The Jones Amendment - Freedom of Speech for Churches

From the May 27, 2002 Dallas Morning News: Rep. Walter Jones is fighting the ghost of Senator Lyndon Johnson.

"DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS" is doubtless an imperative that Walter Jones has seen on bumper stickers in Washington. Yet Jones, a Republican congressman from North Carolina, has found a cause that has compelled him to mess with the Lone Star State. Actually, with Lyndon Johnson.

"He's the one man that's responsible for all this," says Jones during an interview in his office. By "this," Jones means a provision in the tax code that tax-exempt 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."

The provision was added in 1954, courtesy of then-Sen. Johnson. In his view, he had been messed with--by two tax-exempt organizations that he thought had supported his primary opponent. The Senate didn't hold hearings on or debate the senator's amendment. Jones takes note of that. He thinks something so important merited deliberation, and it is hard to say he is wrong. The prohibition on engaging in partisan politics is absolute, and the penalty is draconian: Endorse a candidate, and you stand to lose your tax-exempt status.

The two tax-exempt entities that drew Johnson's ire were secular. Yet the Johnson amendment, applying as it does to all tax-exempt organizations, necessarily applies to churches, synagogues, and mosques. And in recent years what is possible has become actual: The Internal Revenue Service has investigated complaints that churches have engaged in political campaigns.

It also aggravates Jones, who is Catholic, that the IRS seems to have policed conservative churches more often than liberal churches. That tendency has aroused his partisan ire, as it has scores of his Republican colleagues.

Putting partisanship aside, Jones argues for the change in the Johnson amendment he now is proposing in principled terms. "I am offended," he says, "that churches and synagogues in this country have been restricted by the federal government in their right to freedom of speech."

The Jones bill is titled the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act. Actually, it wouldn't restore the status quo before 1954, when houses of worship had complete freedom to politick or not, even to endorse candidates. Instead, it would loosen the 1954 restriction so that churches could engage to some extent in political campaigns, without risk of losing their tax-exempt status.

The Jones bill was given a hearing earlier this month and would appear to have enough support to pass should the leadership insist on it. Who knows what might happen in the Senate. But certain to await Jones' amendment to the Johnson amendment, if it becomes law, is a lawsuit in which Texas again would figure.

Like many states, Texas once exempted religious publications (and only those) from sales taxes. Texas Monthly, not exempt because not a religious publication, challenged the exemption--and won. In Texas Monthly v. Bullock (1989), the Supreme Court said the exemption unconstitutionally favored religious publications over nonreligious ones.

The court's composition has changed since that case, but there still appear to be five justices who agree with its strict neutrality principle. The question that could await Jones in the form of a lawsuit filed by a nonreligious public charity is whether his law, treating houses of worship differently from all other tax-exempt entities, is constitutional.

Legal issues to one side, the more interesting ones raised by the Jones bill may prove theological and practical. In a letter to Jones, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, which supports his bill, states that "the church should speak to the current issues of the day consistent with its own doctrine and teachings." But it adds, "We do not believe it is wise, prudent or appropriate for Baptist churches to endorse candidates."

I raised with Jones the point about whether it is appropriate for clergy to endorse candidates. He says "they have a responsibility to do that." He explains: "But just like I don't think they should be forced not to talk about politics [and endorse candidates], I don't think they should be forced to." Jones himself thinks that under his bill most clergy wouldn't support or oppose candidates. In other words, they would choose not to engage in political campaigns.

About that, of course, there are skeptics. But at least Jones has offered more deliberation about the impact of his bill than a certain senator did about his in 1954. And seldom is it possible to say, of any legislation, that less deliberation is better.

I believe that churches, synagogues,etc. are primarily places where people can gather to learn more about God and to worship God. However, there are certain moral issues and other current topics that people can talk much about in churches because they are usually considered to be linked to "politics". For instance, abortion, homosexuality, certain conservative views, or giving an opinion about running candidates who have agendas contrary to the teaching of some churches, etc. can be rather risky. The Jones Amendment will give more freedom to religious places to express their views without running the risk to lose tax-exempt status.

By "this," Jones means a provision in the tax code that tax-exempt 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."

Of course the next clause states that none of the above applies to black churches or other organizations.

We need persons like Jones in the senate. This was probably the most damaging thing LBJ did to this nation. Probably more so than even the The Great Society. It has caused the most harm by silencing the pulpit from denouncing and shaming corrupt elected officals.

The politics of this Republic are ROOTED in the church. The Revolution was debated and justified on biblical grounds. The structure of our government and our Constitution came from the Bible.

There used to be a tradition that on the night before an election, all the candidates were required to attend a sermon at a selected church in the town. The pastors of the town would lecture the candidates on what God requires of them in their office.

The Barrigan Bros., Catholic Priest's both, were very political in the 60's. Did the Catholic church loose its tax advantages?

Think about the Lefty, American Council of Church's. The only difference between this commie cell and the former Soviet Union is they give lip service to God.

I hope Rep. Jones is successful in exterminating this part of the Johnson legacy. Just like gun control, the conservative church's, obey the law while the Left defies it flagrantly.

Don't need a Jones Amendment.

"Congress shall enact no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise therof"

What we need is a country(people) with guts enough to stand up for their rights.

Can't say I disagree with you. It is in the Constitution and it's our responsibility as well as congress and all elected officers to abide by it. Indeed it was the American people who let LBJ get by with this act and other acts of tyranny. But it is good to hear at least one voice up there in the moral void called our nations capitol addressing the issue at all.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.