech right now. Under the current 

rules, they can speak right now on policy issues and moral issues as they see fit, 

even during election season. In a personal capacity, without the use of church 

funding, clergy have the same citizen rights to endorse or oppose candidates or 

3 
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 26624.019

parties as anyone else. They can run for public office {and many have} and, if 

elected, serve in public office (some having done so even while continuing to 

serve as the pastors of their churches.). Churches can hold candidate fora and 

educate their members and communities on the issues that arise in a campaign. 

Clergy even have the free speech right to endorse from the pulpit. What they 

cannot do is engage in partisan political activity using a government subsidy in the 

form of tax exemptions and tax-deductible contributions for their houses of 

worship. The only restriction on any of these actions is that if the house of 

worship wishes to enjoy tax-exempt status, the house of worship cannot engage 

in electioneering activity (opposing or supporting specific candidates or parties), 

cannot spend any funding for such activity and its clergy or other leaders cannot 

engage in such activity in their official capacity. 

The key case upholding this standard on constitutional grounds is Regan v. 

Taxation with Representation of Washington (461 U.S. 540 (1983) (TWR). Justice 

Rehnquist, hardly a liberal on such issues, classified the tax exemptions and tax 

deductions given to contributions to 501(c)(3)s as government subsidies. 

Differentiating these from the holding in Walz v. Tax Commission (which held that 

lifting the burden of taxation is different than directly supporting the non-profit}, 

the Court stated that " ... in stating that exemptions and deductions, on the one 

hand, are like cash subsidies, on the other, we of course do not mean to assert 

that they are in all respects identical." (TWR 461 U.S. at 544 n.S.) The position 

that tax exemptions convey government support has been reaffirmed by other 

cases since that time. 

And in those very rare cases where the IRS has acted against a church for 

electioneering, as with the full page ads against President Clinton taken out by the 

Pierce Creek church, the court has upheld such restriction against free speech 

claims holding that revoking the church's tax exemption as a consequence of 

violating the endorsement prohibition was not a substantial burden since first, 

free exercise of religion would not be limited, but rather electioneering simply 

would be unsubsidized, and second, the church had an "alternate channel" for its 

messages. 

Fourth, the prohibition against electioneering by non-profits prevents 

undermining the structure of campaign finance regulations. If the Johnson 

4 
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 26624.020

Amendment is repealed entirely and political donors can bypass other restrictions 

by giving their campaign contributions through a church AND get a tax deduction 

for it, we will see a massive diversion of campaign funding to houses of worship, 

which will become slush funds for local, state, and national campaigns. And since 

churches do not report who their donors are, funneling campaign donations 

through houses of worship would greatly reduce transparency in election 

campaigns, thus becoming conduits for dark money and undermining sensible 

campaign finance rules, 

Fifth, therefore, if houses of worship become involved in campaigning, they run 

the risk of extensive government regulation and monitoring of their religious 

activities. Right now, religious autonomy is protected in pervasively sectarian 

entities (houses of worship, parochial schools, etc.) by a range of exemptions 

from various reporting requirements, including 990s and lobby disclosure 

requirements, as well as by tougher standards to trigger IRS audits, etc. If we 

insist to be treated like every other entity for electioneering purposes, then the 

government has two choices. It may say "yes, we will treat you like everyone else" 

and impose campaign finance rules, regulations and monitoring on houses of 

worship. Alternatively, it will continue exemptions from reporting contributions 

and contributors, and allow houses of worship to spend their funds on partisan 

politics without any transparency- thereby opening up a channel for more 

electoral funding abuses. 

Sixth, if, as he implied, this about religious freedom, and the President intends to 

revoke the Johnson Amendment not in its entirety but only insofar as religious 

groups are concerned, then a slew of other constitutional issues arise in favoring 

religious over non-religious non-profits. Under the ruling of the High Court in 

Texas Monthly v. Bullock 489 U.S. 1, 14 (1989), the Constitution bars providing 

special tax benefits to religious entities that would not be provided to similarly 

situated secular non-profits. Courts would require the same treatment for all nonprofits as were given to houses of worship. 

Seventh, there are those who take the position of the Free Speech Fairness Act 

(H.R. 781). This legislation would change the Johnson Amendment such that any 

statement made in the course of the organization's regular and customary 

activity, so long as no more than a de minimis incremental expense is used, would 

5 
36 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 26624.021

not violate an organization's tax-exempt status. (By "de minimis incremental" I 

presume the legislation means additional expenses beyond its normal expenses. 

While this sounds like H.R. 781 is aimed at securing and enhancing freedom of the 

pulpit, in its actual language, it applies to all non-profits and it affects all 

statements by anyone connected with the house of worship or non-profit. The 

concerns and criticisms I made of changing the rules for houses of worship would 

apply to all (c)3s. 

Further, it sounds like proponents envision a single sermon. 

But let me offer some hypotheticals of the implications of a proposal that says any 

statement is allowed that does not involve extra expenses: 

Suppose instead of one sermon, in every scheduled sermon for the half-year 

running up to the election, the pastor(s) endorses various candidates and 

reiterates those endorsements? 

Suppose in every regular bulletin and regular email over those six months, the 

pastor or church leaders focus on endorsements of a party or a candidate(s)? 

Suppose with the costs of local calls being de minimis these days, they allow their 

phones to be used for campaign phone banks? 

Suppose a church has their congregants fill out cards for the offerings for later tax 

verification (putting their money and card in an envelope which they hand in) -

and the church then adds envelopes and cards to fill out for contributions to the 

candidates they endorse and collect those with the offerings and someone from 

the campaign comes by every week and collects them. 

Or suppose the President of Notre Dame or Catholic University adds a single 

sentence to their regular email to their scores of thousands of alumni : "I believe 

based on sound religious reasoning you should all vote for Candidate A and 

oppose Candidate B." Certainly de minimis but is that how tax deductible money 

should be used? 

In each of these there is no extra funding. They are doing (giving sermons, sending 

6 
37 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 26624.022

bulletins or emails, collecting offerings) what they would normally do. 

Are proponents of this legislation arguing that although you might disapprove on 

other grounds, that as far as the law is concerned, this ought to be allowed 

because it really doesn't constitute using tax exempt and tax deductible funding 

for partisan political purposes? What is the cumulative value of the salaries and 

the overhead of the congregation in making this electioneering possible? If the 

church is funded by tax deductible contributions, are not these contributions 

subsidizing this electoral activity? If the church has the benefit of tax exemption 

to support its eleemosynary work, does not the tax exemption support everything 

the church does including its endorsement activities? Everything about the church 

is subsidized by tax exempt and tax deductible money. And that is as true of one 

sermon as six months of sermons; of one bulletin as six months of bulletins. 

Eighth, you have a complicated problem as to what constitutes "free speech" or 

"a statement" in terms ofthis legislation. Since the court has held in the Buckley 

v. Valeo, Boston v. Belotti, Citizens United thread that giving money to candidates 

is expressive conduct protected under the First Amendment, there will certainly 

be those who argue that lifting the Johnson Amendment through this free speech 

legislation would need to include speech expressed through campaign 

contributions and churches should likewise be allowed to engage in such 

activities. How will you write the legislation to prevent the application of Texas 

Monthly in this manner? Again, unless the courts would require the church to 

report under campaign contribution legislation, there are arguably no more than 

de minimis additional costs. The money would have been spent for something 

else, so why not for this expressive purpose? So, if the form of endorsement 

speech as described in this legislation were allowed, it would open the Pandora's 

box of tax-deductible funds being used for campaign contributions discussed 

above. 

Lifting the 501(c)(3) partisan politicking restrictions are not just bad legal policy 

and bad public policy, but bad religious policy as well. I urge the committee to 

maintain the Johnson Amendment that has served so well to protect our nonprofits and houses of worship from being turned into campaign slush funds and 

dividing their members along partisan political lines. 

7 
38 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Rabbi. 

The committee will stand in recess 30 minutes more or less. And 

you can—we’ve got coffee and stuff, you can—you can—but we’ll be 

back in 30-minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. JORDAN. The committee will reconvene. 

Rabbi, we believe in free speech so much we were waiting for you 

to speak to the press. That’s our commitment to the First Amendment. 

So we’re going to start with the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman Hice. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Holcomb, your organization, an outstanding group, actually 

put forth the Pulpit Initiative and Pulpit Freedom Sunday. As you 

know, I was one of the original pastors that were a part of that 

group in 2008. Can you briefly explain to this committee what that 

event is and what’s its purpose? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you. 

The Pulpit Initiative was designed to bring this issue to a head 

and to provide a legal challenge to the Johnson Amendment because, as you know, and I’m sure you’re well aware, Federal law 

prohibits us from affirmatively suing the IRS outright to deal with 

this issue. 

So we started what’s called Pulpit Freedom Sunday where we encourage pastors across the Nation to exercise their constitutional 

rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. And many 

of them endorse or oppose candidates on that day, and a number 

of them provide courtesy copies of their sermons to the IRS and 

send them in so that they’re fully aware of what’s going on. 

We’ve encouraged, as I mentioned, a legal challenge, wanting to 

go head-to-head with the IRS on this issue and allow a court to 

rule on the Johnson Amendment’s constitutionality or a lack thereof, in our opinion, but the IRS has been unwilling to take the bait. 

It did harass and intimidate one of our pastors for approximately 

11 months of an audit, and we defended him throughout that process. But, otherwise, it has been unwilling to allow a Federal court 

to address this issue, which is why we’re now recommending that 

Congress go ahead and fix that which was enacted over 60-plus 

years ago. 

Mr. HICE. So why do you believe the IRS did not respond? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. It’s all speculation. I think it could be a number 

of different things. But one thing is, the IRS may recognize that 

it’s on tenuous constitutional grounds. It probably does not want to 

have a Federal judge actually examine the constitutional violations, 

both those that I’ve mentioned in my written testimony, but those 

that I did not. In addition to vagueness and free speech, the Johnson Amendment is constitutionally questionable in the areas of free 

exercise in the Establishment Clause, potentially even Federal 

RFRA. 

So I think that would be one primary reason why the IRS might 

be reluctant to allow a court to look into this. 

Mr. HICE. So you believe it is an unconstitutional code? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Absolutely, it’s an unconstitutional code, and, 

frankly, has no legitimate basis in law either, having been enacted 

as a political ploy. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. Ms. Ancalle, let me ask you about the vagueness 

aspect of the Johnson Amendment. How is that complicating the 

interpretation? 

Ms. ANCALLE. That’s a great question. I’m sure you’re very aware 

as a pastor of the fact that many activist organizations actually use 

that vagueness and the lack of consistency with how the IRS has 

enforced this statute to chill the speech of pastors, to threaten 

them into submission, essentially scaring pastors out of making political statements generally, not just about political candidates, but 

about, as Mr. Connolly mentioned, moral issues and Biblical issues 

that really affects the life of the church and the life of individual 

believers. 

Mr. HICE. What about the accusation that somehow this, if it’s 

repealed or changed in any way, the Johnson Amendment, that it 

would make churches become political action committees where 

dirty money could be laundered? 

Ms. ANCALLE. Well, the Free Speech Fairness Act is specific in 

that it doesn’t allow more than de minimis incremental costs. So 

the de minimis factor is not related to the length of the statement, 

is not related to how many times the statement is made, but it is 

related to the cost of the statement. So the whole purpose of that 

provision within the Free Speech Fairness Act, as I understand it, 

is to eliminate the ability for churches to become political action 

committees. 

Mr. HICE. How would you respond to that, Ms. Holcomb? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. I would absolutely agree. With the Free Speech 

Fairness Act, it is extremely simple. All it does is create a release 

valve for free speech so that 501(c)(3) organizations, particularly 

churches, which is my primary concern in this instance, would be 

allowed to once again fully exercise their First Amendment freedom 

to speak freely without having the IRS burst through their church 

doors and censor their sermons. 

Mr. HICE. So it’s not legal for churches to give candidates or is 

it? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. No, no. 

Mr. HICE. Give money to candidates. 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Absolutely not. 

Mr. HICE. Or would that change? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. It would not change. The Free Speech Fairness 

Act does not in any way eviscerate current campaign finance laws, 

so those concerns really are not applicable in this context. 

Mr. HICE. And, Ms. Engelbrecht, let me ask you, are you aware 

that the veterans organizations are also 501(c)(3) organizations 

that are both tax exempt and receive charitable donations? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. There’s all kinds of organizations that are 

(c)(3)s beyond just churches, and that’s one of the reasons this is 

such a critical debate. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. So my question here has to come with fairness 

of law. Is there a discrepancy in the way that different 501(c)(3)s 

are treated? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. I would hope not. All I can say is in our experience the Johnson Amendment seemed to be a gateway to a type 

of abuse that I don’t think any American citizen should have to endure, including visits from the Domestic Terrorism Unit of the FBI, 

the repeated audits by the IRS, OSHA showing up, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms showing up twice. 

Mr. HICE. Let me ask Ms. Ancalle or this whole committee, there 

seems to me to be a broad discrepancy in the way 501(c)(3)s are 

treated here and there’s direct discrimination? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. I think that’s exactly right, if I may jump in. 

You’ve got some 26 different organizations that are exempt under 

the IRS code. Only (c)(3)s have this explicit speech restriction. And, 

frankly, it’s unfair, and that’s what the Free Speech Fairness Act 

is designed to do, is restore that fairness for all. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the ranking member for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Despite the title of this hearing, the Tax Code does not constrain 

the freedom of speech of churches and other houses of worship. In 

fact, the majority has studiously avoided any extensive discussion 

of the real purpose of taking away the Johnson Amendment, which 

is to allow money, political money, to enter the system through 

houses of worship. 

Rabbi Saperstein, churches and members of the clergy are free 

to speak out on any social issue, aren’t they? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. They are indeed. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. And acting in their personal capacities, 

members of the clergy, like all members of houses of worship, can 

legally endorse or oppose political candidates. Isn’t that true? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. They can. They do. They can run for office. 

They can do anything politically that anyone else can do. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Certainly. In fact, acting in their personal 

capacities, members of the clergy, like all members of all houses of 

worship, can even serve as the treasurers of political campaigns, or 

PACs, can’t they? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Now, let’s be clear, the only thing that the 

current tax laws restrain is the use of churches to collect and funnel tax-deductible contributions from anonymous donors into political campaigns. 

Folks, churches and houses of worship have a special place in the 

Tax Code. They don’t have to disclose their donors, and those donors can take deductions for their contributions to houses of worship. That is the special place that houses of worship have in our 

Tax Code. 

We have a rich history of churches and other houses of worship 

engaging in pressing social and moral issues. For example, Tony 

Perkins with the Family Research Council has eloquently written, 

and I quote: ‘‘Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke out forcefully from 

the pulpit on political matters that required change, and we are all 

glad he did so. It benefits all of us to have such change agents 

speaking freely from the pulpit. Since the birth of our Nation, pastors and churches have been at the forefront of shaping public deVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:53 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26624.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

bate and our choice of public servants. What would America look 

like today had King or Reverend Lyman Beecher, a leading abolitionist, been muzzled by the IRS?’’ 

Of course, the laws that the Family Research Council seeks to 

alter have been part of the Tax Code since 1954, before even the 

Montgomery bus boycott which Dr. King helped to lead. 

Rabbi Saperstein, did tax laws prevent Dr. King from speaking 

out and standing up during the civil rights movement? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. It certainly did not. And, as I said, the Johnson Amendment was in effect the entire time. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. And you’re absolutely correct about that. 

Our tax laws do not restrain the freedom of speech. Perhaps that 

is why 99 faith and denominational groups wrote a letter to Congress opposing efforts to allow dark money to flow into American 

political campaigns through churches and charities. 

Now, let’s be very clear what this hearing is about. It’s about 

money, money, money. That is what this hearing is about. It is not 

about the restraint of free speech. 

I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the statements 

from the following organizations. Statement of Tim Delaney on behalf of the National Council of Nonprofits. Statement of Amanda 

Tyler on behalf of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. Statement of Maggie Garrett on behalf of Americans United 

for Separation of Church and State. And, finally, the statement of 

Michael De Dora on behalf of the Center for Inquiry. 

Mr. JORDAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Now, folks, we all must remember the 

separation of church and state is foundational to our democracy. 

And the reason why houses of worship and churches and religious 

institutions have a special tax exemption under the code is because 

we want to encourage folks to be able to donate to their churches 

and houses of worship and nonprofits to do good for our society, 

and to do it in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical way. 

People who are affiliated with these churches and houses of worship and nonprofits in their personal capacities can do whatever 

the heck they want politically. But they cannot use their resources, 

which have been derived in a tax-exempt way, from pursuing partisan political purposes. And that is something that’s sacrosanct in 

our Tax Code, and that’s what the vast majority of Americans believe in. 

Thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize another pastor. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Walker, is recognized. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a privilege to be 

with you guys today. 

Thank you, panel, for coming out as well. 

I want to take some time to get to some questions, but just some 

of the comments that I hear I feel like that need to be addressed. 

We stand for synagogues, temples, churches. So the misnomer 

that we heard earlier, this is just about churches, is certainly offensive to me. My friend, Rabbi Fred Guttman in Greensboro, we don’t 

agree many times politically, but he’s one of my dearest friends. 

Rabbi Andy Koren was in my office yesterday. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

But I also stand for my friends Dr. Mohammed Farooqui, 

Shahzad Akbar, and those great people, not just because they’re 

friends of mine, but because they have every right to speak according to their religious beliefs as anybody else. 

Another comment that was just recently mentioned was talking 

about a pastor as long as he is, I believe, operating in his personal 

capacity. And I thought about, once again, this is a place where 

what laymen, what pastors, what the American public, the rules 

they have to play by are so often different than what Congress gets 

to play by. 

In this capacity, if we were to endorse someone, it wouldn’t be 

in our private. We would probably say, in any kind of billing, it 

would say, Congressman so-and-so endorses so-and-so. 

And I just think it’s kind of humorous that we put limitations as 

far as a pastor on what he can do if it’s under the guise of a 

church. If so-and-so is this pastor, make sure he is saying that’s in 

his personal capacity as opposed to representing a certain church 

body. 

And, Rabbi Saperstein, you had talked about a little bit earlier 

and talked about two people running in the same church, what 

would the pastor do? I had two thoughts on that. One is local 

churches should have the autonomy to be able to make whatever 

decisions they believe as long as it’s within the confines of the law. 

And I will tell you as a former pastor, you talked about that 

being such a crises. And as you’ve probably experienced as well, 

crises are when you’re in the room with somebody breathing their 

last breath and struggling to give words to a family. Crises is when 

you have a home falling apart and you’re looking for guidance to 

be able to put that back together. I trust pastors to make the decisions well when it comes to politically in this capacity. 

So let me ask a couple of questions. And I want to start with— 

and I was out—Ms. Ancalle? Is that—— 

Ms. ANCALLE. Ancalle. 

Mr. WALKER. Ancalle. Okay. Thank you for the pronunciation. 

The Federal Tax Code in regards to a tax-exempt charitable organization, among other things, must not participate in or intervene in—which is including publishing or distributing of statements—any political campaign on behalf or in opposition to any 

candidate for public office. 

‘‘Indirectly’’ is the key word I want to focus on there. What does 

it mean to indirectly intervene in a campaign? And if you, a legal 

expert, can’t tell me, how in the world are pastors supposed to 

know what kind of conduct is legal and what isn’t? 

Ms. ANCALLE. That’s a fabulous point, and that’s exactly the 

point that I believe and the ADF is making today, is that the 

vagueness of these rules and regulations, the secrecy behind some 

of the regulations that the IRS uses to investigate churches and 

other nonprofit organizations is just baffling. And it’s very difficult 

for attorneys, and certainly lay people, to understand. 

Mr. WALKER. I don’t think this fear is unfounded, whether it’s 

your Hindu background, Muslim background. But I do find it very 

interesting that 81 percent of the American public—81 percent of 

evangelicals—voted for President Trump. This fear is real, it exists 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

out there, that there are some restrictions that are trending this 

direction. 

Another question I would have for you, you used the word 

‘‘chilling effect’’ in your testimony. Can you describe how the Johnson Amendment has a chilling effect on speech? 

Ms. ANCALLE. Certainly. Precisely because of the vagueness and 

the inconsistency with how the IRS applies the law, with whether 

the IRS is going to actually continue to apply the law in the same 

ways when the IRS imposes a penalty and then actually rescinds 

that penalty or refunds that penalty with interest, it causes a lot 

of confusion for pastors and leaders in nonprofit organizations, 

which is unfortunate. But it is what causes a chilling effect. Because pastors are uncertain of how the Johnson Amendment will 

be applied to them, they, in fact, do not make political statements, 

not just about candidates, but about issues that do affect the 

church. 

Mr. WALKER. I just had a meeting recently with about 50, 55 

pastors. We do these breakfasts about once a month, and we invite 

all of our friends from different places, synagogues, temples, whatever it might be. And one of the current concerns they continue to 

bring up is this mass confusion as far as what they can and cannot 

say. It’s very unclear. 

Ms. Holcomb, some believe an amended Johnson Amendment 

would politicize the 501(c)(3) organizations, or in this case synagogues, temples, or churches. Would nonprofit organizations be 

forced to stand in support or opposition to any political candidate? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank 

you for that question. 

No, absolutely not. If you don’t want to speak about these issues, 

you certainly do not have to. But right now we have the heavy 

hand of government coming down on one side of this equation saying that you may not. That’s fundamentally a theological decision 

and should be left to the churches. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the gentlelady from the District of Columbia for 

her 5 minutes. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, if the heavy arm of government were coming down on 

ministers and rabbis, they’re a very powerful institution, they 

would be here in our faces. And we haven’t seen them. And I can’t 

imagine why we now want to take the only part of American life 

that is not polarized and put it right into the thick of the ugliest 

part of our life. 

The religious institutions are the only institutions I know not 

asking for taxes or a tax break. So now you want them up here, 

essentially, doing the same thing. 

It’s interesting that none of the minority witnesses directly lead 

a church or a synagogue. But what the majority witnesses want to 

do is to spread Citizens United to houses of worship. It’s not about 

free speech. It’s about political money. 

There’s been great wisdom on the part of the Framers and the 

Johnson Amendment in protecting our houses of worship, our political institutions, from the corrosive effects of political money. Of 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

course, the churches and the synagogues and religious institutions 

have spoken for themselves asking for the money. So I don’t know 

who in the world you think you represent. 

There is a repeal bill here offered by Congressman Hice and Congressman Scalise. I’d like you, Rabbi Saperstein, to listen to how 

they would frame it as far as churches, religious institutions, and 

charities. Remember that, charities. It’s a wide-open word. 

Partisan political activity would be allowed if it is made in the 

ordinary course of an organization’s regular and customary activities—that’s the biggest hole I’ve seen anybody has ever tried to 

write into law, if you try to figure what a minister and a rabbi do 

every day—that results in the organization incurring not more 

than de minimis incremental expenses. 

Rabbi Saperstein, does that language, does that approach taken 

in this pending legislation allay the concerns you raised in your 

testimony? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Indulge me to make two very brief comments 

before responding. 

First, in the Tim Delaney letter that was put into the record here 

earlier, it represents 4,500 nonprofits. I checked briefly. It looks 

like there are nonprofits from each of the districts of the people 

who are here today on this. 

Secondly, I just had—Mr. Walker talked about Rabbi Koren, because we brought 800 leaders in to advocate for policies that they 

were concerned about. But, at the same time, totally coincidentally, 

I see a group of Jewish women behind me who with people, I’m 

sure, in each of your districts, wanted to get involved in electoral 

politics and created a Jewish woman’s PAC—that’s a national political action committee—rather than doing it through their synagogues. 

So what we’re not sure of is what de minimis means here. The 

idea that endorsement, you’re allowed to endorse someone, you can 

do it from the pulpit, you just can’t do it with tax-deductible money 

and tax-exempt money. And that’s the money that pays that salary 

of the person making the statement that underwrites the cost of 

the church—— 

Ms. NORTON. Rabbi Saperstein, you and I know that some of the 

most political figures we know are ministers and rabbis, and they 

don’t feel that they can’t speak out. Often they are leaders, and, 

indeed, the ones that make us understand what we have to do up 

here. That’s why you don’t see them sitting as a whole crowd with 

people of collar, with collars on, saying, please change the law. 

How about the de minimis standard, do you think the language 

I quoted to you before would start us down a slippery slope? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. I have no idea. I posed that question to Mr. 

Hice before. I don’t know what it means. It would be as vague as 

the current standards and will not help at all, and I think it will 

open up a Pandora’s box that we will deeply regret. 

And, Representative Norton, my colleagues can correct me if I’m 

wrong, I don’t know a single national, major national denomination 

that is calling for the repeal of the Johnson Amendment. Overwhelmingly, the polls show 90 percent of clergy do not want this 

touched, that they feel it protects their religious freedom. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

Ms. NORTON. That’s why I don’t know who the minority—majority witnesses could possibly represent. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentlelady for her questions. 

We’ll now turn to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Just a general question. I have heard ministers 

say that they’re—or people in churches say that ministers are not 

speaking out because they’re afraid of the Johnson Amendment on 

a variety of issues that they’re afraid to talk about. 

Deep down inside, do you think the biggest problem we have, as 

far as ministers not speaking out on certain issues, is it the Johnson Amendment or is it cowardice on the part of the ministers? 

It’s a big issue. It’s a huge issue. 

Ms. ANCALLE. Yeah. I’ll just mention that I know that every election cycle activist organizations send letters to churches—my 

church back in Georgia received these letters every year—threatening to turn them in to the IRS. And especially the smaller 

churches, this is a significant threat. They don’t have tax experts 

and tax lawyers in their churches that can step up to the plate and 

provide defenses and guidance through audit and 2-year investigations. 

And so I do think that it’s a significant threat, the Johnson 

Amendment is a significant threat to pastors. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. What’s the bigger problem? Is it the Johnson 

Amendment or when ministers tell me they can’t speak out on 

abortion or can’t speak out on gay issues or can’t speak out on premarital sex, is the bigger problem the Johnson Amendment or is 

it cowardice on the part of the clergy? 

Ms. ANCALLE. Well, I’m actually also very glad that you asked 

that question because, in fact, Family Research Council has a significant church ministries team. And there are a number of pastors 

from those churches from around the country that are heavily engaged in the political process, both on the local and the national 

level. And I’m here representing, you know, some of those churches 

that are a part of our church ministries team. 

And so I do think that pastors, many pastors, would like to be 

more engaged and are just not sure how they can do that with the 

Johnson Amendment intact. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Ms. Engelbrecht, Ms. Holcomb, do you have any 

comments on that? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Yes. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I 

appreciate the question. 

I think it’s a false dichotomy. It’s kind of a question of which 

comes first. Alliance Defending Freedom receives hundreds of calls 

every year from pastors across the country who want to know what 

the legal boundaries of the Johnson Amendment are and what they 

can and cannot legally do. 

Again, they’re law-abiding citizens. They don’t want to risk the 

IRS intrusion into their pulpits and ministries. And so they’re trying to be very careful and cautious about how they go about leading their congregations and navigating these moral issues. 

And so it’s so important that we deal with the issue of the Johnson Amendment so the pastors again feel at liberty to, as they did 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

for the first 200 years of American history, guide their people in 

all aspects of life. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. The other option would be for all of us to simply tell them what they’re entitled to do, entitled to speak out on 

all of these things, so long as they don’t endorse candidates and use 

money for partisan political purposes. Pretty simple concept here. 

And all of those letters you get, we could just tell them what 

they’re allowed to do and empower them to do it. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Yeah. Well, this is a fine bill. I’m not sure it’s 

the biggest problem we face in the clergy today. 

But, Ms. Engelbrecht, I’ll give you a question. 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Well—go ahead. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Go ahead. You can respond to my last question. 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. You know, I am a leader of a 501(c)(3) organization. So this is not academic to me. This is not a sort of empirical 

study of what might happen. It happened. 

And I’m eternally glad, as our country should be, that it didn’t 

happen when civil rights greats like Martin Luther King spoke out 

underneath the Johnson Amendment, but it doesn’t mean that it 

couldn’t. And I think we have just come to a very ugly chapter in 

this country when we saw the IRS take full liberty—liberty, that’s 

a funny use of that word—to abuse the rights citizens. 

So there’s no half measure of freedom. There’s no half measure 

of free speech. You either have it or you don’t. And I think that’s 

the fundamental question. I do realize that this is a difficult situation to sort through, but I don’t think you can start at a place that 

delegitimizes the Constitution. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Either you’re avoiding or didn’t get what 

I was trying to get at. But, okay. 

I’ll give you another question. Other than True the Vote, are you 

aware of any other organizations that are silenced or harmed by 

the Johnson Amendment? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Absolutely. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Could you list them? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Well, sadly, I don’t have the list with me. But 

I would say that America got a first glimpse when the BOLO list, 

be-on-the-lookout list came out in the USA Today, I believe it was, 

that listed over 200 groups that had been singled out for investigation by the IRS. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Rabbi, do you—and let’s just talk in the abstract first—do you 

think that government can, in fact, have a chilling effect on individual liberties? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. I do. 

Mr. JORDAN. And then let’s get specific. Do you think the government can have a chilling effect on people’s First Amendment free 

speech liberties? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. I do. 

Mr. JORDAN. Yeah. And part of that is driven by what we’ve 

heard from the other witnesses, the vagueness of the Johnson 

Amendment. Do you agree with that? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

Vagueness of the Johnson Amendment, every election year countless number of churches, typically evangelical churches, get letters 

from the left—is that right, Ms. Holcomb? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. That is correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. Letters from left-wing organizations say: Hey, hey, 

hey, be careful, big brother is watching. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Does that have to do with the ambiguity or 

does that have to do with they’re endorsing candidates? 

Mr. JORDAN. No, it has to do with the fact organizations are 

sending them a letter and the vagueness of this law. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Saying in the past you’ve endorsed candidates, and you shouldn’t do that. The Johnson Amendment and 

the law is clear, don’t do it. 

Mr. JORDAN. Saying whether it’s true or not. My colleague from 

the District of Colombia mentioned just a few minutes ago, the 

heavy arm of government. If anyone knows about the heavy arm 

of government, my guess is it’s Ms. Engelbrecht, right? 

If I get this right, looking at your fact pattern, the two organizations you were involved in forming, True the Vote and King Street 

Patriots, back in 2010 you applied for your tax-exempt status, 

right? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. And after 2010, for the next 3 years, if I counted 

this up right, you got six phone calls or visits by the FBI. 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. Twice you were visited by the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco and Firearms. OSHA stopped by to say hello. The Texas 

EPA stopped by to say hello. The ranking member of this full committee sent you letters, went on national television, and criticized 

you and your organization. And, oh, just to add insult to injury, 

eight times the IRS contacted you and audited you both personally 

and in your business. Is that accurate? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. That’s accurate. And I would add to that, 

that all the while our 501(c)(3) application was in play. At any 

point the IRS could have said, you know, thumbs up or thumbs 

down, you either meet the criteria or you don’t. But they used it 

for what over time began to feel like opposition research. 

Mr. JORDAN. Did you feel a little nervous? Did that chill some of 

the activities that True the Vote and King Street Patriots might 

want to get involved in? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Absolutely. 

Mr. JORDAN. Would you agree with that, Rabbi, that that would 

probably have a chilling effect on any organization, had there been 

eight contacts from the IRS, six from the FBI? Again, finding nothing wrong, she didn’t do anything wrong. She was just waiting on 

a pending application. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. The application of any of these rules should 

never depend on the content of what is happening here. That is a 

principle I hope we all agree on. 

Mr. JORDAN. So let me ask you a question, Ms. Holcomb, because—well, let me get back to Ms. Engelbrecht. 

Did the IRS ask for anything specific? Did they ask, like, what 

you’re doing in these meetings, the content of what you’re doing? 

Did they do that? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Yes, sir. They asked for copies of every tweet 

I’d ever tweeted, every Facebook posting I’d ever posted, everywhere I’d spoken since the inception of the organization and to 

whom, and what I said. And they asked for any advanced scheduling for the next 2 years. There was no doubt in my mind that 

they were looking to censor my speech. 

Mr. JORDAN. So if that’s not the heavy arm of government 

chilling First Amendment liberties, I don’t know what is. I don’t 

know what is. 

Ms. Holcomb, have pastors ever had their—had the government 

ask for the content of their sermons? Has that ever happened? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Yes, unfortunately, it has. One extremely notorious—— 

Mr. JORDAN. And it happened in—— 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Houston. 

Mr. JORDAN. —it happened to happen in Ms. Engelbrecht’s State, 

right? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. It did. 

Mr. JORDAN. Not too far from where she lives. Imagine that. 

Ms. HOLCOMB. That’s exactly right. The mayor of Houston subpoenaed the sermons of five local pastors all because they had simply spoken out and preached about their Biblical views on human 

sexuality 

Mr. JORDAN. They hadn’t endorsed a candidate, had they? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. They had not endorsed a candidate whatsoever. 

Mr. JORDAN. They hadn’t opposed a candidate? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. They had not. 

Mr. JORDAN. It was about an issue, wasn’t it? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. It was about an issue. 

Mr. JORDAN. Issue central to their tenets, their beliefs? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. That’s exactly right. 

Mr. JORDAN. Think that chills speech, Rabbi? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. I don’t know the circumstances, but my answer is going to be yes. A mayor shouldn’t be asking for the content 

of this. It may be such, but just because—— 

Mr. JORDAN. On a central issue, a social issue that is central to 

the beliefs of those individuals at that church, that the mayor, I 

mean, the heavy arm of government, the mayor of a city of several 

million people, Houston, if I remember right, Ms. Holcomb, asked 

for the content. You just said earlier we shouldn’t be doing that. 

So this is what happens, and this is why Mr. Hice’s legislation 

is so important, this issue is so important. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. But the question is, are there times, legitimately, that speech can be regulated here? And you quoted Virginia v. Hicks before, did I hear you correctly, Mr. Hice? 

Mr. HICE. That I did what? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. You quoted Virginia v. Hicks, the Supreme 

Court case. 

Mr. HICE. Yes. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. So in that case Justice Scalia said there 

comes a point at which the chilling effect of an overbroad law, significant though it might be, cannot justify prohibiting all enforcement of the law. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

And I think that this law works in the proper way, the Johnson 

Amendment—— 

Mr. JORDAN. You may think but—— 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. —to say you just can’t have the speech with 

government subsidies. 

Mr. JORDAN. I respectfully disagree, and so do a lot of other 

Americans. That’s why we’re having this hearing. And what we 

know is it did happen. It happened. The heavy arm of government 

asking for content for sermons that pastors preached regarding an 

issue, not endorsing candidates. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. You and I agree on this. 

Mr. JORDAN. And the slippery slope that my colleague also talked 

about is pretty darn slippery when you view it in the context that 

Ms. Engelbrecht knows firsthand. 

When you view it in the context of the very organization charged 

with administering this amendment, this law, the Johnson Amendment, was caught, systematically, for a sustained period of time, in 

Ms. Engelbrecht’s situation 7 years, harassing groups, keeping 

them in limbo, chilling their activities, because they didn’t like 

their political beliefs. Unbelievable that happened in the United 

States. Unbelievable. 

And we also know what took place in Houston where the government was saying: We want pastors’ sermons. You’ve got to be kidding me. And to say that we don’t need this, and to say, oh, it’s 

about campaign finance. It’s not. It’s about no law abridging freedom of speech, the plain language of the First Amendment. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. I’m sorry. And endorsing candidates will help 

that situation? 

Mr. JORDAN. I didn’t say that. I’m just—I’m talking about the example here. But, frankly, that’s free speech too. But what I’m talking about—so I’m talking what took place in Texas and what took 

place in Houston. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. They just don’t have the right to have a government subsidy for that speech. That’s the only restriction. 

Mr. JORDAN. Ms. Ancalle, you are just dying to get in and then 

I’ll have to move on to our next—— 

Ms. ANCALLE. I’m very excited to chime in on this topic, if you 

don’t mind, because a church does not receive government subsidies. A church is tax exempt. And that’s because churches and 

these charities, these nonprofit organizations are giving out more 

than $1 trillion, a recent study said, in goods and services. So the 

idea that churches are subsidized by the government is inaccurate 

at best. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. But you know as well as I do that in the legal 

case that Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion that—I quoted Justice Scalia before—another liberal judge, Justice Rehnquist, held 

that that is, these are subsidies. And that is the law of the land 

right now, right? 

Mr. JORDAN. I don’t think many churches think they’re getting 

subsidies from their parishioners. I think they’re getting—— 

Ms. ANCALLE. And I believe that if a church did receive government subsidies—— 

Mr. JORDAN. —a tithe from their parishioners because they believe in the work that they are doing in that church, and the minVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:53 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26624.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

istry they are receiving, and the ministry they are giving to the 

community, and to the families who worship there. That’s what it 

is. It’s not a subsidy from the government, for goodness sake. 

With that, I’ll recognize my good friend, the ranking member 

from the great State of Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Mr. JORDAN. Knows something about the First Amendment, that 

founding colony and all that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. 

Mr. JORDAN. God bless you, Brother. You’re up. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank you. And we even know something about 

religious freedom, because I also come from Massachusetts where 

John Adams enshrined that concept into the first Constitution of 

Massachusetts, which continues to this day. 

And, of course, Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison, both of whom 

came from my State of Virginia, believed in a pretty strong firewall 

between church and state. Mr. Madison, for example, took on a lot 

of unpopular religious causes to fight for the religious freedom of 

Anabaptists, because the State religion as a colony was the Church 

of England. And it was not a popular cause, although, it helped 

him beat James Monroe for the first congressional election—but 

that’s a different story—because the other Anabaptists came out in 

droves to support him. 

So we have a little bit of history in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I remember going to Williamsburg for a mock trial from an 

original verbatim and, again, was surprised to learn, Rabbi 

Saperstein, that Catholics were not welcome on the jury. And we 

could be fined if we refused to go to Sunday services at the Church 

of England because of the political dominance of that particular denomination. For some reason, they were a little more squishy about 

Jews. Apparently, Jews could maybe, kinda, sorta, sometimes serve 

on a jury. But not us. 

What could go wrong with—I mean, this is just First Amendment 

rights. We’re stifling churches and other religious institutions. Although we only in our title talk about church, I hope you didn’t feel 

left out. But if we repeal the Johnson administration, it would be 

more than churches affected, would it not, Rabbi? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. The damage that can be done is to bring our 

corrosive, divisive, partisan splits in this country into one of the 

few institutions that people with different political, ideological, 

even religious differences are able to come together in community 

and comity. It is why the denominations want this protection. It is 

why 90 percent of clergy want this protection. 

The damage is it can flood—if you’ve got a choice between—think 

of the hundreds of millions of dollars that went into political campaigns. If you have a choice of getting a tax deduction for it—now, 

this doesn’t apply to your version. But in repealing the Johnson 

Amendment, hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars going in 

and getting a tax deduction or not, you’re going to be flooding the 

churches. 

I don’t want to have Republican churches and Democratic 

churches, Republican mosques and Democratic mosques. And 

bringing partisan politics into this is going to damage this. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

So this isn’t just a constitutional—it’s not a constitutional question that free speech exists. The only question is whether it can be 

done with the subsidy of tax-exempt and tax-deductible money. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So, for example, a house of worship or a denomination or just an individual entity, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian, could voluntarily say, you know, I just don’t—I’m going to 

give up the tax deduction, the tax exemption, and do my thing. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. It can. And there are some that do it. I gave 

the example, a group of Jewish women here who created a Jewish 

women’s PAC that’s very effective and very respected across the 

country, because they wanted to do it freely and without dividing 

their congregations. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So far from being a matter of the exercise of free 

speech, it’s really about your tax status. And if you really want to 

engage in that kind of partisan political activity and accept donations, why not just give up your tax exemption? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. It’s not giving up your tax exemption. You 

would remain tax exempt. You would create a (c)(4) that would create a PAC. It just means that there’s no tax-deductible funds. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So there’s no impediment to forming a 501(c)(4), 

another entity, for that purpose if they wanted to. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Is that correct? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. The IRS is taking forever to give you—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, still got my time. 

So what’s wrong with doing that, Rabbi? Why wouldn’t people 

want to do that instead of repealing the Johnson administration 

which gets us into this real sticky mess? And, frankly, it’s going to, 

I think, create enormous division in the faith community in America. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. You ask what’s wrong with that. Legally, 

there’s nothing wrong with it. If I had my druthers, I’d much rather do it the way those women sitting in the back of the room did, 

create an entirely different entity that brings those religious people 

together to do it and keep it away from the houses of worship altogether. But, legally, they have the right to do it. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right. My time is up. Thank you all for being 

here. 

Mr. JORDAN. I’d just ask unanimous consent to submit into the 

record a statement from the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, which is part of the Southern Baptist denomination, expressing their support for Mr. Hice’s legislation. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. In the spirit of the First Amendment, we have 

no objection. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. I appreciate it. God bless you. 

Mr. Meadows, the gentleman from North Carolina, is recognize. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership. 

Ms. Holcomb, we are not asking for tax-exempt political donations to be made available to every church in America, are we? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, no, 

we absolutely are not. And thank you for the opportunity to clarify. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

The Free Speech Fairness Act, again, very simple, simply a relief 

valve for speech. It does not eviscerate current campaign finance 

laws. Contributions, expenditures are already regulated. No, look, 

all we’re talking about, again, is a pastor’s freedom to speak freely 

from the pulpit. 

And it’s a complete misnomer to think that we’re just talking 

about candidate endorsements here. No. Politics has intruded on 

moral issues. So we’re talking about a pastor’s freedom to address 

issues like the sanctity of human life, like marriage, without fear 

of IRS retribution. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So this whole narrative that talks about dark 

money going to churches in order to actually support candidates 

that may or may not be there is not only a red herring, but it is 

a red herring of unbelievable crimson red. Wouldn’t you agree with 

that? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Respectfully and politely, it’s fear-mongering. It is 

not what is at issue here. And, frankly, if we would like to discuss 

history, as was raised earlier, pastors for the first 200 years of 

American history had this freedom. They exercised it responsibly. 

The Johnson Amendment was not enacted in order to address 

any issue with churches. Frankly, it does not appear Senator Johnson was even aware it would apply to them. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, so, Ms. Holcomb, would you not agree that 

in this very Capitol building, that we have clergy who have statues 

erected in their honor for what they’ve done for the founding of our 

country and battling for those religious liberties, and they were the 

clergy that came from the pulpit? 

And I would suggest that those political interventions, maybe before we had the IRS, the long arm of the IRS reaching into Ms. 

Engelbrecht and others—but did they not—the clergy was not without a voice from the very founding of this Judeo-Christian Nation. 

Ms. HOLCOMB. That’s exactly right. And they spoke out on the 

most important issues of the day, including the Revolutionary War, 

civil rights, so on and so forth. 

But if I may, I’d like to also address one of these other accusations that I’ve heard tossed around here, that it’s divisive to 

churches. With all due respect, that’s quite paternalistic. Churches 

are more than capable of handling their own issues without the 

heavy hand of government coming in and trying to prevent division 

within the church. No, these are fundamentally theological decisions that should be made within the church body itself. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I thank you for clarifying that. 

Mr. Saperstein, Rabbi, I will come to you. You and I go way back, 

and we have a passion on a number of areas. We happen to disagree in terms of your premise here today and mine. So let me put 

it in a vernacular that perhaps I can share from a Christian perspective on what I’m hearing from many of our pastors that may 

translate a little bit closer to home. 

Some have suggested that I’m so pro-Israel that I make Bibi 

Netanyahu look moderate. And so you know that my passion for 

Israel is genuine and the Jewish people. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. I do indeed. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so I say that. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

If a rabbi with a tax-exempt status starts to get involved in any 

political discussions that may not have to do with marriage or life, 

but let’s say it gets involved in Palestinian versus Jewish, or who 

should be a leader, or that we should make sure that we elect more 

pro-Jewish Members of Congress, do you think that that should be 

permitted in a synagogue? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. I think that that right exists right now all 

across America. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I agree. I agree it does. I agree it exists. But do 

you believe that it should be there? Not that it exists. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So, based on that premise, anything that would 

provide for a chilling event that suggests that I should support a 

candidate that is more pro-Israel, would you not think that that 

should be across the board on any denomination or any religion? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. I’m actually confused. Forgive me. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I was hoping that you would be. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. I’m confused as to whether you’re talking 

about the issue or—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’m talking about the issue. 

So let me tell you what’s happening, is that we’ve gone to a narrative that would suggest that we want churches to be political endorsers and money pots for others, and that’s not really what we’re 

talking about. What we want them to be able to do is have the ability—and I think you and I agree on this—to have the ability of free 

speech, direct from the pulpit, without fear of retribution or losing 

their tax-exempt status, deeply held religious beliefs that you and 

I both will seek to defend. And that’s what we’re trying to get at 

here today. 

And so what I look forward to from you is some suggestions on 

how we can do that. And I’m willing to put a prohibition on moneys 

going through 501(c)(3)s to make sure. But if we take this very far, 

we’re going to have a chilling effect on free speech, and I’m sure 

that’s not what you want. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. You said this was a red herring. Put aside 

Mr. Hice’s proposal here. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I don’t know that you can. But go ahead. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. If we simply undo the Johnson Amendment, 

is it not clear that then nonprofits would be able to give money 

into—and because churches have exemptions from reporting 990s 

and contributions on it—there would be this dark money that 

would flow through that. Either you take away the exceptions from 

the church, God forbid, or you actually allow it to continue and 

churches, religious institutions alone, would have the ability to 

fund things without it being transparent. Is that not a valid concern? 

Mr. MEADOWS. I think it is a jump, a logical fallacy. I mean, I’ll 

just speak bluntly. I think that’s a logical fallacy. But I’m willing 

to have the debate. 

And I guess what I’m saying, Rabbi, is this. If you will come to 

this committee with ways to protect free speech, you will have 

someone who is very willing to make sure that a 501(c)(3)’s tax-exempt status does not get used in an inappropriate manner finanVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:53 Sep 12, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26624.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 

cially, with at the same time allowing for complete free speech to 

happen from the pulpits and other areas of worship. Sound fair? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Again, I think we differ on whether that free 

speech exists today or not. 

Mr. MEADOWS. We do differ on that. 

I’ll yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. Real quickly before turning to Mr. Raskin. 

Ms. Holcomb, can a church contribute to a political candidate’s 

campaign today? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. No. 

Mr. JORDAN. No. And if the Johnson Amendment is gone, would 

a church be able to contribute to a political candidate’s campaign? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Look, we’re talking about the Free Speech Fairness Act. No, absolutely not. 

Mr. JORDAN. No, no. But they could be able to speak, right? 

That’s all we’re talking about. They could be able to exercise their 

First Amendment liberty where it says Congress shall not abridge 

freedom of speech. That’s all that happens. Well, imagine that, 

we’d actually have the First Amendment the way it’s supposed to 

be. 

Mr. Raskin. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and for 

waiving in and allowing me to participate this hearing. 

I want to start with just two questions of nomenclature. One is 

the so-called Johnson Amendment was, of course, introduced by 

Senator Johnson, but it passed on a bipartisan, overwhelming bipartisan basis, in a Republican Congress, and signed into law by 

President Eisenhower. So this has been standard American law for 

decades. 

Secondly, the First Amendment Fairness Act, I believe that’s 

what it’s called, you know, with all due respect, the First Amendment doesn’t need a fairness act. The First Amendment is supreme 

to any statute we might pass. The First Amendment is its own fairness act. If someone is violating the First Amendment, go and sue 

under the First Amendment. 

So let me start with that. Are any of you aware of any constitutional litigation since 1954, in the last 60-plus years, challenging 

the so-called Johnson Amendment or the Eisenhower Amendment 

as unconstitutional and what its success has been? 

And forgive me for going fast, but we just have so little time. Are 

you aware of any? Have you ever brought a case on it or no? 

Ms. ANCALLE. I’ll defer to Ms. Holcomb. 

Mr. RASKIN. Ms. Engelbrecht, are you aware of any decisions 

striking it down? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Not any decisions, no. But we sued the IRS 

in 2013 just to prove the point. 

Mr. RASKIN. Ms. Holcomb? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we 

cannot affirmatively sue the IRS due to Federal law. 

The Anti-Injunction Act, we are not allowed, pursuant to Federal 

law—— 

Mr. RASKIN. The Anti-Injunction has to do with Federal spending. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
55 

Ms. HOLCOMB. We can’t—no, I respectfully disagree. We cannot—— 

Mr. RASKIN. Are you saying the church cannot sue the Federal 

Government? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. We cannot, without having been penalized, come 

out and sue the IRS to challenge the constitutionality of the Johnson Amendment. Happy to provide you with briefings—— 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Well, let’s discuss that. 

Rabbi Saperstein, are you aware—— 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. That’s what the Branch Ministries case was, 

wasn’t it—— 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Respectfully disagree once again. No, that’s not 

the case whatsoever. Branch Ministries—— 

Mr. RASKIN. All right. We’ll have to litigate it after. 

In any event, I was a little surprised to hear this repeatedly described as an unconstitutional law that’s been on the books for six 

decades and it’s never been struck down before. I mean, that’s—— 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Because we can’t—— 

Mr. RASKIN. —that’s a miracle of nature. That’s remarkable in 

the United States of America. There are churches that win suits all 

the time in the U.S. Supreme Court. 

But, okay, let me ask you this. Have any of you as private citizens ever been stifled in your own political speech, your ability to 

go out and say you believe X, Y, or Z, for moral, religious, philosophical, or political reasons? Have any of you ever been restrained 

in your speech or your spending? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Respectfully, sir, I’m not a church or a nonprofit. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. As a citizen I was asking you. As a citizen, 

have you ever been stifled because of your religious views? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. [nonverbal response.] 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. 

So let me ask you this—were you going to say, Ms. Engelbrecht? 

Have you? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Well, you qualified at the end based on religious views. And I would just say that in my instance I was interested in the advancement of election integrity, and that seemed to 

draw the ire of a great many Federal agencies. And, yes, I do believe that I was being suppressed because of my speech. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Well, you know, at some point I’d love to talk 

to you about that. I actually have some family history, because my 

father, who worked in President Kennedy’s administration was on 

Nixon’s enemies list, and the IRS went after him. So there’s abuse 

of government all the time. But what we’re here to talk about is 

the law, and what is the law going to be. 

So let me ask you this. Do all of you agree that corporations and 

citizens should not be able to funnel dark money through churches 

in order to get into political campaigns? Like, if I wanted to support the Mark Meadows for President campaign, hypothetically 

speaking, I should not be able to give $10 million to a church to 

go out and spend that money on an anonymous basis. Do all of you 

agree or do some of you think that is First Amendment protected? 

Any answers on that? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Respectfully, sir, it’s currently prohibited by law, 

and the Free Speech Fairness Act does not change that. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

Mr. RASKIN. No, I understand. But I’m a law professor, so don’t 

fight the hypothetical. Imagine a world without hypotheticals. 

You know, what I’m saying is, do you think it’s constitutional for 

us to prevent people from channeling money through churches on 

an anonymous dark basis to put into political campaigns? Is that 

a First Amendment problem or not? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. In a word, yes. 

Mr. RASKIN. You think it’s constitutional to ban that. 

Do you believe it’s constitutional to ban it? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Respectfully, again, that’s just not what’s at issue 

here. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Do you guys think it’s constitutional to ban 

conduit contributions through churches to political candidates? 

Ms. ANCALLE. In my statement, we have endorsed the Free 

Speech Fairness Act, and that’s what we’re advocating for, and 

that’s what we’re here to advocate for today. And, like Ms. Holcomb 

said, that’s not the intent of the Free Speech Fairness Act. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Well, you know, it was fascinating to me that 

it was something like 90 or 100 religious organizations or churches 

have come to lobby against this. In other words, on the terms that 

I heard described before, they’re here to lobby against, theoretically, their own free expression rights, and it doesn’t make any 

sense to me. 

But I think that what they perceive is that the repeal of the socalled Johnson Amendment is an attempt to open up a gaping hole 

in the law for super divine dark money to pour through into the 

political system. And if it’s not, then it should be very explicitly 

amended to say that nobody should be able to give money to a 

church for the purposes of putting it into a political campaign. 

If all this is about is somebody being able to say what they want 

from the pulpit, I guess I’m with Rabbi Saperstein, I haven’t seen 

any evidence that that’s actually in danger. But do any of you have 

any cases where somebody has not been able to state their political 

views from the pulpit? 

Ms. ANCALLE. I’ll just say that I was actually very excited to hear 

the statement of the ERLC, which is the policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the largest denominations in this 

country, and they actually do support the Free Speech Fairness 

Act. 

Mr. RASKIN. Right. But my question is, are you aware of any IRS 

persecution or prosecution of anybody for making a political statement at the pulpit? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Yes, absolutely so. All Saints Episcopal Church 

was one example provided. It is also in my written testimony. 

But, respectfully, I would just like to point out, we don’t silence 

the minority just based on the whim of the majority. So we’re going 

to do what’s right. And there are pastors across the country asking 

for this relief from Congress right now. 

Mr. RASKIN. Yeah. Okay. 

Well, we seem to have differences to the facts, because some people seem to think that the First Amendment is working great, that 

the Johnson Amendment has worked great for decades, and we 

seem to have a difference as to values. Some people believe that 

churches are actually much better off not being able to be dragged 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
57 

into TV sound bite wars and negative advertising, and others think 

that that’s perfectly fine, that churches should be involved there. 

But let me ask you this. If a church does want to get involved, 

it can set up a (c)(4) right now. It’s just that it can’t receive taxdeductible contributions to do it. Is that right? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Respectfully, churches aren’t asking for (c)(4)s. All 

they want is just to be able to freely apply Scripture to every aspect of life without having the IRS on their backs, censoring their 

speech. 

Mr. RASKIN. Well, Ms. Holcomb, do you believe the church can 

freely apply millions of dollars of dark money contributions to advance its view of Scripture in the political process? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. That’s not what they’re asking for. Certainly not. 

Mr. RASKIN. But I’m asking you, do you believe that millions of 

dollars should be able to channeled to churches? 

Mr. JORDAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. RASKIN. All right, saved by the bell. 

Mr. JORDAN. The gentlelady can respond if she would like. 

You weren’t really saved by the bell. You were given a minute 

and 40 seconds past the bell. 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Respectfully, I will just point yet again that campaign finance laws are in place that address those concerns. The 

Free Speech Fairness Act does not eviscerate those campaign finance laws, and that’s simply not what America’s pastors are asking for. 

Thank you. 

Mr. JORDAN. Ms. Engelbrecht, Professor Raskin asked about the 

stifling of free speech. He qualified it, as you said, based on your 

religious beliefs. But certainly there was an attempt by the government to stifle your free speech rights so much so that—and I don’t 

know if the professor was here for your testimony and for some of 

the earlier questioning—eight visits from the IRS, six visits from 

the FBI, two visits from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. OSHA visited your business. Texas EPA visited your business. A letter from Mr. Cummings, couple letters from Mr. 

Cummings, and TV appearances where he specifically called you 

and your organizations out. 

All this happens, coincidentally, right after you filed for tax-exempt status for King Street Patriots and True the Vote. 

Why do you think that—I mean, that’s an awful of lot of government getting involved in your life and coming after you and looking 

into what’s going on. If that doesn’t have a chilling effect and stifling effect, and if that’s not the heavy arm of government, I don’t 

know what is. 

Why do you think that happened? Why did they do it? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. I think it happened because they saw the 

Johnson Amendment as a gateway through which they could attempt to silence those who dissented from their perspectives. 

Mr. JORDAN. So you think it happened because they just didn’t 

like your point of view? You think that was the main reason? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. I think that was the primary reason, yes. 

They saw a pro-liberty election integrity organization growing, and 

growing quickly, and they wanted it gone. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 

Mr. JORDAN. Yeah. I would actually say it’s a little more than 

that, frankly, respectfully. I would say it’s not just that they didn’t 

like what you were speaking out about, that they didn’t just disagree with your political point of view. They did it because you 

were effective, right? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Absolutely. 

Mr. JORDAN. Because you were making a difference, right? You 

were focused on election integrity and, like, ‘‘Whoa, whoa, we can’t 

have that. We disagree with this speech. And, oh, by the way, she’s 

having an impact.’’ Imagine that. And they said, ‘‘Time out. Time 

out. Time for the heavy arm of government.’’ 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. That’s right. 

Mr. JORDAN. Right? 

And now we know, in your same town, pastors, the heavy arm 

of government weighed in on them and said, ‘‘Hey, by the way, you 

know, you’re tax exempt, you can preach what you want, you can 

have your church, but can you send us your sermons? We, the government, want to look at what you’re preaching on Sunday.’’ Are 

you kidding me? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. And I can tell you, having lived through that 

in Houston, Texas, when that happened in our churches, it turned 

the community upside down. 

Mr. JORDAN. Sure did. Sure did. 

Mr. RASKIN. Would the chairman yield? 

Mr. JORDAN. I’m going to give the gentleman from Georgia a 

round here. And then, if the professor would like another short 

round, then we’ll let our witnesses be dismissed and close the hearing. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you. 

Mr. JORDAN. Gentleman from Georgia is recognized. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I do have a letter that came out last Congress by a host of 

organizations supporting the Free Speech Fairness Act and—for 

the Johnson Amendment. I’d ask unanimous consent for it to be 

added, included in the record. 

Mr. HICE. And I find great offense that we continue hearing that 

this is all about laundering dirty money through the churches. 

Nothing could be further—that’s nothing but fear-mongering. And 

it’s false. It’s shameful. This is about free speech. And there are 

laws to prevent laundering, and nothing in that regard changes. 

Rabbi, have you ever endorsed a candidate from your synagogue? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. No. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. Have you ever received a threatening letter 

from the IRS—— 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. No. 

Mr. HICE. —for whatever you said in your synagogue? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. No. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. I have. I’ve received a number of them. And I’ve 

received them before I ever endorsed a candidate from the pulpit. 

And they are intimidating. They are threatening. They tell me that 

I can be sued, that my church can be sued, that we can lose taxexempt status if I address certain issues from the pulpit. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. The IRS sent such a letter? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
59 

Mr. HICE. No. I receive them from left-wing organizations that 

are proclaiming what the IRS has the right to do. And whether it’s 

coming from the IRS or not, the fact is those letters are chilling 

and they distort a very vague Johnson Amendment that is being 

used as a bully pulpit to self-censor people right out of involvement. 

And the fact that you have not received a letter says to me you 

have no business even addressing what the content of those letters 

consist of. 

It’s amazing and ironic to me that people here today who claim 

to be supporters of separation of church and state are the very ones 

demanding that the government censor what’s said in churches. 

And it just—it’s contradictory in every sense of the word. 

It ought to be the pastor, it ought to be the church that has a 

right to determine what is spoken from the pulpit, not the government. When government starts determining the content of sermons, we are in major trouble. 

So let’s go back to the basics, the bird’s-eye view of why we’re 

here today. 

Ms. Holcomb—I don’t know who to address this to, so you all just 

chime in, but let’s go relatively quickly. 

The purpose why the Johnson Amendment came about in the 

first place, was it enacted to stop political speech from political opponents? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it was 

designed as a political ploy by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson to 

shut down two secular nonprofits. 

Mr. HICE. There we go. That was the purpose. And I made the 

quote from the IRS itself acknowledging. That’s the purpose. Right 

there is the purpose. That is why we’re here today. 

Mr. HICE. It is because the Johnson amendment was enacted for 

the distinct purpose of silencing political opponents who happen to 

be leading nonprofit organizations. That’s why we’re here. And 

that, over 60 years ago, has now become a massive tool of intimidation for 501(c)(3) organizations, and that precisely is what—it’s not 

about money; it’s about free speech, it’s about deliberately, purposefully, intentionally trying to silence the beliefs in the public square 

of those who are in nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations. And that 

must change. That is unconstitutional. That is un-American, and 

it needs to change. 

All right. The importance of 501(c)(3) organizations in our society, in 10, 15 seconds, how important are they? 

Ms. ANCALLE. They’re very important. I was going to mention 

that a study, a recent study showed that 501(c)(3) organizations 

provide more than $1 trillion a year in the United States alone in 

goods and services. These are the people in need. 501(c)(3) organizations are very important. And they’re not just getting—they’re 

not subsidized by the government. They’re actually giving a lot to 

the American people. 

Mr. HICE. Ms. Engelbrecht, you mentioned in your testimony 

that 501(c)(3)s are an endangered species. Can you elaborate? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Absolutely. I started my organization in a 

time when there were many organizations being started, in pursuit 

of liberty and trying to—in ways that had not been seen for years, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
60 

engage citizens in political speech and the ability to speak freely. 

And when the IRS began singling groups out, that shut down, and 

it hasn’t come back. It hasn’t come back like it was, because who 

wants to be put through that? I’m still in court. Who wants that? 

That’s why the Johnson amendment has to be repealed, replaced. 

Something has to be done, because we don’t want that stain on the 

fabric of our country. 

Mr. HICE. Mr. Chairman, I yield—and I will just say, perhaps we 

ought to add 501(c)(3)s to the endangered species list, because I 

agree with you wholeheartedly, and it would be the one time that 

I would support the endangered species list. 

But thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Jody. And thank you—or, Congressman 

Hice, for all your great work over—not just in Congress, over the 

years on this important, important issue. 

I just want to ask one—a couple questions here, again, to Ms. 

Engelbrecht. So I want you to tell this committee and for the 

record just what it feels like—— 

Oh. Yeah, I’m coming back to you. Yeah. 

— just what it feels like when you get eight contacts from the 

FBI, six from the IRS, two from the BATF, OSHA, EPA, you have 

an important member, influential member, ranking member of 

Congress go on TV, say things about you personally, send you letters. What’s that feel like. 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. It’s terrifying. And for 2 years, I didn’t tell 

anybody, because there was such a stigma that I felt would be associated. And we were already trying hard enough to get our (c)(3), 

so we were being held in—in limbo. 

Mr. JORDAN. I’m just talking the personal, emotional side of 

things. 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. But on the personal and emotional side, it 

was—it was terrifying. 

Mr. JORDAN. Yep. 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. And I didn’t see it coming, because I knew 

what—what our motives were, and that was just to get citizens to 

engage in the electoral process. 

Mr. JORDAN. Since you were just starting a local tea party group. 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Yes, just starting a local group to say, you 

know, we are not enough volunteers in the polls. Let’s encourage 

people to volunteer. 

Mr. JORDAN. When you filled out that application and sent it in, 

did you even—— 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. No. 

Mr. JORDAN. Never crossed your mind, did it? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. No. 

Mr. JORDAN. No idea this was going to happen? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. No. 

Mr. JORDAN. And suddenly, the heavy arm of government, as Ms. 

Holmes Norton talked about, is all over the Engelbrecht family. 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Yeah. 

Mr. JORDAN. Right? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Yes. But I’ll say, if I may, one of the quotes 

that I held dearest during that time was from Deitrich Bonhoeffer, 

who said not to act is to act and not to speak is to speak, and that 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
61 

is what made me realize that I had to stand up and speak, because 

I would suspect very similar to what the churches try to do when 

they get together collectively and speak out in defiance of the Johnson amendment. 

Mr. JORDAN. Yep. I imagine there were some pastors in your 

neighborhood who saw what you were going through, and they had 

to kind of wonder, man, maybe I better tone it down a little bit 

next Sunday, right? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Without question. 

Mr. JORDAN. I mean—— 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Without question. 

Mr. JORDAN. I mean, pastors won’t—they’re going to preach, but 

some of them, it was probably in the back of their mind, I’m guessing. 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Absolutely. Or other group leaders who would 

come up to me and say, I don’t—I don’t want to go through what 

you’re going through. We’re going to shut this thing down. 

Mr. JORDAN. Right. And you weren’t the only conservative group 

around the country who was—— 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. No. One of hundreds. 

Mr. JORDAN. There were hundreds. 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. One of hundreds. 

Mr. JORDAN. Hundreds. 

Ms. Holcomb, I bet you’ve had clients who had to go through the 

same kind of experience Ms. Engelbrecht went through, right? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. We most certainly have. And, again, we hear from 

pastors all across the country who are fearful of going through that 

process. 

Look, we can’t trust the IRS with emails. What are we doing 

trusting it with our fundamental First Amendment freedoms? 

Mr. JORDAN. All right. 

Mr. Raskin, we’re going to give you the last word, and you can 

have as much time as you want. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. And this has 

been a very clarifying hearing. I want to thank Mr. Hice especially 

for his comments. And I want to start with that. 

Mr. Hice is very reassuring to me. He disclaims any interest in 

creating a divine dark money loophole in the law. This is not about 

being able—George Soros being able to channel millions of dollars 

from a not-for-profit through churches or synagogues or mosques 

into politics, it’s not about allowing the Koch brothers to put hundreds of millions of dollars into churches on an anonymous, undisclosed basis in order to make that money tax deductible. 

Okay. So everybody agrees that—at least some of you—do all of 

you agree you’d have no problem with an amendment to his bill 

saying that nothing here assures any—nothing here gives anybody 

the right to put any money into a church for the purposes of spending it on a political campaign? Would all of you agree? 

Ms. ANCALLE. Sure. 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Absolutely. 

Mr. RASKIN. Yeah. 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. With all due respect, I think that separation 

of church and State just means that the government should stay 

out of churches, and I think the churches should be able to do what 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
62 

they want to do and the way they want to do it in the moral fiber 

of that church and the leaders of the church, and all of the religious institutions should be—should be allowed to do what they 

want to do. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. So if I’m a church, I’m the Jim Jones Church, 

whatever his church was called. I can have people give me millions 

of dollars in money that’s tax deductible for them and I’m tax exempt, and then I can go out and say, let’s elect Ms. Holcomb to 

Congress or let’s defeat Ms. Holcomb for Congress, and there’s no 

problem with that. And I can recruit people to give me money for 

those purposes. Is that right, just in your view? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. I would say that I would hope that the true 

north of any religious institution or nonprofit would stand clear in 

their—— 

Mr. RASKIN. But it’s up to them. We agree under the First 

Amendment, they define their religion any way they want. I’ve got 

the religion of dark money. That’s my religion. In America, you can 

create whatever religion you want, right? So my religion is I want 

to collect dark money and put it into a campaign and save my donors having to pay taxes on it. So that’s okay on your view. I understand Ms. Ancalle’s not there. I think—I don’t—I think Ms. Holcomb’s with me on this. I think Rabbi Saperstein’s with me on this. 

You would like an amendment which says we’re going to prevent 

a dark money loophole from emerging. But you think that that’s 

guaranteed by the First Amendment? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. I recognize this is a difficult situation, but in 

my experience, less government is always better. 

Mr. RASKIN. Let me ask you about your situation, because I—forgive me. I had another meeting and I missed it, but you’re not a 

church. Your 501(c)(3) is secular, right? There’s nothing religious 

about it, right? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Correct. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. So whatever rights you’re asserting for yourself, either constitutionally or as a matter of policy, would go for 

United Way or Harvard University or Liberty University, right? In 

other words, Harvard University could say, not only do we think 

we’ve got the smartest people in the country here, we’re going to 

take money out of Harvard’s corporate treasury, which is, I think, 

$17 billion now, and put it into political campaigns to support people for President or U.S. Senate or Governor, and you’ve got no 

problem with that, right? You think that’s the right as a 501(c)(3) 

organization? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. I do not profess to be an expert on whether 

or not repealing the Johnson amendment would have such a global 

impact on—— 

Mr. RASKIN. I’m asking your views about 501(c)(3) organizations, 

which are charitable, religious, and educational. And yours is charitable, right, or is it educational? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Well, it’s a little bit of both, but, yeah. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. But you’re asserting for yourself the right to 

collect money to put into political campaigns, to get politically active, and that would apply also for the United Way—— 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Right. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
63 

Mr. RASKIN. —Harvard University, Howard University, every 

university in the country, which traditionally have been totally 

nonpolitical and nonpartisan. Now, they can have someone come 

and speak like from the pulpit at graduation, and it could be President Trump, it could be President Obama, what have you, nobody’s 

revoking their 501(c)(3) status for making a political statement 

there, right? That’s offering a little micro speech forum, but it’s another thing to take money out of the corporate treasury of the university and put it into politics. But you think that’s their First 

Amendment right. I’m just trying to clarify here intellectually. 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. Again, with all due respect, I recognize that 

this is a multifaceted discussion. I think fundamentally that less 

government is better. And if we want to point the finger of abuse, 

I think the finger should be pointed directly at the Internal Revenue Service. 

Mr. RASKIN. I agree. Then you might be talking about administrative abuse—I don’t know what the facts are; I’d love to get more 

about them—but that’s administrative abuse and harassment, but 

that’s different from what the law is. We’ve got to determine what 

the law is going to be, right? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. I—— 

Mr. RASKIN. Would you agree, for example, that government 

itself cannot spend money on political campaigns? Like, we don’t 

want the Department of Education or the Department of State 

going out and spending money in Raskin for Congress or Meadows 

for President. Would you agree to that? 

Ms. ENGELBRECHT. I believe the government should govern itself, 

yes. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Well, so the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee somebody who’s in government the right to spend money in 

that way, and I don’t think it guarantees the right of a not-for-profit corporation, which collects tax deductible contributions and itself 

is tax exempt, to participate in politics. And that’s basically the 

line that was drawn with the Johnson-Eisenhower amendment 

back in the 1950s that we’ve had. And it’s never been struck down. 

And most people think that it tracks perfectly the separation of 

church and State. And nothing that I’ve heard disproves that, but 

I want to ask a tough question for Rabbi Saperstein. 

Do ministers and rabbis and imams and, you name it, do they 

have a right or do they not have a right to go through their whole 

theological disquisition on whatever it might be, Easter or Passover, you name the holiday, and then say, and therefore, everybody 

should vote for Donald Trump for President? Can they say that or 

can they not? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. They have a free speech right to say that. 

Mr. RASKIN. They have a First Amendment right to say that. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Right. 

Mr. RASKIN. And do you know of any cases where they’re being 

put in jail for doing that or the 501(c)(3) status of the church is 

being revoked for doing that? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Again, the Pierce Creek Church and the 

Branch Ministries case, which they took out a full page ad—— 

Mr. RASKIN. They took out an ad. That was spending, right? 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. But I don’t know of anyone—— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
64 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. —who’s facing that—— 

Mr. RASKIN. This to me isolates the critical issue. Okay. I would 

have a serious problem with the IRS or any other government entity entering a church and dissecting someone’s sermons or trying to 

castigate or chase them or punish them for saying something, even 

if it’s something that’s political, and therefore, everybody go vote on 

Tuesday against Donald Trump or for Donald Trump. I just—you 

know, and—I’ve got a problem with that. But I think that the vast 

majority of the American people have accepted the idea that 

churches should not be political slush funds, and we should not be 

able to take tax deductible money given to churches for charitable 

and educational purposes and put directly in a political campaign. 

And I haven’t heard anything today—and I’ll close with this: If 

anybody wants to convince me why churches or Harvard University 

or any other, United Way, should be involved in our political campaigns on the money basis. 

Rabbi Saperstein. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. Yeah. I just want to be sure, Mr. Hice, I don’t 

know if you were out of the room when I was very clear about this. 

The money issue I was dealing with on the broader question of the 

repeal of the Johnson amendment, I exclusively said that your bill 

is aimed at obviating that. Although I would ask you, under the 

Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United case, thread of cases that 

says that campaign money is expressive conduct that is deserving 

of constitutional protection here, if you open the door to free speech 

in the—in the churches with tax deductible money, does that then 

become another form of expression, another form of speech here 

that—I certainly think we will get lawsuits to that effect from people. So even there, I have concerns, but I explicitly differentiated 

your—— 

Mr. RASKIN. Just to reclaim my time for a second, if I might. I 

mean, the Hobby Lobby case dangerously opens the idea that 

churches are political organizations, and that’s why I wanted to 

make sure that everybody, with the exception of Ms. Engelbrecht, 

believes that the 501(c)(3) exemption should stand. Because if it 

doesn’t, understand what’s going to happen. The moment that you 

say that churches are just like the Democratic Party or the Republican Party or any other political organization, it might last for a 

year or two, it might be great for the churches that want to do it, 

but then everybody’s going to say, well, why are they tax exempt, 

and why can people give money to them on a tax deductible basis? 

Because all the money’s going to start to flow in that direction. I’d 

be an idiot to give my money, $100 to the Democratic Party instead 

of giving it to the Unitarian Church and let them spend it that way 

if they had the right to do it, you see. 

So that’s why I assume all of these churches and religious organizations are saying, no, don’t go there, be aware what you wish 

for. 

Rabbi SAPERSTEIN. I explicitly raise that fear and concern. We 

have special protections in the religious community and in the 

houses of worship that other entities don’t have, a number of exemptions on the basis we are not like everyone else; only we have 

an establishment clause that affects the religious entities of this 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
65 

country. And if you start asking to be treated like everyone else in 

this regard, we really endanger those exemptions. So I’m very glad 

that you raised that issue. 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Mr. Chairman, if I may. 

Mr. HICE. [Presiding.] Please. 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Thank you. 

Well, Mr. Raskin, I just wanted to say, I’m delighted to hear that 

it sounds like we agree on the fundamental premise that the IRS 

should not be censoring pastors’ sermons. And that’s really relieving to me, because that’s really all that the Free Speech Fairness 

Act is going to do, again, is just create that free speech valve, and 

it allays—it should allay your concerns about campaign finance 

law, because it doesn’t touch it. 

Mr. RASKIN. Well, that’s what you’re saying, but that’s not what 

the language of the bill says at this point. The reason why 

everybody’s talking about dark money is because the way it’s written is it completely opens up a vast reservoir of divine dark money 

to pour into the political process. But you’re saying that’s not the 

purpose here. 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Respectfully—— 

Mr. RASKIN. And I understand that the sponsor’s not saying that. 

So that’s all a question of draftsmanship in the legislation. 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Respectfully, all the language of the bill actually 

does, it says within the ordinary course of your ministry and as 

long as it incurs no more than de minimus or incremental expenses, which is an extremely common phrase—— 

Mr. RASKIN. But what if my ministry—— 

Ms. HOLCOMB. —in tax law, easy to apply—— 

Mr. RASKIN. Ms. Holcomb, let me ask you, what if my ministry— 

see, in America, we have such radical, expansive, wide open, robust 

freedom of religion, that everybody can define their religion as they 

please, right? And what if my ministry is my theology tells me I’ve 

got to get involved in politics however I can, and then we repeal 

the Johnson amendment, and so suddenly we say, I can take all 

of the money that’s coming in to me and go spend it in a campaign, 

because that’s what my theology tells me to do? 

Ms. HOLCOMB. Under the Free Speech Fairness Act, they’re going 

to have a really rough time of it, because it’s only de minimus expenditures, again, and only speech that can be done in the ordinary 

course of their normal ministry. 

This is not a cataclysmic event. We’re simply talking about a relief valve for free speech. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. 

Mr. JORDAN. —I just want to let the record show that the professor, who’s not a member of either subcommittee, got more time 

than anyone else, and we appreciate—— 

Mr. RASKIN. I’m very grateful for it—— 

Mr. JORDAN. —you being here. 

Mr. RASKIN. —being a professor and all. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HICE. I’d like to thank our witnesses for taking time out of 

your schedule to be with us here today, we deeply appreciate it, 

and for all the participation from the committees. 

We’re good? All right. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
66 

If there’s no further business, without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(67) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
68 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 26624.023

N NATIONAL COUNCIL OF 

NON PROFITS 

Statement of Tim Delaney, on behalf of the 

National Council of Nonprofits 

Before the 

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's 

Subcommittee on Government Operations and 

Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative Rules 

Hearing on Examining a Church's Right to Free Speech 

May4, 2017 

Chairmen Meadows and Jordan, Ranking Members Connolly and Krishnamoorthi, and members of 

the Subcommittees, I write to present the views of the National Council of Non profits on the 

longstanding third condition in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which provides that, 

to be eligible for tax-exempt status and the right to receive tax-deductible contributions, charitable 

non profits, religious groups, and foundations may "not participate in, or intervene in (the publishing 

or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate 

for public office" (a provision of law sometimes called the Johnson Amendment). The National 

Council of Non profits opposes efforts to repeal or otherwise tamper with that important protection 

because such legislation would disrupt and fundamentally undermine the work of the charitable, 

religious, and philanthropic communities - a segment of the economy that employs more than 10 

percent of the workforce and serves tens of millions of Americans daily. 

At the outset, I point out that our views are informed by the law, facts, and insights of Americans 

working in local community-based charitable non profits, houses of worship, and foundations around 

the country who have provided real-world context on the issues before your subcommittee through 

information delivered in this letter and these Appendices: 

1. The Communily Letter in Support of Nonpartisanshlp, signed by nearly 4,500 charitable, 

religious, and philanthropic organizations and for-profit businesses- from all 50 states and 

collectively representing tens of thousands of organizations - expressing strong opposition to 

efforts to weaken and/or repeal the current law that for six decades has successfully 

protected the integrity and effectiveness of charitable non profits, religious institutions, and 

foundations by keeping them apart from partisan electioneering; and 

2. A sampling of the informed views of American voters- including your constituents -who 

shared insightful comments when signing the above letter, including these observations 

about the importance of protecting the nonpartisanship of charitable, religious, and 

philanthropic organizations by keeping them separate from any "political campaign on behalf 

of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office": 
69 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 26624.024

• "Protecting the Johnson Amendment isn't a free speech issue; advocacy and candidate 

endorsement are not the same. Partisan politics have no place in charitable nonprofits 

and faith communities:· Life Adventure Center, Versailles, KY 

• "No political party embodies the fullness of the gospel, while both embody aspects of it. 

It is impossible for churches to become partisan without watering down the good news of 

Jesus." Commonwealth Baptist Church, Alexandria, VA 

• "The full Board of Habitat For Humanity [of Burke County] voted to oppose the repeal of 

the Johnson Amendment at its Board meeting of March 20'"· This will create major 

problems for the organization causing increased difficulty with fund raising, possibly 

splitting the board about who, what to endorse. The potential is there to destroy the 

organizational structure of nonprofits in general and Habitat specifically." Habitat For 

Humanity of Burke County, Morganton, NC 

Legal and Factual Background 

Since at least 1894, the federal government has exempted from taxation the income of entities 

"organized and conducted solely for charitable, religious, or educational purposes."1 Today, the 

exemption - codified in Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code - is available to groups "organized and 

operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or 

educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition ... , or for the 

prevention of cruelty to children or animals." 

But tax exemption is not automatic. In the words of one court, it is "a matter of grace rather than 

right,''2 To be eligible for that exemption -and the ability to receive tax-deductible donations -

Section 501(c)(3) provides that organizations cannot do three things: 

1. In 1909, Congress declared the first condition: 501(c)(3) organizations cannot pay out 

"profits": "no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private 

shareholder or individual." [Hence, "no profit" became "nonprofit."] 

2. In 1934, Congress added the second condition: 501(c)(3) organizations cannot use their full 

First Amendment rights to petition their government- "no substantial part of the activities of 

which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation." 

3. In 1954, the Republican-controlled Congress passed legislation, signed by President 

Eisenhower, that established the third condition for tax exemption: 501(c)(3) organizations 

'See Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894. 

2 Christian Echoes National Ministry, Inc. v. United States, 4 70 F.2d 849 (10th Cir. 1972) (expressly rejecting 

the "proposition that the First Amendment right of free exercise of religion, ipso facto, assures no restraints, no 

limitations and, in effect, protects those exercising the right to do so unfettered. We hold that the limitations 

imposed by Congress in Section 501(c)(3) are constitutionally valid"), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 864 (1973). See 

also Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540 (1983) (the Supreme Court rejected the 

claim that Section 501(c)(3) violated First Amendment rights, holding that Congress can require organizations 

to comply with conditions to qualify for tax-deducible donations, because the government is not required to 

subsidize political ideology through tax benefits). 

2 
70 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 26624.025

may "not participate in, or intervene in (the publishing or distributing of statements}, any 

political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to} any candidate for public office.''3 

Organizations can, of course, do all or any of those acts- but doing so breaches the conditions so 

they will no longer be exempt from taxation or eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. 

Congress and other governmental bodies have put similar legal provisions in place to guard against 

taxpayers subsidizing partisan political activities. For instance, the Hatch Act (and "mini-Hatch Acts" 

at the state level} prevent government employees from using the public's resources - including the 

government employees' time -to engage in partisan political activities.4 Congressional ethics rules 

prevent Members of Congress and their employees from engaging in partisan electioneering using 

public resources or while on government grounds.s And judicial canons ban judges from engaging in 

partisan electioneering, including the statement that a judge may not "publicly endorse or oppose a 

candidate for public office.'' 6 

Congress has put other restrictions in place on partisan political activities in yet additional contexts. 

For instance, even though AmeriCorps, VISTA, and similar programs are designed to introduce young 

leaders to serving their communities, those programs prohibit participants from engaging in partisan 

politics while on duty.? Moreover, federal law prohibits government contractors and grant recipients 

from using government funds to intervene in partisan elections. a 

3 In 1987, Congress added the language of "(or in opposition to)" to fill a loophole that groups were exploiting 

by actively opposing candidates. See Revenue Act of 1987. 

4 See 5 U.S. Code§ 7324(al: "An employee [employed or holding office in an Executive agency other than the 

Government Accountability Office] may not engage in political activity while the employee is on duty, in any 

room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an individual employed or holding office in the 

Government of the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof; while wearing a uniform or official 

insignia identifying the office or position of the employee; or using any vehicle owned or leased by the 

Government of the United States or instrumentality thereof." 

5 See U.S. House of Representatives House Ethics Manual, Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 110th 

Congress, 2d Session, 2008 Edition, page 135: "Once House employees have completed their official duties, 

they are free to engage in campaign activities on their own time, as volunteers or for pay, as long as they do 

not do so in congressional offices or facilities, or otherwise use official resources." See also, United States 

Senate Select Committee on Ethics: Campaign Guidance: "Senate employees are free to engage in campaign 

activity on their own, as volunteers or for pay, provided they voluntarily do so on their own time, outside of 

Senate space, and without using Senate resources." 

6 See Code of Conduct for United States Judges Canon 5(Ali2l: "A judge should not (1) act as a leader or hold 

any office in a political organization; (2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly 

endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a 

contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event 

sponsored by a political organization or candidate." 

7 See Memorandum from Frank R. Trinity. General Counsel of the Corooration for National and Community 

Service, Feb. 12, 2007; "You should keep in mind the following rule: Grantee staff and program participants 

may D.Ql ... participate in, or endorse, political events or activities, if they are doing so while charging time to a 

Corporation-supported program, accumulating service or training hours towards an education award, or 

otherwise performing activities supported by the [Corporation for National and Community Service]." 

8 Jack Maskell, CRS Report for Congress, "'Political' Activities of Private Recipients of Federal Grants or 

Contracts," Oct. 21, 2008; "Generally, organizations or entities which receive federal funds by way of grants, 

contracts, or cooperative agreements do not lose their rights as organizations to use their own, private, non3 
71 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 26624.026

That is not to say that the foregoing groups and their employees can never intervene in partisan 

elections for or against candidates for public office. As Members of Congress know, one must leave 

government property before engaging in fundraising activities.9 Congressional staff are trained that 

while they cannot engage in partisan politicking while on duty or using government resources, they 

can take personal leave to join a campaign.1o 

The same is true of charitable, religious, and philanthropic groups. The Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS) has published free resources to inform charitable non profits and houses of worship of the time 

and place restrictions on when they can and cannot intervene in efforts in support of or opposition to 

candidates for public office. For instance, while the IRS website warns, "Under the Internal Revenue 

Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly 

participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any 

candidate for elective public office," the Service also provides a variety of nonpartisan activities that 

are permissible.H The IRS provides more details in other publications.12 Similarly, the IRS identifies 

where the lines are drawn between permissible and impermissible activities by religious institutions 

and clergy in its helpful publication, "501(c)(3) Tax Guide for Churches & Religious Organizations. "13 

Communities Rely on the Nonpartisan Work of 501(c)(3) Organizations 

The work of charitable nonprofit organizations ("non profits") throughout the United States improves 

lives, strengthens communities and the economy, and lightens the burdens of government, 

taxpayers, and society as a whole. Your constituents recognize the vital and ongoing work of 

nonprofit organizations in delivering essential services, enhancing their quality of life, and uplifting 

the spirit of faith, innovation, and inspiration in local communities across America. Indeed, the 

incredible diversity of non profits touches and benefits Americans virtually every day of their lives. 

For the past couple of months, the network of the National Council of Non profits has been 

proactively listening to the public and the nonprofit community about the potential impact of 

politicizing 501(c)(3) organizations by allowing them to endorse or oppose candidates for public 

federal resources for 'political' activities because of or as a consequence of receiving such federal funds. 

However, such organizations are uniformly prohibited from using the federal grant or contract money for such 

political purposes, unless expressly authorized to do so by law." 

9 According to the U.S. House of Representatives House Ethics Manual, "The House buildings, and House 

rooms and offices - including district offices -are supported with official funds and hence are considered 

official resources. Accordingly, as a general rule, they may not be used for the conduct of campaign or political 

activities." Supra at page 127. Similarly, "Senate resources may only be used for official purposes. No official 

resources (e.g .. Senate space, equipment, staff time) may be used to conduct campaign activities." United 

States Senate Select Committee, supra. 

10 See footnote 5 supra. 

11 See "Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501icli3l Tax-Exempt Organizations," IRS 

website. 

12 See "Exemption Requirements - 501icli3l Organjzatjons." on the IRS website, and "Lobbying Issues" by 

Judith E. Kindell and John Francis Reilly (1997), also on the IRS website. 

13 501icli3l Tax Guide for Churches & Religious Organizations (Rev. 8-2015), IRS Publication 1828. 

4 
72 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 26624.027

office. During this time, we have received more than a thousand concerned comments that 

demonstrate the deep opposition to the proposals to repeal or weaken the Johnson Amendment. 

Below are just four of these heart-felt comments from charitable non profits dealing with challenges 

at the frontlines in our communities: 

"We intend to advance the Gospel in our ministry of healing, reconciliation, and renewal. 

Neither major political party currently does that or promises to do that. Therefore, we do 

not want any of our moneys going to the support of a political party. We cannot 

financially or ethically afford that kind of investment." St Francis Spirituality Center, 

Tiffin, OH 

"We accomplish so much more because our board meetings are not filled with disruptive 

arguments about which political candidate to endorse. And we don't have people 

questioning our motives and whether funds they donate to our missions will be 

redirected to a politician's election campaign. Protecting nonpartisanship protects 

charitable organizations and our communities from partisan politics and division that 

causes strife among and within those safe places." Alliance for Strong Families and 

Communities, Milwaukee, WI 

"Non profits need to serve their constituents first and foremost in an unbiased manner, 

not be pawns of or beholden to a political party. This political independence keeps 

organizations open to all administrations, and more genuinely open to new ideas and 

policies, as well as objectively critical of policies which undermine their organization's 

mission and the wellbeing of their constituents." Hamtramck Community Initiative, 

Hamtramck, Ml 

"As a community foundation, we focus on philanthropy in its broadest form. We 

encourage all people to be engaged within our community, and to give back financially 

and with their time. Being nonpartisan enables us to be independent and work closely 

with people on all sides of the political aisle. Additionally, we- as with a/1501(c)(3) 

organizations - are governed by a board of volunteers. Under current law, our volunteer 

board members work together for common purpose without permitting partisan 

elements to enter the conversation. If the protection that the law provides were to be 

diminished in any way, the focus of a common purpose for the common good could 

easily dissipate." Oak Park-River Forest Community Foundation, Oak Park, IL 

In Appendix 2, members of the Subcommittees can read these and scores of additional comments 

from your districts and states that explain how repealing or weakening current law on nonpartisanship 

would adversely affect their organizations and communities. These represent a small sampling of 

voices we have heard from grassroots nonprofits in every state. 

Misunderstandings or Misinformation about the Current Law on 

Nonpartisanship 

The current law on nonpartisanship, which protects charitable, religious, and philanthropic 

organizations from demands for political endorsements and opposition, is seen by the vast majority 

of 501(c)(3) organizations and by the general public as sound policy that should be retained for the 

5 
73 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 26624.028

public good. 14 Many of the challenges to current law seen in pending legislation and public 

statements appear to be based on either a misunderstanding of what the law actually permits and 

restricts, or communications that conflate the legally and distinctly different items of advocacy 

regarding public policy positions, versus partisan, election-related activities. It is this 

misunderstanding or misinformation that has led some to believe that charitable non profits, religious 

institutions, and foundations are forced to sit on the sidelines rather than engage on important 

public policy debates. The truth has little or no relationship to the misunderstandings or confused 

communications. 

The Freedom to Engage in Policy Advocacy Is Starkly Different Legally from Banned Partisan 

Electioneering 

As made clear in the Community Letter In Support of Nonpartlsansh/p found in Appendix 1, 

charitable non profits, including religious congregations, are free to speak on important matters of 

the day and advocate on public policy issues and legislation. This means that pastors can preach on 

policy issues important to their faith, such as the sanctity of all human life, marriage, and religious 

freedom with the clear knowledge that their voice is unfettered by government. Likewise, a food bank 

is in its rights to speak up on hunger-related issues, arts organizations can and do urge support for 

funding and freedom of expression, and virtually every charitable nonprofit can treat advocacy as 

core to advancing its mission. When it comes to advocacy rights, only private foundations are barred 

from most lobbying activities, yet they too are free to engage in public debates, promote public 

education efforts, and fund a wide range of issue-focused activities. 

The relevant language in Section 501(c)(3) merely prohibits partisan campaign intervention, defined 

to include endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, publishing or distributing statements 

for or against candidates, or using tax-deductible and other resources to support partisan campaign 

activities. 

Protestations to the contrary, the law on lobbying rights and candidate endorsements/opposition are 

distinct; failure to maintain clarity on this question is misguided or disingenuous. 15 

Personal Capacity 

The protections against partisanship in Section 501(c)(3) apply to the organization, but not to the 

person in her or his individual capacity. Federal tax law does not limit the partisan activities of 

14 The public overwhelmingly supports current law and wants to keep politics out of charitable non profits, 

religious institutions, and foundations. A poll conducted in March 2017 found that nearly three out of four 

American voters (72 percent) want to keep current rules protecting 501(c)(3) organizations from the rancor 

and divisiveness of partisan political activity. "National Poll Finds That Americans Support the Johnson 

Amendment to Protect Nonprofit Non partisanship," Independent Sector, Mar. 20, 2017. 

15 See, e.g., April 5. 2017 letter from the Governor and Attorney General of Texas sent to 23 Republicans in 

Congress, in which the letter that they signed asserts: "the Johnson Amendment ... threatens churches with the 

loss of their tax-exempt status if they support or oppose legislation or candidates." A related footnote then 

intermixes the 1934 language with 1954 language in a way that suggest inaccurately that the Johnson 

Amendment covers both. It does not. Similar misinformation is floating around by proponents of repeal and 

weakening of proven law. We suggest that the elected officials who have been asked to sign letters prepared 

by others hold the ghost-writers accountable for preparing statements that are legally and factually incorrect. 

6 
74 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 26624.029

individuals because individuals do not earn an exempt status under the law. This means that the 

CEOs of private foundations, pastors, imams, and rabbis of religious institutions, and all employees 

and volunteers of 501(c)(3) organizations can endorse or oppose any candidate. The only condition 

is that he or she does not seek to invoke the good name and tax status of the organization while 

expressing personal views. This is very much akin to elected officials leaving public buildings to 

solicit campaign contributions and congressional staffers taking time off from their public jobs to 

work on partisan campaigns. The rules are unambiguous and leave little room for creative reinterpretation by the IRS, partisans, or others. 

Alternatives Abound 

As stated at the outset, exemption from federal taxation and eligibility to receive tax-deductible 

contributions are not entitlements, and must be earned. But there are alternatives to 501(c)(3) 

status. First, as noted above, individuals can act in their individual capacity to engage in partisan 

electioneering, provided that they do not use 501(c)(3) resources or name. Second, 501(c)(3) 

organizations enjoy multiple options, including having like-minded people create an organization that 

can be both tax exempt and be permitted to endorse or oppose candidates for elective office or help 

to raise money for political campaigns. These include social welfare organizations's, labor unions17, 

and business organizations's, such as chambers of commerce. While exempt from paying federal 

taxes, these organizations are distinct from charitable, religious, and philanthropic entities in that 

contributions to them to not entitle the donor to a federal tax deduction. Private individuals and 

businesses may subsidize the operations and partisan activities of these groups, but as the courts 

have repeatedly said - taxpayers do not. 

Forming an entity is neither new nor difficult. Indeed, it is an American tradition, chronicled in the 

19th Century by de Tocqueville in Democracy in America.191ndividuals in our country naturally 

combine to form associations to address problems, express opinions, and seek action. 

The Necessity of Nonpartisanship 

Legislation has been proposed that would repeal or weaken the longstanding protection from 

partisan demands for political endorsements and campaign contributions that 501(c)(3) 

organizations enjoy. 20 If enacted, the legislative proposals would politicize charitable non profits, 

16 Section 501(c)(4), 26 U.S. C. 501(c)(4); see IRS summarv. Social Welfare Organizations. 

17 Section 501(c)(5). 26 U.S. C. 501(c)(5); see IRS summary, Labor and Agricultural Organizations. 

18 Section 501(c)(6), 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(6); see IRS summary. Business Leagues. 

19 Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville, edited and translated by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba 

Winthrop, published by the University of Chicago (2000). See pages 489-92: "Americans of all ages, all 

conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which 

all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave. futile, very general and very 

particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fetes, to found seminaries, to build 

inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create 

hospitals, prisons, schools. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with 

the support of a great example, they associate. Everywhere that, at the head of a new undertaking, you see the 

government in France and a great lord in England, count on it that you will perceive an association in the 

United States." 

2o H.R. 172 and S.264/H.R. 781. 

7 
75 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 26624.030

houses of worship, and foundations, plunging them into the caustic partisanship that bedevils our 

country. It would hurt the public and damage the capacity of organizations in a wide variety of ways, 

including this sampling (explained in the words of frontline charitable, religious, and philanthropic 

organizations): 

• Eroding missions: When nonprofit board members - and donors - demand that the organization 

take sides in a local, state, or federal election. 

"Non profits are increasingly the only entity in our community with the ability to convene 

disparate partners, solve problems, and broker decisions of critical importance. Our 

neutrality to partisan politics is an essential factor in our ability to build trust and 

demonstrate objectivity. A repeal or weakening of the current protections and lobbying 

restrictions will neuter this ability and I fear, will weaken attempts to build a stronger 

sense of local community." Community Foundation of Lorain County, Elyria, OH 

"The repeal of the Johnson amendment could open up our affordable housing nonprofit 

and others to partisanship and in-fighting among board members and members. Our 

donors want the security of knowing their contributions will be used to further the good 

work of the organization, and not for partisan politics." Lexington Community Land Trust, 

Lexington, KY 

Corroding public trust and threatening charitable contributions: When donors demand that the 

organization endorse certain local, state, or federal candidates- and then they or other donors 

stop supporting the organization if it remains neutral or supports the other side. 

"This would be a travesty if nonprofits are forced to declare their political affiliation. It 

would certainly affect our ability to make un-biased decisions." McDowell Mission 

Ministries, Inc., Marion, NC 

"Donors contribute to the Community Foundation because they believe their charitable 

dollars will be used only for charitable purposes in our community. Repeal of the 

Johnson Amendment will blur the line between charitable work and partisan political 

activities, weakening the public's trust in our foundation. That lack of trust will inevitably 

result in a reduction in donations, lessening our ability to carry out our charitable 

mission." Capital Region Community Foundation, Lansing, Ml 

"Unreasonable partisan politics are destroying the democratic fabric of this country and 

the same will happen to nonprofits if we allow them to be engulfed by the dirty tentacles 

of politicians and their personal and biased motives." Resource Education Awareness by 

Latinos, Teaneck, NJ 

"Our organization is trusted by donors to do charitable work and advocacy, *not* 

partisan politicking. We strongly oppose a repeal of the Johnson Amendment. • Jewish 

Family Service of San Diego, San Diego, CA 

8 
76 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 26624.031

Limiting effectiveness: When board members with contrary views demand that the organization 

endorse their preferred candidates, whether because they are business clients, family members, 

or college friends, thereby creating ill-will and polarizing the board on other unrelated issues. 

"The collaborative private, public partnership of early childhood work is successful 

largely because of the inclusive and bi-partisan nature of our work. Without the 

assurance of this bi-partisan approach, our success will be challenged and therefore the 

outcomes for children and families threatened. We are responsible for educating 

legislatures about the ways in which children and their families depend on the shared 

efforts of a// community stakeholders in an holistic approach to delivering services to 

children according to their specific needs from the earliest stage of their development 

through their adulthood. We would become much less effective in engaging necessary 

stakeholders if we campaigned for one group or another rather than focusing on our 

mission. Our success on behalf of families depends on broad support, not political 

partisanship." Region A Partnership for Children, Sylva, NC 

"The mission of the Friends of the Carr Refuge is 'To promote the conservation of sea 

turtles and natural resources of the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge and engage in 

such educational, scientific partnership, and civic activities as will support the mission of 

the refuge.' We are Democrats, Republicans and Independents all working together as 

volunteers to support and advocate tor the refuge and the sea turtles we all love. Our 

leaders chose to organize as a 501(c)(3) specifically because being nonpartisan is 

critical to achievement of our mission. We don't wish to ever find ourselves in a position 

of resisting pressure from one side or the other to endorse candidates or make 

campaign contributions.· Friends ofthe Carr Refuge, Indian Harbour, FL 

"We are good stewards of our time, treasure and talents. Our mission focuses on 

improving the quality of life for the most vulnerable. We do this through providing 

services, advocacy on those issues that impact the poor and community building. 

Changes to this Act could potentially force us to participate in partisan politics. Some 

more fully engaged in politics may expect us to since there would be no rules prohibiting 

such activity. This would distract us from our purpose. • Catholic Charities, Diocese of 

Trenton, Trenton, NJ 

• Reducing resources: Pressure on 501(c)(3) organizations to redirect charitable resources 

(money, staff time, facilities, member lists, fund raising help-- as well as their brand value) to 

help promote partisan political campaigns. 

"We intend to advance the Gospel in our ministry of healing, reconciliation, and renewal. 

Neither major political party currently does that or promises to do that. Therefore, we do 

not want any of our moneys going to the support of a political party. We cannot 

financially or ethically afford that kind of investment.· St Francis Spirituality Center, 

Tiffin, OH 

"Partisanship on the part of nonprofit organizations could be very detrimental to our 

mission and to the efforts we put forth to assist others. Being nonpartisan allows us the 

9 
77 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 26624.032

freedom to work with all organizations without fear of offending possible donors because 

of positions that their candidate may take that is in conflict with what we are trying to 

accomplish. This could place at jeopardy our independence to work across the 

community in helping those in need." King Outreach Ministry, King, NC 

Increasing dark monev: Partisan donors start to misuse charitable non profits and religious 

groups the same way they have been using some 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations since 

the Citizens United decision to anonymously funnel money into partisan, election-related 

activities. But now they would be able to take a tax deduction for purely partisan spending. 

"Nonprofits serve a valuable purpose in their communities. Their role has a/ways been to 

serve the community and stay above the fray of partisan politics. Repealing the Johnson 

Amendment would endanger the impartiality of the nonprofit sector and threaten it with 

the seduction of dark money from partisan donors. Nonprofits are not asking for this 

repeal." Forward Community Investments, Madison, WI 

"The arts depend on the generosity of individuals and a long-standing American tradition 

of Philanthropy to survive. As a return tor their generosity and understanding of the 

cultural fabric of our country, arts donors trade their immediate funds for the ability to 

list charitable contributions as tax deductions. To remove this clear exchange is to topple 

the very base from which the arts in the United States are surviving. Please deeply 

consider ALL of the ways weakening the Johnson Law will: pour money into dirty politics, 

not remove it (which has been the promise), LOSE THE TRUST of your constituents and 

continue to tear at the delicate fabric of arts and culture in the United States." Kinesis 

Project Dance Theatre, New York, NY 

Eliminating a desired safe refuge: Americans are fed up with hyper-partisanship, and view their 

houses of worship and charitable non profits as safe havens where they can escape the acrimony 

and division. Indeed, the only true beneficiaries of removing the protection would be politicians 

and paid political consultants. 

"It is critical to our work that supporters perceive us to be 'cause'-based rather than 

political, partisan or ideologically based. Please do not remove the very safeguards that 

ensure supporters of the integrity of nonprofit organizations' motives and modes of 

conducting business." Matthew Reardon Center for Autism, Savannah, GA 

"A repeal of the Johnson Amendment would hamper our mission and render us less 

effective to those we serve." Schenectady Inner City Ministry, Schenectady, NY 

"Non profits need to be a refuge of acceptance and not represent an outgrowth of a 

political belief system." Arts organization in Northern Virginia 

"Efforts to repeal or weaken the 'Johnson Amendment,' the provision of the law that 

protects charitable non profits from partisan demands for endorsements and campaign 

10 
78 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 26624.033

contributions, would significantly injure the ability of organizations to provide a safe 

haven from politics." Hosparus Health, Louisville, KY 

Conclusion: Americans Want to Protect Nonpartisanship 

Simply put, our society is better today because 501(c)(3) organizations operate as safe havens from 

caustic partisanship. Americans don't want to see any part- not even a de minimis amount- of 

their charitable donations redirected by someone else towards a partisan campaign. Nor do they 

want to see more anonymous, and in this case tax deductible, dark money flowing into political 

campaigns. Less still do they want some of the few remaining places where they can escape- their 

sacred houses of worship and trusted community gathering places- invaded and plunged into the 

mire and muck of polarizing partisanship. Therefore, we urge Members of the Subcommittee to 

oppose any attempts to repeal, weaken, or otherwise tamper with the Johnson Amendment that has 

proven to be a necessary and effective protection for the last 60-plus years for America's charitable, 

philanthropic, and religious communities and those we all serve. 

Respectfully submitted, 

National Council of Non profits 

Contact Information 

Tim Delaney 

President and CEO 

National Council of Non profits 

1001 G Street NW Suite 700E 

Washington, DC 20001 

(202) 962-0322 

tdelaney@councilofnonprofits.org 

National Council of Nonprofits 

The National Council of Non profits (Council of Non profits) is a trusted resource and advocate for 

America's charitable non profits. Through our powerful network of State Associations and 25,000-

plus members- the nation's largest network of non profits - we serve as a central coordinator and 

mobilizer to help non profits achieve greater collective impact in local communities across the 

country. We identify emerging trends, share proven practices, and promote solutions that benefit 

charitable non profits and the communities they serve. 

11 
79 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 26624.034

Appendix 1 

Community Letter in Support of Nonpartisanship 

AprilS, 2017 

J~irt\ IPR !'\Ill~ IC AlI ·\IR'-

Youth 

Changing 

the World 

,THt.Von:R•PART!CIPATJON•CENTER• 

Global Jewish 

Advocacy 

,·11!11 CAMPION FOUNDATION 

'Ill 

AMER.CAN 

H STORCAL 

ASSOCIATION 

THE OcEAN fOUNDATION 

Volunteers 

of America" 

Destination 

'.TRAVEL ~~---~.-~··~ 

PARTNERSHIP 

FOR AMERICA'S 

c::~:~P;,~§~ 

THE ANNIE £, CASEY 

FOUNDATION 

GUIDESTAR 

WALLACE 

GLOBAL FUND 

LEAG!iEOF 

WOMEN VOTERS 
80 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 26624.035

Community Letter in Support of Nonpartisanship 

AprilS, 2017 

The Honorable Paul Ryan 

Speaker 

H-232 The Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi 

House Democratic Leader 

H-204 The Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Kevin Brady 

Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee 

1102 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Richard Neal 

Ranking Member, House Ways and Means 

Committee 

1139E Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

Senate Majority Leader 

S-230 The Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Chuck Schumer 

Senate Democratic Leader 

S-221 The Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Orrin Hatch 

Chairman, Senate Committee on Finance 

219 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Ron Wyden 

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on 

Finance 

219 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McConnell, Leader Pelosi, Leader Schumer, Chairman Brady, 

Chairman Hatch, Ranking Member Neal, and Ranking Member Wyden: 

The undersigned organizations strongly oppose proposals that would politicize the charitable 

nonprofit and philanthropic community by repealing or weakening current federal tax law protections 

that prohibit 501{c)(3) organizations from endorsing, opposing, or contributing to political 

candidates. 

Nonpartisanship is a cornerstone principle that has strengthened the public's trust of the charitable 

community. In exchange for enjoying tax-exempt status and the ability to receive tax-deductible 

contributions, 501{c){3) organizations -charitable non profits, including religious congregations, and 

foundations - agree to not engage in "any political campaign on behalf of {or in opposition to) any 

candidate for public office." 

That provision of law protects the integrity and independence of charitable non profits and 

foundations. It shields the entire 501{c){3) community against the rancor of partisan politics so the 

charitable community can be a safe haven where individuals of all beliefs come together to solve 

community problems free from partisan divisions. It screens out doubts and suspicions regarding 

ulterior partisan motives of charitable organizations, as undoubtedly would occur if even just a few 

charitable organizations engaged in partisan politics. Nonpartisan credibility is critical to the ability of 

501{c)(3) organizations to work with elected officials of all parties at the local, state, and federal 

levels to address community needs. 

Charitable non profits, including religious congregations, are free to speak on important matters of 

the day and advocate on public policy issues and legislation. Private foundations, while barred from 

most lobbying activities, are free to engage in public debates, promote public education efforts, and 

fund a wide range of issue-focused activities. The relevant language in Section 501{c){3) merely 

prohibits partisan campaign intervention, defined to include endorsing or opposing candidates for 

public office, publishing or distributing statements for or against candidates, or using tax-deductible 

and other resources to support part·lsan campaign activities. 
81 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 26624.036

Community Letter In Support of Nonpartlsanshlp 

April 5, 2017 

Page 2 

We are united in opposing any and all efforts to weaken or repeal this longstanding protection in the 

federal tax code (sometimes called the Johnson Amendment) that President Eisenhower signed into 

law in 1954. Weakening the law by allowing leaders of individual 501(c)(3) entities to endorse 

candidates for public office and engage in some partisan electioneering activities would damage the 

integrity and effectiveness of all charitable organizations and spawn litigation as innovative partisans 

seek to expand gray areas in the proposed legislation. Repealing the Johnson Amendment, an 

approach promoted by the President and some in Congress, would damage the federal Treasury as 

people take tax deductions for political contributions they could then funnel through charitable 

non profits, undercut fair elections by providing a loophole to avoid campaign contribution disclosure 

laws, and empower politicians to exert pressure for access to foundation assets and charitable funds 

for their own partisan campaigns rather than for the public good. 

We urge you to join us in opposing efforts to weaken and/or repeal the current law that for six 

decades has successfully protected the integrity and effectiveness of charitable non profits and 

foundations by keeping them apart from partisan politics. 

Respectfully, 

National Organizations 

Abila 

Accreditation Council for Psychoanalytic 

Education, Inc. 

AdoptACiassroom.org 

Alliance for Strong Families and Communities 

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation 

American Alliance of Museums 

American Association of Anatomists 

American Association of Physics Teachers 

American Association of Teachers of German 

American Bladder Cancer Society 

American Board of Venous & Lymphatic 

Medicine 

American Brass Chamber Music Association 

American Conference of Academic Deans 

American Heart Association 

American Historical Association 

American Jewish Committee 

American Medical Association Foundation 

American Physiological Society 

American Podiatric Medical Association, Inc. 

American Red Cross 

Americans for the Arts 

Americans Promoting Study Abroad 

Americans United for Separation of Church 

and State 

Amyloidosis Foundation 

Annie E. Casey Foundation 

Asian Pacific American Legal Resource Center 

Association for Jewish Outreach Professionals 

Association of American Colleges and 

Universities 

Association of Art Museum Directors 

Association of Direct Response Fundraising 

Counsel 

Association of Fundraising Professionals 

Association of Immunization Managers 

Association of Nature Center Administrators 

Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice 

Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty 

Baptist Women in Ministry 

Barr Foundation 

BoardSource 

Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun 

Violence 

Camp Fire 

Campion Foundation 

Catholic Charities USA 

Catholic Mobilizing Network 

Center for Health, Environment & Justice 

Center for Inquiry 

Charles Stewart Matt Foundation 

Citizen Schools 

CleanSiateNow 

Commonwealth Fund 

Council on Foundations 

Council for Global Equality 

Dance USA 

Dementia Society, Inc. 

Democracy 21 

Destination & Travel Foundation 

Dietel Partners, LLC 

Disability Rights Advocacy Fund 

Ecology Project International 

Engineering Conferences International 

Feed the Children 

Feeding America 
82 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 26624.037

Community Letter In Support of Non partisanship 

April 5, 2017 

Page3 

Food & Water Watch 

Ford Foundation 

Forum of Regional Associations of 

Grantmakers 

Freedom From Religion Foundation 

Free Press 

Girl Scouts of the USA 

Girls Inc. 

Global Integrity 

Goodwill Industries, International 

Grantmakers for Effective Organizations 

Greater Non profits 

GuideStar 

Habitat for Humanity International 

Harbor Compliance 

HawkWatch International 

Hindu American Foundation 

Histiocytosis Foundation 

Horizons National 

Human Science Institute 

Independent Sector 

International Essential Tremor Foundation 

International Hearing Dog, Inc. 

International Performing Arts for Youth 

International Primate Protection League 

Issue One 

Jessie Ball DuPont Fund 

Jewish Council for Public Affairs 

Jewish Federations of North America 

Leadership USA 

League of American Orchestras 

League of Women Voters 

Leukemia Research Foundation 

Local Learning: The National Network for Folk 

Arts in Education 

Lumina Foundation 

Lymphoma Foundation of America 

Migraine Research Foundation 

Mentors International 

Morino Ventures, LLC 

National Association of Charitable Gift 

Planners 

National Association of Health Data 

Organizations 

National Association of State Boating Law 

Administrators (NASBLA) 

National Association of Watch and Collectors 

NAMI, National Alliance on Mental Illness 

National center for Appropriate Technology 

National Center for Fire and Life Safety 

National Committee for Responsive 

Philanthropy 

National Council of Behavioral Health 

National Council of Churches 

National Council of Nonprofits 

National Dance Education Organization 

National Hartford Centers of Gerontological 

Nursing Excellence 

National Human Services Assembly 

National Indian Child Welfare Association 

National LGBTQ Task Force 

National Organization for Albinism and 

Hypopigmentation 

National Runaway Safeline 

National Safe Place Network 

National Tongan American Society 

NEO Law Group 

North American Bramble Growers Research 

Foundation 

OPERA America 

Partnership for America's Children 

Pension Fund of the Christian Church 

Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement 

Project Wet Foundation 

Project Managers Without Borders 

Public Citizen 

Rockefeller Brothers Fund 

Secular Coalition for America 

Senior Executives Association 

Seva Foundation 

Skillman Foundation 

Silicon Valley Community Foundation 

Smith's Food and Drug 

Social Velocity 

The Arc of the United States 

The Aspen Institute 

The Commonwealth Fund 

The Dibble Institute 

The Educational Foundation of America 

The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi 

The Michael J. Fox Foundation 

The Ocean Foundation 

The Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation 

The Voter Participation Center 

TIDES 

Unemployment Services Trust 

Union for Reform Judaism 

United Way Worldwide 

University Professional & Continuing 

Education Association 

US Lacrosse 

Vasculitis Foundation 

Volunteers of America 

Voto Latino 
83 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 26624.038

Community Letter in Support of Non partisanship 

April5, 2017 

Page4 

Wallace Global Fund 

WasteWater Education 

Weingart Foundation 

William and Flora Hewlett Foundation 

Words Without Borders 

World Day of Prayer USA 

World Neighbors, Inc. 

Youth Services America 

YWCA USA 

All Signers Organized by State 

Go to www.GiveVoice.org to see the list of 

nearly 4,500 organizational signers from 

all 50 states 
84 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 26624.039

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF 

NON PROFITS 

Appendix 2 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Hearing on Examining a Church's Right to Free Speech 

In March 2017, charitable, religious, philanthropic and other organizations were given the 

opportunity to sign onto the Community Letter in Support of Nonpartlsanship, reproduced in 

Appendix 1. Nearly 4,500 organizations signed the letter. Signers were also given the option to 

submit comments on how changes to current law on nonpartisanship (Johnson Amendment) might 

affect their organizations and their work. More than a thousand individuals wrote comments on 

behalf of their organizations. In this Appendix, members of the Subcommittees on Government 

Operations and Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative Rules can read some of the comments 

from your districts and states that explain how repeal or weakening of current law on 

nonpartisanship would adversely affect their organizations and communities. The comments 

presented here represent a small sampling of voices heard from grassroots non profits in every state. 

California 

"Our organization is trusted by donors to do 

charitable work and advocacy, *not* partisan 

politicking. We strongly oppose a repeal of the 

Johnson Amendment." 

Jewish Family Service of San Diego, 

San Diego, CA 

"Allowing politics to be part of the Nonprofit 

Process will cause divisions within board 

rooms across the country. Now more than 

ever there needs to be places of common 

interest from both sides of the political 

spectrum. Introducing politics into the 

nonprofit process will be counterproductive to 

the mission. I urge the administration to 

reconsider repeal of the Johnson 

amendment." 

Speech and Language Development Center, 

Buena Park, CA 

"I strongly recommend keeping current 

nonprofit rules in place. This will maintain the 

integrity of our sector and prevent political 

corruption!" 

Family Cere Network, Inc., 

San Luis Obispo, CA 

"In my experience as a board member for 

several non profits, the Johnson amendment is 

essential in ensuring non partisanship. 

Deleting this amendment would invite the 

misuse of charitable funds in use of 

candidates and politicians." 

Galileo Coaching, 

Santa Barbara, CA 

District of Columbia 

"We cannot allow pulpits to become partisan. 

That would divide churches. We can also not 

allow for vital social services to be threatened 

by taking away 501(c)(3) status." 

Franciscan Action Network, 

Washington, DC 

"The League believes that the definitions of 

prohibited political activity should not be 

narrowed in any way." 

League of Women Voters, 

Washington, DC 

"The Forum of Regional Associations of 

Grantmakers supports the continued full 

enforcement of current law that prohibits 

501(c)(3) charitable organizations from 

endorsing, opposing or contributing to political 

candidates and engaging in partisan 

campaign activities -also known as the 

'Johnson Amendment.' We are troubled by 

recent proposals in Washington to weaken or 

repeal this longstanding protection in the 

federal tax code." 

Forum of Regional Associations of 

Grantmakers, 

Washington, DC 

1001 G Street NW. Suite 700 East I Washington, DC 20001 1 (202) 962-0322 1 www.councilofnonprofits.org 
85 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 26624.040

National Council of Nonprofrts Testimony 

May4, 2017 

"Without this rule, nonpartisan charities and 

places of worship would be open to 

manipulation for political ends. Up to now, 

charities and religious organizations have 

been insulated from electioneering, and 

instead have been committed to doing good 

work, like alleviating poverty, ministering to 

the spirit, curing disease, and addressing 

other basic human and social needs. 

Changing the law jeopardizes the public's 

confidence that their charitable contributions 

would be used for these universally valued 

purposes rather than mere partisan politics." 

Florida 

Public Citizen, 

Washington, DC 

"The mission of the Friends of the Carr Refuge 

is 'To promote the conservation of sea turtles 

and natural resources of the Archie Carr 

National Wildlife Refuge and engage in such 

educational, scientific partnership, and civic 

activities as will support the mission of the 

refuge.' We are Democrats, Republicans and 

Independents all working together as 

volunteers to support and advocate for the 

refuge and the sea turtles we all love. Our 

leaders chose to organize as a 501(c)(3) 

specifically because being nonpartisan is 

critical to achievement of our mission. We 

don't wish to ever find ourselves in a position 

of resisting pressure from one side or the 

other to endorse candidates or make 

campaign contributions." 

Friends of the Carr Refuge, 

Indian Harbour, FL 

"Local market research in our community tells 

us that non profits are the most trusted entity, 

while government comes in last on the trust 

scale. We know that part of that trust is 

dependent on non profits being seen as 

nonpartisan and apolitical. It's critical to 

non profits credibility in local communities, in 

weighing in on policy issues, and in 

fundraising, that we be seen as independent 

and without political agendas. Please help us 

maintain our trust and our credibility among 

2 

Appendix2 

the people we serve and depend on. Refuse 

to repeal the Johnson Amendment." 

Nonprofit Center of Northeast Florida, 

Jacksonville, FL 

"Keep non profits out of the political arena. 

We don't need our purity of intent sullied by 

political in-fighting and partisanship. There 

needs to be at least one area of society that 

can deal with the world's issues peacefully 

and productively without any governmental 

interference." 

RemediOcean Inc., 

Clearwater, FL 

Georgia 

"It is critical to our work that supporters 

perceive us to be 'cause' -based rather than 

political, partisan or ideologically based. 

Please do not remove the very safeguards that 

ensure supporters of the integrity of nonprofit 

organizations' motives and modes of 

conducting business.'' 

Matthew Reardon Center for Autism, 

Savannah, GA 

"We in the nonprofit sector ask you to weigh 

the gravity of not existing for folks who 

desperately need us.'' 

Savannah Center for Blind and Low VISion, 

Savannah, GA 

"Small nonprofit organizations like ours 

already face a constant struggle for funding. If 

tax deductions are allowed for partisan activity 

then more donations will flow to those 

organizations engaging in political rhetoric, 

making sustainability for non-partisan 

organizations even more difficult. 

"This effort is antithetical to the spirit of 

charitable work; nonprofit groups should not 

have to choose between partisanship and 

survival.'' 

Jennifer Ann's Group, 

Atlanta, GA 

"The repeal of the Johnson Amendment would 

weaken the integrity of our organization and 

for all non profits." 

Mainspring Conservation Trust, 

Young Harris, GA 
86 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 26624.041

National Council of Nonprofits Testimony 

May4, 2017 

"On Behalf of our membership of over 1500 

nonprofit organizations, we oppose efforts to 

weaken and/or repeal the current federal tax 

law protections that prohibit 501(c)(3) 

organizations from endorsing, opposing, or 

contributing to political candidates." 

Georgia Center for Nonprofits, 

Atlanta, GA 

Illinois 

"Evanston Community Foundation supports 

local nonprofits in their everyday efforts to 

provide services. They have done so 

effectively within the guidelines of the Johnson 

Amendment. Nonprofit organizations 

effectively speak on the issue without 

endorsing candidates in a nonpartisan 

method. We fully support this method of 

advocacy as the issues that affect the 

disproportionate disadvantaged clients that 

most non profits serve is not a partisan 

political issue." 

Evanston Communily Foundation, 

Evanston, IL 

"Our mission ·of developing responsible, 

conscientious and effective leaders- is a nonpartisan one, and one that we hope will 

remain as such." 

Arthur J. Schmitt Foundation, 

North brook, IL 

"It is critical for Children's Home Society of 

America to educate policy members about the 

issues impacting the children and families our 

members serve. The Johnson amendment 

protects the ability to advocate in a 

nonpartisan way without being asked for 

personal or organizational support in return of 

support of an issue." 

Children's Home Society of America, 

Chicago, IL 

"Changes to this decade's old legislation 

would threaten nonprofit nonpartisanship + 

threaten public trust in the charitable sector 

as politically neutral problem solvers." 

Forefront, 

Chicago, IL 

3 

Appendix2 

"We need to keep politics out of our work so 

that resources are directed toward our 

mission not politics." 

Gene Siskel Film Center, 

Chicago, IL 

"As a community foundation, we focus on 

philanthropy in its broadest form. We 

encourage all people to be engaged within our 

community, and to give back financially and 

with their time. Being nonpartisan enables us 

to be independent and work closely with 

people on all sides of the political aisle. 

Additionally, we as with all 501(c)(3) 

organizations are governed by a board of 

volunteers. Under current law, our volunteer 

board members work together for common 

purpose without permitting partisan elements 

to enter the conversation. If the protection 

that the law provides were to be diminished in 

any way, the focus of a common purpose for 

the common good could easily dissipate. " 

Oak Park-River Forest Communily Foundation, 

Oak Park, IL 

Iowa 

"Nonpartisanship helps to create and sustain 

the credibility of our organization. Removing 

the legal protection of this status would be 

very damaging. We rigorously maintain a 

posture of being non-denominational, nondiscriminatory, and non-partisan. It is what 

helps to keep our image in the community 

strong and respectable." 

Habitat for Humanily of Clinton County, 

Clinton, lA 

"Please- consider the future of philanthropy 

and nonprofit organizations- do not repeal in 

any way that which makes nonprofits unique 

and able to support so much good work in this 

country. 

Dubuque Mercy Health Foundation, 

Dubuque, lA 

Kentucky 

"The Kentucky Council of Churches joins other 

nonprofit organizations in urging Congress 

and the President to keep the Johnson 

Amendment in act. Protect congregations and 
87 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 26624.042

National Council of Non profits Testimony 

May4, 2017 

other charitable institutions from partisan 

politics. 

"Nonprofit organizations and faith groups 

need to remain nonpartisan and neutral to 

best service their constituents. Without the 

Johnson Amendment these entities risk their 

integrity and could put partisanship and 

finances above the mission and people they 

serve." 

Kentucky Council of Churches, 

Lexington, KY 

"The Johnson Amendment is working well. It 

doesn't need to be repealed or changed." 

Christian Appalachian Project, 

Paintsville, KY 

"The Johnson Amendment protects us from 

partisanship and preserves our ability to work 

on issues that matter to our communities 

without regard to political parties." 

United Way of Mason County, 

Maysville, KY 

"The repeal of the Johnson amendment could 

open up our affordable housing nonprofit and 

others to partisanship and in-fighting among 

board members and members. Our donors 

want the security of knowing their 

contributions will be used to further the good 

work of the organization, and not for partisan 

politics." 

Lexington Community Land Trust, 

Lexington, KY 

"Efforts to repeal or weaken the 'Johnson 

Amendment,' the provision of the law that 

protects charitable non profits from partisan 

demands for endorsements and campaign 

contributions, would significantly injure the 

ability of organizations to provide a safe 

havens from politics." 

Hosparus Health, 

Louisville, KY 

"Endorsing or contributing to candidates, even 

if by only a few organizations, would destroy 

the non-partisanship necessary for nonprofits 

to effectively solve problems in our 

communities. Allowing people to make taxdeductible contributions to groups who 

4 

Appendix2 

endorse or oppose candidates would erode 

the integrity of the nonprofit sector. 

"Protecting the Johnson Amendment isn't a 

free speech issue; advocacy and candidate 

endorsement are not the same. Partisan 

politics have no place in charitable non profits 

and faith communities." 

Life Adventure Center, 

Versailles, KY 

"The Henry Clay Memorial Foundation exists 

because the legacy of Henry Clay is relevant to 

a broad spectrum of people interested in 

American and Kentucky History. His legacy of 

leadership and his ability to strike 

compromises to further the greater good 

continues to inspire leaders on both sides of 

the aisle. The Foundation could not exist and 

accomplish its goals without broad, nonpartisan support- its work, and the work of 

other heritage-focused non profits, would be 

compromised and marginalized if it were 

perceived to be partisan and/or engaged in 

politics representing a particular brand of 

political ideology." 

Henry Clay Memorial Foundation, 

Lexington, KY 

"As the statewide advocacy group for 

homeless and housing providers in Kentucky, 

we work with lawmakers on both sides of the 

aisle on policy, not politics. Repealing the 

Johnson Amendment could damage the 

relationships we have developed over the 

years and jeopardize our future work on 

housing issues." 

Homeless & Housing Coalition of KY, 

Frankfort, KY 

Michigan 

"Please do not allow charitable dollars and 

politics to become entangled." 

Community Foundation of St. Clair County, 

Port Huron, Ml 

"Non profits need to serve their constituents 

first and foremost in an unbiased manner, not 

be pawns of or beholden to a political party. 

This political independence keeps 

organizations open to all administrations, and 

more genuinely open to new ideas and 
88 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 26624.043

National Council of Nonprofrts Testimony 

May4, 2017 

policies, as well as objectively critical of 

policies which undermine their organization's 

mission and the wellbeing of their 

constituents." 

Hamtramck Communll;y Initiative, 

Hamtramck, Ml 

"Political agendas could place our nonprofit 

organization in a compromising or precarious 

situation when acquiring and providing 

support of educational services. We operate in 

community centers, halls, varying religious 

entities and educational entities. It is our 

quest to promote equal academic support for 

all people regardless of political party, 

religious affiliation, creed, color." 

reQuest-Ed Learning Institute, 

Troy, Ml 

"The provisions provided by the Johnson 

Amendment keeps the nonprofit and 

foundation community honest to debate 

important policy issues, without trudging into 

partisan politics. This distinction is crucial to 

our civil society and allows our social sector to 

enable democratic behaviors to exist and 

thrive. The repeal of the Johnson Amendment 

will erode our sector and our society." 

The Skillman Foundation, 

Detroit, Ml 

"Donors contribute to the Community 

Foundation because they believe their 

charitable dollars will be used only for 

charitable purposes in our community. Repeal 

of the Johnson Amendment will blur the line 

between charitable work and partisan political 

activities, weakening the public's trust in our 

foundation. That lack of trust will inevitably 

result in a reduction in donations, lessening 

our ability to carry out our charitable mission." 

Capital Region Communll;y Foundation, 

Lansing, Ml 

Missouri 

"I believe it is important for non profits to keep 

their ability to remain nonpartisan. There are 

more pros to keeping this amendment in 

place than there are cons." 

Episcopal Cll;y Mission, 

St. Louis, MO 

5 

Appendix2 

"VisionServe Alliance is a coalition of 111 

nonprofit organizations providing services to 

people who have lost their sight or who are 

born without sight. Daily living skills, Braille, 

job training and placement, technology 

training and more are provided from babies to 

grannies. Without the ability to fundraise from 

individuals, foundations, etc., these services 

could not be provided. Unemployment 

amongst blind people is 70%- the CDC tells us 

that 15.9 million Baby Boomers will lose their 

vision. We must not lose our ability to raise 

money!" 

VisionServe Alliance, 

St. Louis, MO 

"Southeast Missouri Food Bank addresses 

food insecurity in sixteen counties of Missouri 

by working to provide supplemental food 

supplies to families who aren't able to put 

enough meals on the table for their families 

day to day. Hunger shouldn't be a problem in 

America, the land of plenty, but it is. Food 

banks need bipartisan support and we 

shouldn't risk be penalized for talking to our 

political leaders about the role government 

should play in addressing this important 

issue." 

Southeast Missouri Food Bank, 

Sikeston, MO 

"The 501(c)(3) charity organizations should 

not politicize their activities." 

Shia Islamic Education Center, 

Wildwood, MO 

"The fact that politics is not our driving force 

allows us to retain our mission without 

political ambiguity. The history of this country 

reveals that the nonprofit sector has equipped 

and empowered our nation in ways that 

supported the Government social policies 

without political allegiances. I implore you to 

respect that nonpartisan stance of Non profits 

across this Nation." 

The Hope Center KC, 

Kansas City, MO 
89 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 26624.044

National Council of Nonprofrts Testimony 

May4, 2017 

New Jersey 

"We are good stewards of our time, treasure 

and talents. Our mission focuses on improving 

the quality of life for the most vulnerable. We 

do this through providing services, advocacy 

on those issues that impact the poor and 

community building. Changes to this Act could 

potentially force us to participate in partisan 

politics. Some more fully engaged in politics 

may expect us to since there would be no 

rules prohibiting such activity. This would 

distract us from our purpose." 

catholic Charities, Diocese of Trenton, 

Trenton, NJ 

"We strongly believe that foundations should 

not be connected with specific candidates. 

Foundations have goals they promote and 

need acceptance by all to successfully 

promote those goa Is. Different foundations 

have significant different goals. Aligning goals 

with specific parties or candidates ensures 

further conflict among lawmakers and 

guarantees that large foundations with huge 

endowments will dictate which goals are 

promoted." 

Pascale Sykes Foundation, Inc., 

Red Bank and Vineland, NJ 

"Nonpartisanship is essential to the function 

of a not-for-profit. Remember; churches are 

not-for-profits. Remember the separation of 

church and state." 

Society In The Ekos, Inc., 

Boonton, NJ 

"Unreasonable partisan politics are destroying 

the democratic fabric of this country and the 

same will happen to non profits if we allow 

them to be engulfed by the dirty tentacles of 

politicians and their personal and biased 

motives." 

Resource Education Awareness by Latinos, 

Teaneck, NJ 

New York 

"It would be dangerous to blur the current 

clear language that conditions tax-exempt 

status and the ability to receive tax-deductible 

donations in part on not engaging in partisan, 

election-related activities for or against 

6 

Appendix2 

candidates for public office. Non profits must 

be above the political fray in order to focus on 

solving problems in our communities. 

Nonpartisan credibility is critical to the ability 

of 501(c)(3) organizations to work with 

elected officials of all parties at the local, 

state, and federal levels to address 

community needs. Please do not repeal or 

weaken the 'Johnson' amendment." 

The Century Foundation, 

New York, NY 

"We have always been bi-partisan and have 

received support from the most liberal and the 

most conservative. I would hate to see 

non profits become political. It serves no 

purpose and can only make them less 

productive. We are living in very sad times." 

The Raoul Wallenberg Committee of the 

United States, 

New York, NY 

"This bill will allow the wealthy to donate huge 

sums to nonprofits that will advocate for their 

political views and they will be able to get a 

tax deduction at the same time. It will corrupt 

charitable organizations as it has corrupted 

our elections." 

Westbeth Artists Residents Council, 

New York, NY 

"The arts depend on the generosity of 

individuals and a long-standing American 

tradition of Philanthropy to survive. As a return 

for their generosity and understanding of the 

cultural fabric of our country, arts donors 

trade their immediate funds for the ability to 

list charitable contributions as tax deductions. 

To remove this clear exchange is to topple the 

very base from which the arts in the United 

States are surviving. Please deeply consider 

ALL of the ways weakening the Johnson Law 

will: pour money into dirty politics, not remove 

it (which has been the promise) LOSE THE 

TRUST of your constituents and continue to 

tear at the delicate fabric of arts and culture 

in the United States. " 

Kinesis Project Dance Theatre, 

New York, NY 
90 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 26624.045

National Council of Nonprofrts Testimony 

May4, 2017 

"Our founding fathers were wise enough to 

understand that religion has no place in 

government for the same reason that 

government has no place in religion other 

than to protect our inalienable right to freely 

practice the religion of our choice." 

JCC of Binghamton, 

Vestal, NY 

"It would be divisive, and abusive of the trust 

that binds us together as a Christian 

community, for me to endorse any candidate 

from the pulpit, where members of the 

congregation have no opportunity to engage in 

dialog. In addition, I don't, and could never, 

speak on behalf of everyone in the church I 

serve. We seek to form people in Christian 

faith and ask them to vote their conscience." 

First Presbyterian Church, 

Rome, NY 

"A repeal of the Johnson Amendment would 

hamper our mission and render us less 

effective to those we serve." 

Schenectady Inner City Ministry, 

Schenectady, NY 

"Repealing or substantially weakening the 

Johnson Amendment will erode the public's 

trust in non profits. We work hard to earn our 

reputations, to be good stewards of donor 

dollars, and to be transparent in meeting our 

mission. I see nothing good to come from 

repealing/weakening. We are currently able to 

advocate for our causes; playing partisan 

politics is not within our missions." 

St. Paul's Center, 

Rensselaer, NY 

North Carolina 

"The collaborative private, public partnership 

of early childhood work is successful largely 

because of the inclusive and bi-partisan 

nature of our work. Without the assurance of 

this bi-partisan approach, our success will be 

challenged and therefore the outcomes for 

children and families threatened. We are 

responsible for educating legislatures about 

the ways in which children and their families 

depend on the shared efforts of all community 

stakeholders in an holistic approach to 

7 

Appendix2 

delivering services to children according to 

their specific needs from the earliest stage of 

their development through their adulthood. 

We would become much less effective in 

engaging necessary stakeholders if we 

campaigned for one group or another rather 

than focusing on our mission. Our success on 

behalf of families depends on broad support, 

not political partisanship." 

Region A Partnership for Children, 

Sylva, NC 

"The full Board of Habitat For Humanity [of 

Burke County] voted to oppose the repeal of 

the Johnson Amendment at its' Board meeting 

of March 20th. This will create major problems 

for the organization causing increased 

difficulty with fund raising, possibly splitting 

the board about who, what to endorse. The 

potential is there to destroy the organizational 

structure of non profits in general and Habitat 

specifically." 

Habitat For Humanity of Burke County, 

Morganton, NC 

"Our organization represents a very diverse 

group of 280+ volunteers, 170+ health and 

community partnering organizations, and 

700+ donors who provide care for almost 

2000 vulnerable persons each year. We 

bridge politics, theological, and social 

spectrums and collectively share a 

commitment to caring for our neighbors in 

need. We are a highly cost-effective 

organization, returning $8.33 worth of care for 

every dollar invested. 

"Removing or weakening the law would do 

irreparable damage to our organization and 

our ability to care for 2000 vulnerable 

persons." 

Henderson County Free Medical Clinic d/b/a 

The Free Clinics, 

Hendersonville, NC 

"Nonprofits play an important role in keeping 

people focused on community needs and 

linking those to policy advocacy by staying 

focused on issues - not partisan politics. 

Weakening the restrictions on partisan 

electoral activities in any way will undermine 

the community trust of the nonprofit sector 
91 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 26624.046

National Council of Nonproftts Testimony 

May4, 2017 

and potentially weaken resources that 

non profits have to help address critical 

community issues." 

Children First/Communities in Schools of 

Buncombe County, 

Asheville, NC 

"To allow 501(c)(3) organizations to be 

political would undermine public confidence 

and would divide a charitable community 

organization like ours." 

Kiwanis Club of Black Mountain Swannanoa 

Foundation, 

Black Mountain, NC 

"It is a dangerous and slippery slope to allow 

non profits to enter the political realm. Mental 

health challenges affect all types of people; 

rich, poor, Republican, Democratic, etc. To 

risk the integrity of non profits by allowing 

them to endorse political candidates is pure 

insanity." 

Mental Health Association in Greensboro, Inc., 

Greensboro, NC 

"This would be a travesty if non profits are 

forced to declare their political affiliation. It 

would certainly affect our ability to make unbiased decisions." 

McDowell Mission Ministries, Inc., 

Marion, NC 

"Partisanship on the part of nonprofit 

organizations could be very detrimental to our 

mission and to the efforts we put forth to 

assist others. Being nonpartisan allows us the 

freedom to work with all organizations without 

fear of offending possible donors because of 

positions that their candidate may take that is 

in conflict with what we are trying to 

accomplish. This could place at jeopardy our 

independence to work across the community 

in helping those in need." 

King Outreach Ministry, 

King, NC 

"Without the benefits that a 501(c)(3) 

organization can access, we would be unable 

to provide the pro bono services to the many 

people we treat in our outpatient clinics, 

provide residential services to, and crisis and 

8 

Appendix2 

mobile crisis services as well. The many 

dollars that non profits such as ours save the 

local communities and hospital emergency 

departments was upward of $4M dollars last 

year. We are strongly urging the Legislature 

and the President not to weaken or repeal 

long standing protections in the federal tax 

codes." 

Freedom House Behavioral Health 

Cere/Recovery Center, 

Ten locations throughout NC 

"Please do not politicize the charitable 

nonprofit and philanthropic community by 

repealing or weakening current federal tax law 

protections that prohibit 501(c)(3) 

organizations from endorsing, opposing, or 

contributing to political candidates. Our 

nonprofit, as well as many others, work 

especially well without having to compete 

even more for dollars in support. The public 

trust in our organization would be shaken if 

this measure passes." 

Children's Theater Festival, 

Tryon, NC 

"The full board of Burke Charitable 

Properties, Inc. is opposed to the repeal of the 

Johnson Amendment. It will compound issues 

across the board for the organization; namely, 

interjecting any political issue into this 

environment would split the board and create 

additional difficulties in fund raising. This is a 

very bad idea!" 

Burke Charitable Properties, Inc., 

Morganton, NC 

"Bullington Gardens is a horticultural 

education center and public garden open to 

all. We receive funding from both our state 

and county governments and primarily from 

the general public. Partisanship would hurt 

our ability to raise funds and attract 

volunteers. It would damage our image as a 

place that welcomes all residents, visitors, 

and especially children to our facilities and 

programs." 

Bullington Gardens, Inc., 

Hendersonville, NC 
92 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 26624.047

National Council of Non profits Testimony 

May4, 2017 

"Preventing child abuse and neglect is a nonpartisan issue. We are more effective in 

sharing that message free from politics and 

would be severely hampered in our work if the 

Johnson Amendment was repealed." 

Prevent Child Abuse North Carolina, 

Raleigh, NC 

"We work with a variety of children and 

families and are supported by people across 

the political spectrum. We are not political and 

do not want our mission to be viewed through 

a political lens. This would be a bad idea that 

will distort our mission and potentially 

undermine the credibility we have in the 

community." 

Loaves and Fishes Ministry, 

Raleigh, NC 

"Serving others in need is always a bipartisan 

issue!" 

Loaves & Flshes, Inc., 

Charlotte, NC 

Ohio 

"We intend to advance the Gospel in our 

ministry of healing, reconciliation, and 

renewal. Neither major political party currently 

does that or promises to do that. Therefore, 

we do not want any of our moneys going to the 

support of a political party. We cannot 

financially or ethically afford that kind of 

investment." 

St. Francis Spirituality Center, 

Tiffin, OH 

"Non profits are increasingly the only entity in 

our community with the ability to convene 

disparate partners, solve problems, and 

broker decisions of critical importance. Our 

neutrality to partisan politics is an essential 

factor in our ability to build trust and 

demonstrate objectivity. A repeal or 

weakening of the current protections and 

lobbying restrictions will neuter this ability and 

I fear, will weaken attempts to build a stronger 

sense of local community." 

Community Foundation of Lorain County, 

Elyria, OH 

9 

Appendix2 

"The neutrality required to create positive 

change by a foundation would be lost under 

partisan action in elections." 

Toledo Community Foundation, 

Toledo, OH 

"Weakening the Johnson Amendment is a bad 

idea and risks undermining the trust that the 

public places in well-run, ethically managed 

non profits. There is no upside to the erosion 

of important barriers that keep the nonprofit 

sphere nonpartisan, legally protected from 

electioneering, and focused on what is most 

beneficial to the communities we serve." 

Cleveland Zoological Society, 

Cleveland, OH 

"The Multifaith Campus Alliance (MCA) works 

on the campus of Sinclair Community College 

to facilitate respectful conversation among 

people of different faith traditions. Our goal is 

to foster inclusiveness and mutual 

accommodation, making room for as many 

different perspectives as possible. Repealing 

the Johnson amendment would discourage 

voices like ours, which seek to build 

connections, and encourage those which seek 

to build and maintain barriers between people 

and groups." 

Multlfaith Campus Alliance of the Miami 

Valley, 

Dayton, OH 

South Carolina 

"Repealing the Johnson Act is not only bad for 

government, it would be terrible for 

congregations and non profits. Allowing 

congregations and the clergy to be bought or 

sold for political gain would be a cancerous 

affliction. We are healthier when we observe 

and live within the boundaries of the 'wall' 

between Church and State that Thomas 

Jefferson described in his oft-quoted letter." 

South Carolina Christian Action Council, 

Columbia, SC 

"We are compelled by God's call to us to 

speak up in defense of all human life from the 

moment of conception until natural death. In 

addition, the Constitution of the United States 

of America also empowers all persons the 
93 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 26624.048

National Council of Nonprofits Testimony 

May4, 2017 

right to the freedom of speech. Repealing or 

weakening the verbiage of Johnson 

Amendment would violate our freedoms and 

even worse, the unborn children would be 

deprived of their inalienable rights and 

protection from harm." 

Pregnancy Center and Clinic of the 

Lowcountry, 

Hilton Head Island, SC 

"Non profits are another form of checks and 

balances on the government. Our grassroots 

work should influence our passion and 

advocacy not getting embroiled in the political 

fervor of the moment." 

Black River United Way, 

Georgetown, SC 

Tennessee 

"Repealing the Johnson Amendment would 

open the flood gates and subject 501(c) 3 

organizations to partisan politics that would 

alter, limit, and be detrimental to its Mission 

and the members it serves. Should changes in 

the Johnson Amendment be necessary, it 

should be done using a common sense 

approach rather than imploring rigid 

extremes." 

Habitat for HumanitY of Anderson County, 

Oak Ridge, TN 

Virginia 

"No political party embodies the fullness of 

the gospel, while both embody aspects of it. It 

is impossible for churches to become partisan 

without watering down the good news of 

Jesus. The Johnson amendment allows 

congregations to engage in politics without 

becoming political pawns." 

Commonwealth Baptist Church, 

Alexandria, VA 

"The repeal of the Johnson Amendment, which 

allows a tax exemption for donors to nonprofit 

charitable organizations, would significantly 

damage our ability to raise funds needed to 

serve those in our communities in need of 

safe, decent and affordable housing. With 

every new homeowner, our community 

benefits through the families' paying of 

property taxes. Furthermore. the families 

10 

Appendix2 

become donors to their communities by 

moving out of poverty housing to a more 

stable and healthy environment as they invest 

in their future through home ownership. 

Children grow and enjoy educational 

improvements. As each family thrives, so too 

our communities of Farmville, Prince Edward, 

Buckingham, Cumberland and Charlotte 

Counties thrive. Please do not repeal this 

protection in the federal tax code so critical to 

our ability to serve those in need and to keep 

our charitable efforts free from unwanted 

political partisanship." 

Farmville Area Habitat for Humanity, 

Farmville, VA 

"Charitable foundations serve to channel the 

generosity of private citizens towards the 

causes and issues that resonate with their 

passions and experiences. For them to 

continue to fulfill this purpose, it is crucial that 

the public trust they have earned over the 

years is not diminished by partisan labels or 

influence." 

Council on Foundations, 

Arlington, VA 

"Traveling Players is an educational theatre 

company serving children 8-18 from families 

that represent a spectrum of political beliefs. 

It is imperative that non profits remain above 

the political fray. Non profits need to be a 

refuge of acceptance and not represent an 

outgrowth of a political belief system." 

Traveling Players Ensemble, 

Great Falls, VA 

"As a community foundation, our role is to 

bring all sectors of our local community 

together to support our hometown. It is 

important for Community Foundations to be 

able to serve as a neutral party and convener 

within our community. Maintaining our status 

as a non-partisan group is crucial to that 

effort." 

Williamsburg CommunitY Foundation, 

Williamsburg, VA 
94 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 26624.049

National Council of NonprofHs Testimony 

May4, 2017 

Wisconsin 

"Nonprofits do work that is crucial to the 

social fabric of society. COPE supports people 

who are vulnerable and keeps people out of 

jails and hospitals by giving people suffering 

from mental illness a place where they can 

connect to a caring person and receive 

support. Please do not weaken our structure 

by nonprofit status." 

COPE Services, 

Grafton, WI 

"As advocates for those that often have little 

to no voice, implementing such a policy would 

effectively silence those who would be fearful 

of retaliation by politicians who may disagree 

with the position of these agencies. The world 

of politics continues to erode on a daily basis 

with an full onslaught of bills and actions that 

look to diminish and/or silence those who 

would oppose the new leadership. Today's 

politicians needs to work harder at creating 

more transparency and forget about 

introducing new bills that would instead look 

to erode the integrity of open and honest 

transactions in political campaign financing. 

Non profits would also not benefitfrom a bill 

that would allow for the potential of misguided 

decisions by few nonprofit leaders to 

negatively brand all of us as "available and for 

sale if the price is right". We therefore 

respectfully ask that you strongly oppose any 

action to repeal the Johnson Amendment in 

the best interest of the millions of families 

that rely on all non profits to preserve and 

enhance their quality of life." 

La causa, 

Milwaukee, WI 

"Non profits are hailed as safe spaces in our 

communities because we bring people 

together to solve problems, help each other, 

and enrich the lives of many. We accomplish 

so much more because our board meetings 

are not filled with disruptive arguments about 

which political candidate to endorse. And we 

don't have people questioning our motives 

and whether funds they donate to our 

missions will be redirected to a politician's 

election campaign. 

11 

Appendix2 

"Protecting non partisanship protects 

charitable organizations and our communities 

from partisan politics and division that causes 

strife among and within those safe places. 

Bills pending in Congress would repeal or 

significantly weaken the current law's 

longstanding protections by inviting charitable 

and philanthropic organizations to endorse or 

oppose candidates for elected office and 

divert some of their assets away from their 

missions to instead support partisan 

campaigns. This legislation would subject 

charitable non profits and foundations to 

demands for political endorsements and 

campaign contributions (diverting donors' 

money away from mission-related work to 

benefit politicians) and damage public trust in 

the work of non profits. 

"Further, it's completely unnecessary. 

Nonprofits- and their individual staff, board 

members, and volunteers- already have many 

legal avenues to freely express their views on 

a wide range of public policy issues through 

existing laws that allow for advocacy of our 

missions to policymakers." 

Alliance for Strong Families and Communities, 

Milwaukee, WI 

"Non profits serve a valuable purpose in their 

communities. Their role has always been to 

serve the community and stay above the fray 

of partisan politics. Repealing the Johnson 

Amendment would endanger the impartiality 

of the nonprofit sector and threaten it with the 

seduction of dark money from partisan 

donors. Non profits are not asking for this 

repeal. 

"The separation of politics and charity 

keeps the charitable sector charitable and has 

served us well. Groups that want to intervene 

in political campaigns have choices other than 

repeal of the Johnson Amendment, which 

would only hurt the charitable sector at large. 

"Forward Community Investments prides 

itself on being an independent organization 

that operates outside of the political 

environment. While we take issue positions 

and, to some degree, wear our politics on our 

sleeve by the very nature of the work we do, 

we do not support or validate one political 

candidate over another. A repeal of the 
95 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 26624.050

National Council of Nonprofii'S Testimony 

May4, 2017 

Johnson Amendment brings partisan politics 

to non profits and that is dangerous for so 

many reasons. As a 20+ year-old nonprofit, we 

are not in support of repealing the Johnson 

Amendment; trust that no good can come of 

politicizing non profits more than they already 

are (by the very nature of the work they do, 

their constituents and the communities in 

which they work)."' 

Forward Community Investments, 

Madison, WI 

"It is imperative advocacy continue valuable 

efforts to assist the multitude of causes we 

champion. It is also imperative we continue to 

maintain current effective legislation 

regarding non-partisan energy toward those 

efforts. Those who want to utilize partisan 

action to further their causes should get out of 

the nonprofit sector and become politicians." 

Association for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Support, 

Mukwonago, WI 

Appendix2 

12 
96 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 26624.051

Statement for the Record of Travis Wussow 

Vice President for Public Policy 

General Counsel 

Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention 

In response to claim repealing Johnson does not have support from major denomination: 

"We support the Free Speech Fairness Act. It's not our top religious liberty priority, and as an 

organization working with local churches we do have concerns about the politicization of the 

pulpit. But it's fundamentally not the government's job to make that decision for churches; how 

much politics is too much is a decision for churches and other houses of worship to resolve 

themselves." 
97 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 26624.052

Statement of Amanda Tyler, 

on behalf of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty 

Before the 

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's 

Subcommittee on Government Operations and 

Subcommittee on Health Care, Benefits, and Administrative Rules 

Hearing on Examining a Church's Right to Free Speech 

May4,2017 

On behalf of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC), an 81-year-old agency 

serving 15 Baptist bodies on legal and policy matters relating to religious liberty and the 

separation of church and state, I appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement to be added 

to the record. Our mission is to defend and extend God-given religious liberty for all, bringing a 

uniquely Baptist witness to the principle that religion must be freely exercised, and it must not be 

advanced or inhibited by the government. The BJC has a consistent record of supporting both of 

the First Amendment's religion clauses-No Establishment and Free Exercise. Our commitment 

stems from the historical experiences of early Baptists, who suffered the pain of persecution 

from religious fervor coupled with the coercive power of the state. 

We are committed to ensuring that the free speech rights for houses of worship and members of 

the clergy are respected. We do not share the view that current law prohibiting 50l(c)(3) 

organizations from participating and intervening in partisan candidate campaigns infringes on 

those free speech rights. We joined with 98 other religious and denominational organizations in a 

letter to Congress sent last month, saying we "strongly oppose any effort to weaken or eliminate 

protections in the law that prohibit 50l(c)(3) organizations, including houses of worship, from 

endorsing or opposing political candidates." The full letter is attached to my testimony. 

For more than 60 years, all50l(c)(3) organizations have been required to refrain from partisan 

campaign involvement in exchange for receiving that most-favored tax status. The prohibition 

has allowed charitable organizations to concentrate on their exempt purposes and not be 

distracted or co-opted by partisan campaigns. 
98 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 26624.053

In 2002, the House voted on legislation offered by Rep. Walter Jones called the Houses of 

Worship Political Speech Protection Act (H.R. 2357). The BJC co-led the coalition of religious 

groups opposing that legislation, which failed by a House vote of 178-239 in a Republicancontrolled body. We continue to think there is no reason to change the way the law works now, 

and we are very concerned about the consequences of repeal for houses of worship. 

This issue gained notice again last year when Donald Trump spoke about the "Johnson 

Amendment" at the Republican National Convention. Citing Johnnie Moore, a Christian 

publicist on the evangelical advisory board created for the Trump campaign, The New York 

Times reported that it was Trump who raised this issue last June at the first meeting of the board. 

According to the article, "Mr. Trump asked them why they did not have the courage to speak out 

more during elections. When the pastors informed him they could lose their tax-exempt status, 

Mr. Trump declared the law unfair."1 Just because candidates want more support from pastors, 

that does not reflect what pastors or churches want or what is good for them. This kind of 

political pressure from candidates and donors to intervene in campaigns could become rampant if 

the "Johnson Amendment" is repealed or scaled back. 

First, there is no need for a change in the law. The separation between the nonprofit sector -

including most houses of worship - and partisan candidate campaign involvement has served to 

protect the integrity of charities from the messy and often ugly world of partisan campaigns. 

The tax law prohibition is not a divorcement of politics from houses of worship. Many churches 

feel that they are called to be "political" and "speak truth to power" on a variety of social issues. 

Nothing in the tax law prevents pastors from speaking out from the pulpit on issues, no matter 

how controversial. 

Churches also ean do a lot of work on voter engagement and education, including organizing 

voter registration drives, getting voters to the polls, distributing information and scorecards on 

candidates, and hosting candidates in the churches. 

Pastors and other leaders can endorse and oppose candidates in their personal capacities and 

without using the resources of the church. Whether and how openly they want to do this is a 

personal decision. Pastors know that their reputations will rise and fall with individuals that they 

endorse and therefore may be reluctant to publicly endorse and oppose candidates. They also will 

consider the impact that their endorsements will have in their communities, particularly with 

those who support another candidate. 

But what is not permitted- and what most clergy and churchgoers don't want in any event- is 

for the tax-exempt 501(c)(3) entity to endorse or oppose candidates. Polling consistently shows 

that large majorities - 70 or 80 percent depending on the survey- oppose candidate 

endorsements in church. 2 And when just clergy are asked, the numbers are more like 90 percent. 3 

1 Mark Landler and Laurie Goodstein, "President Pledges to Let Politics Return to Pulpits," 17le Ne:w York Times, 

Feb. 3, 2017 atAl, Al7. 2 E.g., Bob Smietana, Skip the Endorsements in Church, Say Most Americans, LIFE WAY REsEARCH (Sept. 8, 2016), 

http://lifewayresearch.com/20 16/09/08/skip-the-endorsements-in-church-say-most-americans/ (finding 79% of 

Americans believe it is inappropriate for a pastor to publicly endorse political candidates during a church service and 
99 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 26624.054

These numbers are not surprising given the negative effects endorsements would have on houses 

of worship. Pastors and churchgoers I talk with think this would be a terrible idea for their 

congregations, dividing what are rather politically diverse communities and distracting the 

church from its religious mission. Congregants also choose to worship in faith communities for 

reasons other than hearing a political ad. There are plenty of places in our culture today to 

engage in partisan electoral campaigns. Most people I know don't want church to be one of those 

places. 

We also recognize the prophetic voice with which the church speaks to power. That voice is 

threatened whenever the church associates itself too closely with the government or its officials. 

When this issue was debated on the House floor 15 years ago, Rep. John Lewis of Georgia- who 

worked with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during the Civil Rights Movement- gave a 

powerful testimony. "The church was the heart and soul of our efforts because ministers had the 

moral authority and respect to stand against immoral and indefensible laws," he said. "At no time 

did we envision or even contemplate the need for our houses of worship to become partisan 

pulpits." 

Changing the law would expose churches to political pressure to endorse candidates. The 

campaign intervention prohibition applies not only to presidential and congressional elections, 

but to every state and local race, too. Many candidates and donors supporting candidates would 

have a strong incentive to put pressure on churches to become involved in their campaigns, 

particularly given the highly-valued tax status churches enjoy. Specifically, churches receive 

automatic 501 ( c )(3) tax status and are not required to file the Form 990 information return. 

Donors to churches, like all other 50l(c)(3) organizations, also receive a tax deduction for their 

contributions. 

The legislative "solutions" that have been put forward would threaten great harm to houses of 

worship. Some of the bills inject a new subjective standard for the IRS to enforce, allowing 

political campaign involvement if it is "made in the ordinary course of the organization's regular 

and customary activities in carrying out its exempt purpose, and results in the organization 

incurring not more than de miuimis incremental expenses.'"' What does "ordinary course" mean? 

What is the organization's "regular and customary activities in carrying out its exempt purpose"? 

What is "de minimis" compared to the organization's total budget? What is "incremental"? 

These are all line-drawing questions that would fall on the IRS, which would have a mandate to 

enforce this new standard with liruited resources and with likely much more activity in this area, 

given the new permissible standard and political pressure to be involved. We would either see 

lack of enforcement, rendering the statutory liruitations meaningless, or we would see troubling 

75% agreeing that churches should steer clear of endorsements); Daniel Cox, Ph.D. and Rohert P. Jones, Ph.D. 

Majority of Americans Oppose Transgender Bathroom Restrictions, Puhlic Religion Research Institute (March 10, 

20 17), http://www .prri.orglresearch/lgbt-transgender-bathroom-discrimination-religious-liberty/ (finding 71% of 

Americans and all major religious groups in the county oppose allowing churches to endorse political candidates 

while retaining their tax -exempt status). 3 E.g .. National Association of Evangelicals, Pastors Shouldn't Endorse Politicians, Evangelical Leaders Survey 

(Fehruary 20 17), https://www. nae.netipastors-shouldnt-endorse-politicians/ (finding 89% of evangelical leaders 

oppose pastors endorsing candidates from the pulpit). 4 H.R. 781, !15th Cong.; S. 264, !15th Cong. 
100 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 26624.055

entanglement of the IRS in a church's affairs. Neither outcome would be an improvement on our 

current system. 

Jesus taught us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.5 Changing the 

law to encourage 501 ( c )(3) organizations to intervene in political campaigns could lead churches 

to render to Caesar in God's house. This approach does not bode well for religion or religious 

liberty. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Amanda Tyler 

Executive Director 

Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty 

Contact information: 

Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty 

200 Maryland Ave., N.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20002 

202-544-4226 

atyler@BJConline.org 

5 Matthew12:11. 
101 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 56 here 26624.056

April 4, 2017 

The Honorable Paul Ryan 

Speaker 

H-232 The Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi 

House Democratic Leader 

H-204 The Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Kevin Brady 

Chairman 

House Ways and Means Committee 

1102 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Richard Neal 

Ranking Member 

House Ways and Means Committee 

1139E Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

Senate Majority Leader 

S-230 The Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Chuck Schumer 

Senate Democratic Leader 

S-221 The Capitol 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Orrin Hatch 

Chairman 

Senate Committee on Finance 

219 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Ron Wyden 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Finance 

219 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McConnell, Leader Pelosi, Leader Schumer, Chairman 

Brady, Chairman Hatch, Ranking Member Neal, and Ranking Member Wyden: 

We, the 99 undersigned religious and denominational organizations strongly oppose any effort to 

weaken or eliminate protections that prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, including houses of 

worship, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Current law serves as a valuable 

safeguard for the integrity of our charitable sector1 and campaign finance system. 

Religious leaders often use their pulpits to address the moral and political issues of the day. They 

also can, in their personal capacities and without the resources of their houses of worship, 

endorse and oppose political candidates. Houses of worship can engage in public debate on any 

issue, host candidate forums, engage in voter registration drives, encourage people to vote, help 

transport people to the polls and even, with a few boundaries, lobby on specific legislation and 

invite candidates to speak. Tax-exempt houses of worship may not, however, endorse or oppose 

candidates or use their tax-exempt donations to contribute to candidates' campaigns. Current law 

simply limits groups from being both a tax-exempt ministry and a partisan political entitv. 

1 Some have suggested a desire to remove this safeguard only as it applies to houses of worship and to keep all other 

50 I ( c)(3) organizations at the status quo. This path, however, is constitutionally problematic under Texas Monthly v. 

Bullock, 489 U.S. l (1989). 

1 
102 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 57 here 26624.057

As religious organizations, we oppose any attempt to weaken the current protections offered by 

the 501(c)(3) campaign intervention prohibition because: 

People of faith do not want partisan political fights infiltrating their houses of worship. 

Houses of worship are spaces for members of religious communities to come together, not be 

divided along political lines; faith ought to be a source of connection and community, not 

division and discord. Indeed, the vast majority of Americans do not want houses of worship to 

issue political endorsements.2 Particularly in today's political climate, such endorsements would 

be highly divisive and would have a detrimental impact on civil discourse. 

Current law protects the integrity of houses of worship. If houses of worship endorse 

candidates, their prophetic voice, their ability to speak truth to power as political outsiders, is 

threatened. The credibility and integrity of congregations would suffer with bad decisions of 

candidates they endorsed. Tying America's houses of worship to partisan activity demeans the 

institutions from which so many believers expect unimpeachable decency. 

Current law protects the independence of houses of worship. Houses of worship often speak 

out on issues of justice and morality and do good works within the community but may also 

labor to adequately fund their ministries. Permitting electioneering in churches would give 

partisan groups incentive to use congregations as a conduit for political activity and 

expenditures. Changing the law would also make them vulnerable to individuals and 

corporations who could offer large donations or a politician promising social service contracts in 

exchange for taking a position on a candidate. Even proposals that would permit an 

"insubstantial" standard or allow limited electioneering only if it is in furtherance of an 

organization's mission would actually invite increased government intrusion, scrutiny, and 

oversight. 

The charitable sector, particularly houses of worship, should not become another cog in a 

political machine or another loophole in campaign finance laws. We strongly urge you to oppose 

any efforts to repeal or weaken protections in the law for 50l(c)(3) organizations, including 

houses of worship. 

Sincerely, 

African American Ministers in Action 

2 E.g., National Association of Evangelicals, Pastors Shouldn't Endorse Politicians, Evangelical Leaders Survey 

(February 2017}, https:llwww.nae.nevpastors-shouldnt-endorse-politkians/ (finding 89% of evangelical leaders 

oppose pastors endorsing candidates from the pulpit); Bob Smietana, Skip the Endorsements in Church, Say Most 

Americans, LIFEWAYRESEARCH (Sept. 8, 2016), http://lifewavresearch.com/2016i0910S/skip-the-endorsements-inchurch-say-most-americans/ (finding 79% of Americans believe it is inappropriate for a pastor to publicly endorse 

political candidates during a church service and 75% agreeing that churches should steer clear of endorsements); 

Daniel Cox, Ph.D. and Robert P. Jones, Ph.D. Majority of Americans Oppose Transgender Bathroom Restrictions, 

Public Religion Research Institute (March 10, 2017}, http:i/www.prri.oroiresearch/lgbt-transgender-bathroomdiscriminJ!.tion-rdigious-liberty; (finding 71% of Americans and all major religious groups in the county oppose 

allowing churches to endorse political candidates while retaining their tax-exempt status). 

2 
103 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 58 here 26624.058

Alabama Cooperative Baptist Fellowship 

Alliance of Baptists 

American Baptist Churches USA 

American Baptist Home Mission Societies 

American Friends Service Committee 

American Jewish Committee (AJC) 

Anti-Defamation League 

Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists 

B'nai B'rith International 

Baptist Fellowship Northeast 

Baptist General Association of Virginia 

Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty 

Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America- Bautistas porIa Paz 

Baptist Women in Ministry 

Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice 

California Council of Churches IMPACT 

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good 

Central Conference of American Rabbis 

Christian Life Commission 

Christian Methodist Episcopal (CME) Church 

Churchnet, a ministry of the Baptist General Convention of Missouri 

Colorado Council of Churches 

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship 

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Heartland 

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Kentucky 

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Arkansas 

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Florida 

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Georgia 

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Mississippi 

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of North Carolina 

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Oklahoma 

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Texas 

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Virginia 

Disciples Center for Public Witness 

Ecumenical Catholic Communion 

Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon 

The Episcopal Church 

Equal Partners in Faith 

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 

Evergreen Association of American Baptist Churches 

Faith Action Network- Washington State 

Faith in Public Life 

Faith Voices Arkansas 

3 
104 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 59 here 26624.059

Faithful America 

Florida Council of Churches 

Franciscan Action Network 

Friends Committee on National Legislation 

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America 

Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc. 

Hindu American Foundation 

Hispanic Baptist Convention of Texas 

Interfaith Alliance 

International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) 

Islamic Networks Group 

Islamic Society of North America 

Jewish Community Relations Council, Greater Boston 

Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington 

Jewish Council for Public Affairs 

The Jewish Federations ofNorth America 

Jewish Women International 

Kentucky Council of Churches 

Mid-Atlantic Cooperative Baptist Fellowship 

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd 

National Baptist Convention of America 

National Council of Churches 

National Council of Jewish Women 

National Sikh Campaign 

NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice 

New Baptist Covenant 

North Carolina Council of Churches 

Oklahoma Conference of Churches 

Pastors for Oklahoma Kids 

Pastors for Texas Children 

Pax Christi, Montgomery County, MD chapters 

Pennsylvania Council of Churches 

Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office of Public Witness 

Progressive National Baptist Convention 

Reconstructionist Rabbinical Assembly 

Religions for Peace USA 

Religious Institute 

Rhode Island State Council of Churches 

Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America 

South Carolina Christian Action Council 

South Dakota Faith in Public Life 

T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights 

Tennessee Cooperative Baptist Fellowship 

4 
105 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 60 here 26624.060

Texas Baptists Committed 

Texas Faith Network 

Texas Impact 

Union for Reform Judaism 

Unitarian Universalist Association 

Unitarian Universalist Service Committee 

Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice 

United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries 

The United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society 

Virginia Council of Churches 

Women of Reform Judaism 

Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER) 

Cc: All Members of Congress 

5 
106 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 61 here 26624.061

AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 

Written Statement of 

Maggie Garrett 

legislative Director, 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State 

Submitted to the 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

for the Hearing Record on 

"Examining a Church's Right to Free Speech" 

May4,2017 
107 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 62 here 26624.062

On behalf of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, thank you for the 

opportunity to submit this statement for the record of the hearing titled "Examining a Church's 

Right to Free Speech." Founded in 1947, Americans United is a nonpartisan advocacy and 

educational organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state 

separation, which is the foundation of true religious freedom for all Americans. We fight to 

protect the right of individuals and religious communities to practice religion-or not-as they 

see fit without government interference, compulsion, support, or disparagement. We have 

more than 120,000 members and supporters across the country. 

This hearing will address the Johnson Amendment, which is a provision in the tax code that 

protects the integrity of tax-exempt organizations, including houses of worship, by ensuring 

they do not endorse or oppose political candidates. This law, which has been in place for six 

decades, provides a valuable safeguard that prevents political parties and candidates seeking 

power from using houses of worship as their tool. At the same time, faith leaders and houses of 

worship have the ability to fully engage in free speech activities. 

Churches and Other Houses of Worship Currently Have Robust Free Speech Rights that Allow 

Them to Engage on Political Issues. 

Churches have strong speech rights that allow them to use their prophetic voice to speak truth 

to power and fulfill their call to act for social justice. Houses of worship, denominational 

organizations, and faith leaders have always been active participants in the American political 

process. Passage of the Johnson Amendment six decades ago did not change that. 

Under current law, tax-exempt houses of worship and the faith leaders who represent them 

can speak to any issue they choose, no social and political issue of the day is off limit. Pastors 

can speak out on political issues from the pulpit or in Bible study. They can write about issues in 

bulletins, in newsletters, or on a website. And, with a few boundaries that apply equally to all 

nonprofits, houses of worship can lobby on specific legislation. When it comes to elections, they 

can host candidate forums, hold voter registration drives, encourage people to vote, and help 

transport people to the polls. 

The only limit: they cannot endorse or oppose candidates or political parties. 

Under the Johnson Amendment, for example: 

A priest can address his congregation from the pulpit about his views on whether samesex couples should be permitted to marry; 

A pastor can speak or write to a Member of Congress, expressing her church's 

opposition or support for a particular bill being considered; 

A church can add a page to its website that addresses its position on the country's 

immigration or abortion laws; 

A synagogue can march as a congregation at the March for life or the Women's March 

on Washington; and 

2 
108 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 63 here 26624.063

A rabbi can testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee 

about his position on the Johnson Amendment. 

In addition, faith leaders can endorse candidates in their personal capacity or run for office 

themselves. For example, South Carolina pastor Mark Burns, 1 Texas-based pastor and 

televangelist Mike Murdock, 2 Dallas mega-church pastor Robert Jeffress,3 and Florida pastor 

Paula White4 all endorsed, and in some instances, campaigned for Donald Trump in the last 

election. Because these religious leaders endorsed and supported Trump in their personal 

capacity, rather than as pastors of their churches, they did not violate the Johnson Amendment 

in any way. And of course, there is no bar on faith leaders running for and serving in public 

office. Representative Jody Hice (R-GA), who serves on this Committee, is just one example. 

Given all the ways in which houses of worship and their leaders can engage in politics and even 

in elections, it is clear that churches and church leaders already have robust free speech rights. 

The Johnson Amendment Protects the Integrity and Independence of Houses of Worship. 

The Johnson Amendment ensures that sanctuaries remain sacred and that houses of worship 

focus on fostering community and performing good works. Allowing churches and non profits to 

endorse and oppose political candidates, in contrast, would transform houses of worship into a 

tool for political parties and candidates, and split communities and congregations. 

Houses of worship are spaces for members of religious communities to come together, not be 

divided along political lines. Indeed, they ought to be a source of connection and community, 

not division and discord. Permitting electioneering in churches would give partisan groups 

incentive to use congregations as a conduit for campaign activity and expenditures. 

Furthermore, changing the law would make houses of worship vulnerable to individuals and 

corporations who could offer large donations or to a politician promising social service 

contracts in exchange for taking a position on a candidate. 

Repeal or Weakening of the Johnson Amendment Would Dismantle the 50l(c)(3) Non-Profit 

Structure As We Know lt. 

The rules in section 50l(c)(3) of the tax code that restrict tax-exempt organizations from 

endorsing or opposing candidates apply equally to houses of worship and secular organizations. 

Tax exempt charities are granted tax-free status because they serve the community and 

perform work for the common good-they are not granted this status so they can endorse 

candidates. 

1 Candace Smith, fi:1~~Ltf?£f!g.Jtors WlJg"?IJJJJJOrt [)QnaJd1£UitJR, ABC News (Apr. 14, 2016). 2 Kevin Cirilli, Prominent Televangelist Says He Will Endorse Donald Trump, Bloomberg (Feb" 14, 2016)" 3 Pastor Robert Jeffress Explains His Support far Trump, NPR's All Things Considered, (OcL 16, 2016)"" 4 Katie Glueck, Donald Trump's God Whisp~<!?I. Politico (July 11, 2016)" 

3 
109 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 64 here 26624.064

Under the religious freedom protections provided by the First Amendment of the U.S. 

Constitution, Congress cannot treat houses of worship more favorably than secular 

organizations.5 Any changes made by Congress to the current law, therefore, would have to 

apply to both religious and secular organizations. As a result, any changes Congress makes 

would affect all of the estimated l.S million organizations-both religious and secularcurrently registered as 501(c){3) organizations.6 Changing the law would have a massive impact 

on charitable organizations across the country. 

Repealing or weakening the Johnson Amendment would dismantle the 501(c){3) non-profit 

structure as we know it. Habitat for Humanity, the YWCA, Feeding America, the Arc, and 

thousands of other community organizations would suddenly be under pressure to endorse and 

oppose political candidates. In addition, the reputation of S01(c){3) organizations would be 

tarnished-donors will no longer see these organizations as reputable organizations that 

perform charitable work for the common good, but instead see them as partisan tools used by 

political campaigns and candidates. 

Campaign operatives could also anonymously funnel unlimited campaign funds through houses 

of worship and other tax-exempt organizations, essentially transforming charitable 

organizations into political action committees (PACs). This could also result in decreasing the 

amount of time and resources the organizations can dedicate to good works 

Moreover, changing current law would invite many organizations to pop up to serve solely as a 

mechanism to funnel money to political candidates. 

Reserving Tax-Exempt Status to Organizations that Do Not Endorse or Oppose Candidates 

Does Not Violate Free Speech Rights. 

Because the government can choose what it will and will not subsidize, it can, consistent with 

the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, limit S01(c){3) tax-exempt status to 

organizations that refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates. And, as explained above, 

Congress has compelling reasons to maintain this limitation. 

Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code provides preferential tax treatment to organizations that 

perform charitable work and serve the common good: these organizations may operate taxfree and individuals may deduct from their taxes any donation to such an organization. In 

return for this preferential tax treatment, organizations may "not participate in, or intervene in 

(including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or 

in opposition to) any candidate for public office."7 

'See Texas Monthly v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 11 (1989) {finding that benefits conferred only to religious organizations 

would constitute state sponsorship of religion and would lack a secular purpose necessary to be constitutional 

under the Establishment Clause). 6 HJLv.t_MQrrtJI/()J1I!rofit Orqanizatioi)?JYeJhere irJ.Jhe U.SJ:, Grantspace (last visited May 3, 2017). 7 26 u.s.c. § 501. 

4 
110 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 65 here 26624.065

In Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, 8 the Supreme Court, in a ruling 

written by Justice Rehnquist, rejected arguments that the lobbying limits imposed on 501(c)(3) 

tax-exempt organizations violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Court 

explained that "both tax exemptions and tax deductibility [under Section S01(c)(3)] are a form 

of subsidy"9 and that the government has the authority to determine what activities it does and 

does not subsidize. Thus, "Congress is not required by the First Amendment to subsidize 

lobbying."10 In short, the Court, rejected "the 'notion that First Amendment rights are somehow 

not fully realized unless they are subsidized by the State.'"11 

Indeed, the Court noted that tax-exempt organizations that wish to lobby in a substantial 

manner can still do so, they just have to incorporate a separate 501(c)(4) organization. 

Although not tax exempt, 501(c)(4)s are not restricted by limits on lobby expenditures. 12 

Relying on this Supreme Court precedent, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

in Branch Ministries v. RossoW, 13 upheld the Johnson Amendment against claims that it violates 

the Free Speech Clause. In the same way that the government may choose not to subsidize 

certain lobbying activities, it may also choose not to subsidize partisan campaign 

endorsements. Thus, the court held that Congress may limit 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status to 

organizations that do not endorse or oppose candidates. 

Some claim that Citizens United v. FEC, 14 undermines the rulings in Taxation With 

Representation and Branch Ministries. But Citizens United is easily distinguishable. In Citizens 

United, the Court struck down a campaign finance law banning corporations from making 

independent expenditures in support of candidates, even though corporations could purchase 

political ads by forming a PAC. 15 Citizens United, however, was not a tax-exempt organization 

and, thus, was not receiving a tax subsidy like the organizations in Taxation With 

Representation and Branch Ministries. 16 The rationale in those cases-that the government can 

limit the speech it subsidizes-therefore, did not apply. 

8 461 u.s. 540 (1983). 9 /d. at 544. Subsequently, numerous courts have reiterated this understanding of preferential tax treatment as 

subsidy. See, e.g., Branch Ministries v. RossoW, 211 F.3d 137, 144-45 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Dep't of Texas, Veterans of 

Foreign Wars of U.S. v. Texas Lottery Comm'n, 727 F.3d 415,424 (5th Cir. 2013), on reh'g en bane, 760 F.3d 427 

(5th Cir. 2014). 10 Taxation With Representation, 461 U.S. at 540. 11 /d. at 546 (internal citation omitted); see also Cammarano v. United States, 358 U.S. 498, 513 (denial of tax 

deduction did not violate speech rights because business owners were "simply being required to pay for [lobbying] 

activities entirely out of their own pockets"). 12 Social ~~/fare Qrgg.ni!EJions, Internal Revenue Service (last visited May 3, 2017). 13 Branch Ministries, 211 F.3d at 142. 14 558 u.s. 310 (2010). 15 /d. at 337. 16 See Dep't of Texas, Veterans of Foreign Wars of U.S., 727 F.3d at 424 (overthe course of two rehearings, the 

Fifth Circuit thrice reiterated that Taxation With Representation's subsidy doctrine had not been supplanted by 

Citizens United); Parks v. C.I.R., No. 7043-07,2015 WL 7280916, (T.C. Nov.17, 2015) (distinguishing the conditions 

on the subsidies at issue in Parks and Taxation With Representation from the criminal ban on political speech at 

issue in Citizens United). 

5 
111 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 66 here 26624.066

The Johnson Amendment, which insulates the taxpayer from having to fund political 

endorsements of non-profit organizations, does not violate the Free Speech Clause. 

The Pushback Against the Johnson Amendment Has Come from a Handful of Organizations 

Seeking Political Power. 

President Donald Trump recently pushed the Johnson Amendment into the spotlight by vowing 

to "get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment." 17 He has falsely boasted that 

repealing the current law "will be [his] greatest contribution to Christianity," because with the 

Johnson Amendment, Christians "don't have any religious freedom, if you think about it.''18 And 

it has been reported that he is likely to sign an executive order today that would limit the ability 

of the Internal Revenue Service to enforce it.19 

It is noteworthy, however, that not a single major denomination has come out in favor of 

repealing or weakening current law. Instead, 99 religious and denominational organizations 

recently penned a letter urging Congress to reject efforts to repeal or weaken the law.20 In 

addition, 4,500 tax-exempt organizations joined a letter urging the same.21 

Recent polls show the American public supports the Johnson Amendment too. For example, a 

March 2017 Independent Sector poll shows 72% of Americans support the Johnson 

Amendment, including 66% of Trump voters, 78% of Clinton voters, and 77% of independent 

voters. 22 

Similarly, a March 2017 PRRI poll found that 71% of Americans-including 62% of Republicans 

and 56% of white evangelical Christians-oppose allowing churches and places of worship to 

endorse political candidates while retaining their tax-exempt status. 23 And a February 2017 

survey conducted by the National Association of Evangelicals confirmed that 90% of evangelical 

leaders do not support political endorsements from the pulpit. 24 1ndeed, all major religious 

groups in the country support the Johnson Amendment. 25 

17 Julie Zauzmer, Trump Sai(jjleJL'Jgtafly Destroy~~ tfce Johnson Amendment. What Is It and Why Should PeQp/f! 

Care?Wash. Post (Feb~ 2, 2019). 18 /d.~~ 

19 E.g., louise Radnofsky and lan Lovett, [rump to Ease Re~WcriQns on Religious Groups, Wall Street Journal (May 

3, 2017); Michael Shear, laurie Goodstein, and Maggie Haberman, Trump Is Expected to Relax Tax R[JI~sgJ} 

Churches Taking Part in_j'olitics, N.Y. Times (May 3, 2017). 

'

0 l~etter to Congress from 9~~£<llth Organizations (April4, 2017). 

"lettert~QnggsuCQ._!114500 Nonprofit Orl@l1izilti.OD2 (Apr. 5, 2017). 

"f'oH: Atrl_qig>:ns Support the Johnson Amendment, Independent Sector (Mar. 30, 2017). 23 Daniel Cox and Robert Jones, Majoritygj!J,trl_efican2Qeeose Transqender Bathroom~R_e~tricQons, PRRI (Mar.10, 

2017) (PRRI poll). 24 Pastors Shouldn't Endorse Politicians, National Association of Evangelicals (Feb. 2017). 25 PRRI poll. 

6 
112 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 67 here 26624.067

Furthermore, the IRS has not investigated a single house of worship for a Johnson Amendment 

violation since 2009, making claims that the law is an imminent threat to the free speech of 

houses of worship even less credible. 

The Free Speech Fairness Act (S. 264/ H.R. 781) Threatens the Independence and Integrity of 

501(c)(3) Organizations. 

In January 2017, Representatives Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Jody Hice (R-GA) and Senator James 

Lankford (R-OK) introduced the "Free Speech Fairness Act." The bill does not fully repeal 

current law, but significantly undermines it. 

The Bill Would Allow Vast Amounts of Endorsement Activity 

The bill would allow tax-exempt organizations-both houses of worship and secular 

nonprofits-to make statements endorsing or opposing candidates for public office so long as 

those statements are made in the "ordinary course" of carrying out their tax-exempt purpose 

and do not incur more than "de minimis incremental expenses." 

Upon first glance, this appears like a narrow exemption to current law, but it would actually 

significantly gut current protections. In fact, a house of worship could endorse a candidate in 

any activity it carries out or materials it shares as long as there is ostensibly another purpose for 

engaging in those activities or creating those materials. 

Permissible activities would include: 

While preaching to his congregation, a pastor could endorse a presidential candidate. 

The church could then post a video of that sermon on its website, email it to 

parishioners, and distribute it publicly on social media. 

A church could include a written endorsement of a candidate in every church bulletin, 

email, or newsletter, on its website, and in every other correspondence or document it 

plans to create or distribute. 

• The president of major university could use its weekly newsletter to email current 

students and a massive alumni network to endorse a candidate. 

A rabbi could endorse a candidate during the welcoming message provided to those 

attending a community service event. 

All of these activities could easily take place in the "ordinary course" of carrying out their taxexempt purpose and likely would not incur more than "de minimis incremental expenses"; yet 

they could provide an invaluable benefit to a candidate. In addition, even with the stated limits 

in the bill, endorsements could invade every activity, written document, correspondence, and 

event held by the house of worship, ultimately dominating the house of worship's activities. 

The Bill Would Open the Church to Greater-Not Less-IRS scrutiny 

Opponents of the Johnson Amendment claim the current restriction on candidate 

endorsements is vague and open to IRS interpretation (even though the restriction is actually 

7 
113 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 68 here 26624.068

quite unambiguous). This alternative proposal, however, creates even more ambiguity and 

invites an even greater likelihood of IRS investigations and entanglement with the church. To 

determine whether houses of worship are complying with the law, the IRS will have to 

determine both whether an endorsement occurred during the "ordinary course" of carrying out 

their tax-exempt purpose and whether it amounted to a "de minimis incremental expenses." 

Churches would have to open their books to the IRS. And the IRS will be forced to make 

judgments about the churches' activities. Inviting that type of scrutiny of church documents, 

this bill actually threatens, rather than upholds, the autonomy and independence of houses of 

worship. 26 

For example, to determine whether the church only made de minimus expenses, the IRS would 

have to inquire into how much time and money was spent on each endorsement, as well as 

look into the churches overall expenses. Then it would have to make a determination of 

whether that cost was de minimus. 

The IRS would also have to make judgments as to what the organization's tax-exempt purpose 

was and whether each activity performed by the church fell in line with that purpose. 

Conclusion 

In addition to being a place to worship, pray, and praise for their congregations, churches 

provide a space for community, engagement, and interaction on issues important to many in 

the community. Opening up houses of worship to political endorsements would be detrimental 

to their ability to operate outside of the political fray and would run counter to the wishes of 

congregants. In addition, repealing or weakening the Johnson Amendment would dismantle the 

non-profit structure as we know it. 

25 See Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and Schoof v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012). 

8 
114 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 69 here 26624.069

8/15/2017 

PRESS RELEASE 

For Immediate Release 

Contact: Paul Fidalgo 

Phone: (207) 358-9785 

Trump's Religious Privilege Order a Cymca! Pander to Evangelical Base I Center for Inquiry 

E-mail: press@centerforinquirv.net 

Trump's Religious Privilege Order a Cynical Pander to 

Evangelical Base 

May 04,2017 

The Center for Inquiry denounced President Trump's executive order easing the restrictions on politicking by 

tax exempt religious institutions, decrying the order as a cynical pander to the religious right. The order was 

signed on the National Day of Prayer, itself an unconstitutional endorsement of religious belief. 

The executive order is intended to weaken the strictures of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits tax 

exempt organizations, such as houses of worship and advocacy organizations like CFI, from using their 

privileges to endorse, oppose, or campaign for or against candidates for public office in their official 

capacities. 

"This order is more troubling for what it represents than what it actually accomplishes," said Michael De Dora, 

director of government affairs for the Center for Inquiry. "Despite the president's daims today, religious 

leaders are already free to speak openly, and religious groups spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year 

lobbying, on all political issues. To maintain their institutions' tax exempt status, they are barred from 

partisan electioneering, a rule that is already woefully under-enforced." 

"Instead of bone-throwing to the fringes of the religious right, President Trump should listen to the vast 

majority of the American people - including the majority of clergy - who oppose politicking from the pulpit 

and support the Johnson Amendment," said De Dora. 

"While this executive order won't accomplish much In practical terms, it sends a signal that Trump is looking 

to reward his conservative evangelical base. But this political payback is divisive and dangerous, blurring the 

line between church leadership and political operatives." 

The new order also purports to "provide regulatory relief" to those who hold religious objections, such as to 

the contraceptive coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act, ln line with the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court 

decision. Trump's willingness to sacrifice access to contraceptive care in employer-sponsored health insurance 

is another gift to his conservative evangelical base, at the expense of women's rights and health. 

"America has largely avoided the religious conflict and strife that afflict other parts of the world by keeping 

rellgion and government separate," said De Dora. "President Trump doesn't seem to know or care about this 

founding principle." 

### 

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) is a nonprofit educational, advocacy, and research organization headquartered in 

Amherst, New York, with executive offices in Washington, D.C. It is also home to the Richard Dawkins 

Foundation for Reason & Science, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and the Council for Secular Humanism. 

The mission of CFI is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist 

values. Visit CFI on the web at www.centerforinquiry.net. 

http://wwwcenterforinquiry.neVnewsroom/trumps_re!igious_privilege_order/ 111 
115 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 70 here 26624.070

Campaign for Liberty Supports Ending IRS Censorship 

C[,: campaignforliberty.org 

As Dr. Paul points out in his column this week, we have seen an increase in efforts to use government power to 

silence groups like Campaign for Liberty that organize opposition to big government 

This is not a new phenomenon, as the assaults on the First Amendment go back to the early days of the Republic 

and the Alien and Sedition Act 

A more recent example Is the Johnson Amendment. Named after then-Senator Lyndon Johnson, this amendment 

prohibits any 501 (C)(3) organization, such as a Church, from engaging in any activity that may directly or indirectly 

be interpreted as "participating in a campaign". The ban includes handing out literature regarding a candidate's 

positions. 

Campaign for Liberty has joined an effort to overturn the Johnson Administration by supporting the the Free Speech 

Fairness Act of 2016 (H.R. 6195), legislation introduced by House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and Representative 

Jody Hice (GA-10), that overturns the Johnson amendment. 

While Congress has adjourned for the year, hopefully the bill will be reintroduced and will pass in the next Congress, 

Some will say that the solution is for charitable activities to refuse to accept tax-exempt status. The problem with that 

is that doing so means their donors cannot legally deduct their donations. This could place those groups at a 

"competitive disadvantage" wlth organizations that do operate as 501(C)(3)s, 

In any case, all those who value freedom should agree that charitable and religious organizations shouldn~ be 

forced to choose between tax-exempt status and their First Amendment rights, 

Here is the letter in support of the Free Speech Fairness Act: 

October 24, 2016 

The Honorable Paul Ryan 

Speaker of the House 

H-232. The Capitol 

Washington DC 20515 

The Honorable Kevin McCarthy 

Majority Leader 

H-329. The Capitol 

Washington DC 20515 

Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader McCarthy: 

We, the undersigned, representing hundreds of thousands of Americans, want to thank yw for your 

commtiment to presemi>g the rights secured in the First Amendmen! of the Constitutkm. specifically 

the rights to freedom of religion and speech Unfortunately, since its passage, the Johnson 

Ameodment has effectively squelched bot.'> of those rights in the context of activities that could be 

construed by the IRS as on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office, That is why we 

support the Free Speec/1 Fairness Act of2016 (HR 6195, "FatrnessAc(}. introduced by Whip Steve 

Scalise (R-La.) and Representative Jody Hice (R-Ga.) to protect the speech and religious freedom 

rights of 501(c)(3) organizations and their leaders We encourage you to prioritize hearings and votes 

on this impottant bill. 

1/4 
116 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 71 here 26624.071

Under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code. tax exempt organizations. including churches, may not 

engage m any activity that might be interpreted as directly or indirectly participating in a campaign on 

behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office. including handing out literature. The 

.Johnson amendment changed the tax code in 1954 without any debate. and is still restricting the free 

speech of churches. religious institutions. and other tax exempt organizations today 

Not only is it unconstitutional, but the Johnson Amendment has been inconsistently enforced by the 

IRS caush1g many non-profits confusion over how and when they may speai< about political issues 

and candidates. In fact. on numerous occasions. the I.CI$ has initiated investigations of tax exempt 

organizations without imposing penalties, o;- has imposed penalties only to later reimburse the fines. 

These inconsistencies have had the effect ot' signirlcantly chilling the freedom to believe and speak 

that is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution 

For the last decade, many churches have participate.::! in Pulpit Freedom Sunday and have spoken 

from the pulpit on political matters. They in turn hove sent theh· sermons to the IRS to elicit a 

respons.s and a court challenge of the Johnson Amenciment. The IRS nas not in~-estigated these 

churches bui its guidance has not changed and chutches ara left in limbo. 

In addition. every year, organizations hostile to religious liberty t!Jreaten churcl7es with letters 

promising to report them to the IRS. which has also contributed to t.he stifling of speech undar the 

Johnson Amendment. 

In ordar for the frea speech rig.hts of pastors and 501 (c)(3) leaders to be restored. the Fairness Act 

provides for limited political activity that 1} is made in the ordinary course of the 501 (c}(3) 

organization's regular and customary activities, so long as those activities carry out the organization's 

tax exempt owpose. and 2} does not incur more than de minimis incremental costs. 

Thus. this Jegisiatioo provides far speech without allowing tax exempt otganizations to purchase 

political ads for or against a candidate for public office. Passage of tile Fairness Act is necessary to 

restore the free speech and freedom of religion rights of America ·s pastors ancf churches and to 

ramove the role of the IRS in cl1i/ling free speech. 

We urge you to support the Fairness Act. 

Sincerely 

Tony Perkins 

President 

Family Researc!? Council 

Gary L Bauer 

Preside•>! 

American Vslues 

Erik Stanf.9y 

Senior Counsel 

Alliance Defending Freedom 

Jl·lat Staver; Esq. 

Founder and Chairman 

Uberty Counsel 

Jonat!Jan Alexandre, JD. 

Director of Public Policy 

Uberty Counsel Action 

Dan Weber 

President and Founder 

The Association of J'viature American Citizans 

2/4 
117 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 72 here 26624.072

Michael J Bowen 

CEO 

Coalttwn For a Strong America 

Willes K. Lee 

President 

National Federation of Republican Assemblies 

Melissa Ortiz 

Founder & Principal Able Amencans 

Lisa B. Nelson 

CEO 

American Legislative Exchange Council 

Jerry A. Johnson Pll D. Pres1dent and CEO National Religious Broadcasters 

Tom McClusky 

Vice President 

March for Life Action 

Penny Young Nance 

CEO and President 

Concerned Women for Amenca 

Valerie Huber 

President/CEO 

Ascend 

Jamison Coppola 

Legislative Director 

American Association of Christian Schools 

Susan Cerleson 

CIJairmen/CEO 

American Civil Rights Union 

Bill Welton 

Chairman 

Center for National Policy Action, Inc. 

Norm Singleton 

President 

Campaign for Liberty 

Linwood Bragan 

Executive Director 

CapStand Council for Policy & Ethics 

Lewis K. Uhler 

National Tax Limitation Committee 

3 

William J. Murray 

Chairman 

Religious Freedom Coalition 

Dee Hodges 

President 

Maryland Taxpayers Association 

Ronald D. Rotunda The Day & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguis/Jed Professor of Jurisprudence 

Chapman University 

C. Preston Noell/// 

President 

Tradition, Family, Property. Inc 

3/4 
118 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 73 here 26624.073

Attorney David Gibbs. Ill 

President 

National Center for Life and Uberty 

Sir Knight Alex-St. James 

Executive Director 

BEST Trust Fund. a One Dey in America project. 

David Stevens, MD, MA (Ethics) 

CEO 

Christian Medical Association 

J. Michael Smith, Esq. 

President 

Home School Legal Defense Association 

Joe Ortwerth 

ExecutiVe Director 

Missouri Family Policy Council 

Kent Ostrander 

Executive Director 

The Family Foundation (KY) 

Julaine K. Appling 

President 

Wisconsin Family Action 

Karen Bowling 

Executive Director 

Nebraska Family Alliance 

Phil Burress 

President 

Citizens for Community Values 

Curt Smith 

President 

Indiana Family Institute 

Len Deo 

Founder & President 

New Jersey Family Policy Council 

Jim lvlinnery 

President 

Alaska Family Action 

Rev. Jason J. McGuire 

Exewtive Director 

New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms 

Tags: Congress, Free Speech 

4/4