Johnson Amendment restricts non-profits from endorsing candidates

1. 72

   Kathleen Cochranposted 3 weeks ago

   First Reagan did away with the Fairness Doctrine and now we have flavors of news.
   Now Trump wants to do away with the Johnson Amendment so churches and non-profits can endorse candidates. Will it even make a difference? For the last 50 years many churches rated your piety by who you voted for in the last election.
   
   https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/us/j … =url-share
   
   Will anybody even notice?

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      I noticed... I did not read the article; I am just offering my view.
      
      You bring up two significant policy shifts that highlight how the boundaries between media, religion, and politics have evolved over time. The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 during Reagan’s administration ended the requirement that broadcasters present contrasting views on controversial issues. Many credit this with the rise of more ideologically focused media outlets. Some see that as harmful to balanced public discourse, while others view it as a necessary expansion of free speech in media.
      
      As for the Johnson Amendment, which has been targeted by Trump and others for repeal, it applies not just to churches but to all 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organizations. That includes public charities, educational institutions, hospitals, foundations, and cultural organizations like museums and symphonies. Under current law, these organizations are prohibited from directly endorsing or opposing political candidates.
      
      Supporters of repealing the amendment argue that it restricts free speech and religious liberty, particularly for pastors and religious leaders. Opponents warn that lifting the restriction could politicize charitable organizations, blur the lines between nonprofits and political campaigns, and raise concerns about tax-deductible donations being used for partisan purposes.
      
      Whether repeal would significantly change things is debatable. As you noted, some churches and nonprofits already signal political leanings in informal ways. But formal endorsements and political campaigning from tax-exempt groups could shift the landscape in ways that go beyond what's currently accepted, potentially affecting public trust and nonprofit neutrality.
      
      Interesting thread—food for thought.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Kathleen Cochranposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

         I have a hub about the Fairness Doctrine and how I've wrestled with its removal as a journalist. I've gone back and forth, but my ultimate conclusion is that removing it put a loaded gun into the hands of a three-year-old. We just weren't responsible enough to have that intellectual guard rail removed.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            Thanks for sharing that, Kathleen. I appreciate your insight as an author; it adds a personal layer to the conversation. I can absolutely see where you're coming from with the "loaded gun" analogy. It does feel like once that guardrail was gone, media outlets became more about confirmation than conversation. That said, I still wrestle with where the line should be drawn between protecting open discourse and maintaining responsibility. It's tough, because while the Fairness Doctrine may have encouraged balance, it also raised questions about who gets to define what's "fair" and who enforces it. Still, your point about us not being ready for its removal really hits. Maybe the issue isn't free speech itself, but how we, as a society, have handled it since.
            
            I actually lean toward your view on this, Kathleen. I’d really like to read your hub, would you mind sharing the title? I’ve read quite a few of your poems since I’m naturally drawn to poetry, and I especially enjoyed the ones that touch on nature. It really resonates with me. One of the things I try to include in my daily gratitude list is something I noticed about nature that day; it helps keep me grounded and connected.

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Kathleen Cochranposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

               Not sure this is allowed - but - https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/ … emember-It

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I really appreciated this perspective. The line "Too many people don’t... They not only don’t want to hear another point of view, they want anyone who doesn’t see things the way they do to be silenced, sequestered, or shot" really hit home. It’s a bold but honest way of pointing out how far we've strayed from civil discourse. I also liked the comparison to Castor oil—"It’s good for you whether you like it or not. In fact, the more you don’t like it, the better it probably is for you." That perfectly captures the discomfort and value in hearing viewpoints that challenge our own. We need more reminders like this to stay open-minded, even when it’s uncomfortable. The article was chock-full of food for thought, and I genuinely enjoyed it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 72

                     Kathleen Cochranposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                     Thanks for the read.

                     replyreport
                     1. 85

                        Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                        I’ve read many of your poems and articles, and I also try to read some of the other users' hubs, I converse with them here. I think it’s a great way to get a more well-rounded sense of the person I’m conversing with. A chat alone doesn’t always reveal the full picture. I’m often pleasantly surprised by what I discover in people’s writing; it adds depth to their character, beyond just politics.

                        replyreport
         2. 73

            Ken Burgessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            I would counter that with it gives communities (church - Temple - etc.) the ability to be more represented.
            
            Which might not be a bad thing, considering businesses have been able to do just that for a while now... and businesses are far less likely to have the interests of your average American citizen in mind when they are selecting the politicians they are backing.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Credence2posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

               The difference is that businesses are not allowed the privilege of being tax exempt.

               replyreport
2. 72

   Kathleen Cochranposted 3 weeks ago

   "I would counter that with it gives communities (church - Temple - etc.) the ability to be more represented."
   
   They enjoy tax-exempt benefits for respecting the separation of church and state our country was founded on.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      I can only agree.

      replyreport
   2. 73

      Ken Burgessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      That is a modern day version of what was intended.
      
      But whatever...if you think corporations are more trustworthy than the community church you go right ahead and keep believing that.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Kathleen Cochranposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         I'll thank you not to make assumptions about what I do or do not believe.

         replyreport