Rep. Hice Introduces Bill to Repeal Johnson Amendment
Rep. Jody Hice (R, GA-10) sent out a press release today stating that he and Rep. Steve Scalise (R, LA-01) have introduced the Free Speech Fairness Act (H.R. 781). The bill seeks to amend the United States tax code to “restore free speech for 501(c)(3) organizations including churches, nonprofits, and educational institutions, so long as they are (1) made in the ordinary course of the organization’s regular and customary activities in carrying out its tax-exempt purpose, and (2) any expenditure related to this are de minimis.”
I am not a lawyer, but Merriam-Webster defines de minimis as: “lacking significance or importance : so minor as to merit disregard.”
Rep. Hice:
“Our Nation was built on the foundation that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are unalienable rights. For too long, the IRS has used the Johnson Amendment to silence and threaten religious institutions and charitable entities. As a minister who has experienced intimidation from the IRS firsthand, I know just how important it is to ensure that our churches and nonprofit organizations are allowed the same fundamental rights as every citizen of this great Nation. I’m proud that our legislation accomplishes just that, because America is stronger and better when all of our citizens are free to express their convictions. I am also heartened that President Trump reaffirmed his commitment to repealing Johnson at this morning’s National Prayer Breakfast and look forward to working with him to make repeal a reality.”
The text of the bill was not available at the time of this posting.
About Author
lawtonsack
Lawton is a graduate of Georgia Southern University (the GSU) with a degree in Information Technology. He has held numerous positions within the Georgia Republican Party throughout the years.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Here is why the Johnson Amendment is in place.
An organization that is tax exempt, using its power for partisan purposes, can use its influence to direct federal spending to its own benefit, which then becomes tax exempt, further empowering it to direct resources …
… it’s a circle. It becomes a conduit for corruption. That’s why it was put in place to begin with.
You’re describing Planned Parenthood.
Except PP can actually accomplish good things in government and politics. All religion wants to do is change government to enforce their interpretation of Biblical Morality™.
One has a mission of reproductive health, the other a mission of noneducation and ignorance when it comes to anything below the belt and above the leg.
Or between the ears.
Well by that logic it’s describing *any* organization that gets federal funds: universities, hospitals, road contractors….
Do you support this Charlie?
It’s news to me that churches get Medicaid reimbursements.
Oh Great, Not-for-Profit-Citizens United.
I’ll support this repeal, if at the same time you support ending tax-exempt status for religious institutions and non-profits.
Small-business owners shouldn’t subsidize the Church of Whats Happening or Planned Parenthood. Under the current system, they do.
Churches and Non-profits are already receiving tax-exempt revenue, if they want to spend it however they want, then pay property and income taxes. Done and done.
This I wholeheartedly agree with.
All right, fair enough. Sounds like a smart solution. Make it so.
lots of folks would like to do away with the tax exemption. but that last sentence confuses me. tax-exempt revenue means exemption,typically, from property and income taxes.
the policy reason for maintaining tax exemption even if the nonprofit is granted free reign with political speech is that the organizations have valid issues they may even feel compelled to advocate for. it actually puts them on fair political footing with for-profits in that sense. the worst that could happen is that they become a front for political advocacy, like a 527. but 527s have tax exemption too. but if the bill does make a de minimis exception, that amount of political activity seems unlikely anyways. de minimis will probably be interpreted as max 5% of revenue, so even large c(3) organizations may have limits on ability to agglomerate power and resources. most c(3)s who want to engage in more political speech and activity just open up a c(4) arm where you’re allowed to spend more or less 49% of revenue on the political stuff. so this seems more like a targeted effort to let small nonprofits, especially religious institutions, to have some express political advocacy, and forgive incidental expressions. like if you had a guest speaker that crossed the express advocacy line. and as for that line, what’s the real difference between saying “Candidate X is against issue A” and “Don’t vote for candidate X because he’s against issue A”. not much of a line worth protecting it seems.
Sorry I should’ve clarified the “revenue” portion. I meant it in the sense that individuals get to deduct charitable donations off of their personal income taxes. So the revenue that’s being taken in by churches/non-profits is already receiving favorable status from the IRS.
I’m fine to leave that in place on the revenue standpoint. Charitable organizations, hospitals, schools, churches should get some favor ability on their revenue side. But if you want to repeal the Johnson Amendment, as Hice and his ilk do, then remove the tax-exemption on their spending side (property, advocacy, etc.) as well.
And as for income-taxes of churches, non-profits, etc., put them on the same playing field as corporate income taxes. Citizens United determined that corporations have free speech; if churches want the same flexibility, they should pay to play just like everyone else.
My two cents.