Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

By Benjamin Leff

Mr. Leff is a law professor at American University who specializes in federal tax law and the law of charitable and nonprofit organizations.

Last month the Internal Revenue Service did something remarkable: It proposed allowing houses of worship to engage in political speech and even endorse candidates without jeopardizing their ability to accept tax-deductible contributions.

This proposal — which comes in the wake of years of advocacy by conservative Christian activists — constitutes a major reinterpretation of the so-called Johnson Amendment, the rule that since 1954 has prevented charities, including churches, from endorsing candidates. To its critics, the proposal threatens to transform houses of worship into political action committees, enabling donors to influence elections by funneling tax-deductible money through them.

But the core of the I.R.S.’s proposal is correct, and you don’t need to be a conservative evangelical to think so. It’s a central liberal principle that government should not restrict political speech. The I.R.S. can and should revise the Johnson Amendment to protect the speech rights of charities without creating a campaign finance loophole.

Granted, striking that balance is tricky. On the one hand, it seems obvious that the First Amendment should prohibit the government from telling rabbis, for example, what they can and can’t say to their congregants during a synagogue service. On the other hand, the government shouldn’t force taxpayers to subsidize political speech they may not agree with — which, in effect, is what allowing tax-deductible contributions to fund political campaigning would do.

The solution, I believe, is to permit........

© The New York Times