Minnesota faith and nonprofit leaders fear IRS change could inject politics into churches, charities

For nearly 70 years, a little-known tax code provision has served as a firewall between U.S. politics and its nonprofit sector.

Now, Minnesota nonprofit leaders say that wall is showing cracks — and if it falls, public trust could collapse with it.

At issue is the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law named for then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson that bars tax-exempt charities, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. The law has long been a source of tension for some religious conservatives, but a proposed legal settlement between the IRS and two Texas churches is pushing it into new territory — potentially rendering the provision effectively moot.

The settlement, which is awaiting court approval, would resolve a yearslong standoff in which the churches openly endorsed candidates from the pulpit and dared the IRS to intervene. If approved, it could signal that the agency will no longer enforce the Johnson Amendment — even though it technically remains law.

Minnesota faith and nonprofit leaders say the consequences could be far-reaching.

“It would mean a loss in trust of nonprofits,” said Marie Ellis, public policy director for the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits. “When people donate [to a nonprofit], they do so because they believe in the mission. If the Johnson Amendment were repealed or weakened, people wouldn’t have that same assurance. They’d have to worry about whether their dollars are going to candidates or political parties they may not agree with.”

Minnesota is home to more than 9,000 nonprofits, many of them providing critical services like food access, housing, health care and immigrant support. Many nonprofit leaders said they fear that injecting partisan politics into those operations could erode bipartisan collaboration and make essential services vulnerable to retaliation based on political alignment.

In Minnesota, where trust in nonprofits has remained relatively strong despite scandals like the Feeding Our Future fraud case, some fear this moment could mark a turning point.

“Feeding Our Future did the whole sector an immense disservice,” Ellis said. “It cast the whole sector in a more negative light. Adding repeal of the Johnson Amendment on top of that — it would break my heart. I think it really would erode more of that trust.”

Critics of the Johnson Amendment, including the plaintiffs in the Texas case, argue that it infringes on free speech. But Ellis called that claim “asinine.”

“It prohibits organizations, not individuals, that receive tax benefits from endorsing or opposing candidates — and that’s it,” she said. “Staff and faith leaders can say what they want as individuals. And if an organization wants to endorse, it can reorganize under a different tax status.”

The proposed settlement could create a murky gray area — technically leaving the law intact, but functionally encouraging selective enforcement. That risks turning nonprofits into vehicles for undisclosed political contributions, Ellis said.

Scheibel, who teaches courses on civic engagement at Hamline University in St. Paul, said the system isn’t perfect — but it works.

“People ask me all the time: ‘What should I do, with everything going on in the world?’ I tell them: Get involved with a good nonprofit,” he said. “People trust those organizations because they’re mission-driven. That’s what gives them clout.”

He pointed to AARP’s credibility on Capitol Hill, built on decades of nonpartisan work. “If AARP started endorsing, we’d lose some of that support — and that clout is essential when we’re fighting to protect Social Security or Medicare,” he said.

Faith leaders echoed similar concerns. At the Minnesota Council of Churches, which represents 26 Christian denominations across the state, CEO Suzanne Kelly said the organization supports keeping the Johnson Amendment in place — not just for legal reasons, but theological ones.

“For us, it’s really a fundamental religious point,” she said. “Our primary commitment is to Christ. When you start prioritizing political affiliations over that commitment, you risk diluting your mission and purpose.”

For her, the danger is not just about legality, but about spiritual integrity.

“There is a temptation to become just another political voice,” she said. “But if we get so motivated by politics, we can diminish our moral authority. The church becomes just another player in a partisan game — and people lose that safe space.”

She drew a distinction between prophetic action and partisan alignment, referencing the civil rights movement as a moral — and deeply religious — call to action, even as it resulted in political change.

“That movement didn’t start because of a candidate. It started because of a moral imperative,” she said. “If we stay focused on the values that drive us, we can still have a huge civic impact without compromising who we are.”

Still, Kelly said, she’s watched with concern as some churches nationally move toward Christian nationalism, endorsing candidates from the pulpit and encouraging political litmus tests in worship spaces.

For many in Minnesota’s nonprofit world, the issue comes down to one word: trust.