(RNS) — In a New York Times opinion piece last month, esteemed legal scholar and American University law professor Benjamin Leff made the case that the gutting of the so-called Johnson Amendment barring houses of worship from being involved in political campaigns need not be seen as an existential crisis for the faith and nonprofit sectors. Instead, he wrote, it should be seen as a liberation, an opportunity to cast off the shackles of current tax law and loosen the tongues of the famously soft-spoken leaders of the American faith community.

While surely well-intended, Leff fails to capture the concerns and lived experiences of faith and nonprofit leaders already navigating the realities of polarized, atomized 2025 America, and neglects to acknowledge how the slippery slope of partisan infiltration of church and charity will only grow slicker and steeper if the guardrails are ripped off. 

In 1954, the Johnson Amendment was enacted to secure a careful and necessary balance between the advantages conferred on an institution by tax-exempt status and the responsibility for that institution not to use its status in a politically partisan manner. The status of 501(c)(3) is a reward and privilege — not just to the organizations and institutions that are exempt from taxes, but also to their donors, whose contributions to these organizations are tax deductible. Inherent in this tax status is the recognition that such organizations provide a public or common good that is beneficial to United States taxpayers and society writ large.

Critical to that assessment is the idea that the organizations in question do 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.” This has functioned as a shield to protect both faith communities and nonprofit organizations from being corrupted by the world of partisan politics and campaign finance, and to ensure that this tax-exempt benefit serves to advance the public good. 

At Independent Sector — a national organization that connects, strengthens and advocates for nonprofits and philanthropies, where I serve as board chair — we have conducted comprehensive research on the potential harm of mixing partisan politics with the work of nonprofits, charitable foundations and houses of worship. In public polling released earlier this year, support for the Johnson Amendment was high across the political spectrum, with support from 76% of Democrats and independents, and from 73% of Republicans.

Knocking down the wall between the charitable sector and political campaigning threatens to erode public trust, heighten the perceived risk of corruption and jeopardize relationships between service providers, volunteers and the communities they serve. If nonprofit organizations, charitable foundations and houses of worship — and their financial supporters — are free to use these institutions and the generous tax benefits associated with them to directly support the political parties and candidates of their choice, this careful balance enshrined in law by the Johnson Amendment is destroyed. As a result, churches and nonprofits will lose significant and irreplaceable credibility and trust as political parties and candidates race to capture them as endorsers and donors. The entire sector risks being corrupted and captured by partisan politics and polarization.

Worst of all, political campaigns and parties could seek to exploit these organizations’ significant tax benefits for their own gain, hollowing out our churches and charities until they are mere pass-throughs for donors seeking to support candidates — and get tax deductions for doing so.  

While the settlement the IRS and plaintiffs have proposed in Texas would apply specifically to communities of worship, I am far from alone in my fear that such a settlement, which for the first time since 1954 openly legitimizes churches endorsing candidates for office, would be just the beginning. Other organizations and institutions would be likely to follow with lawsuits seeking to broaden what is permitted.  

Supporters of this carve-out contend that these changes would only apply to communities of worship, and therefore would have no effect on the larger nonprofit community. This argument falls apart quickly when faced with the reality of the nonprofit sector, where many organizations are rooted in faith and have close associations with houses of worship. As president of Sojourners, I lead a charitable organization rooted in Christian faith. If I were to endorse a political candidate from the pulpit, how could anyone be expected to see the organizations I lead as nonpartisan?

In reality, the IRS has been tacitly allowing churches to participate in political activity for decades by neglecting to investigate many alleged violations of the nonpartisanship protections enshrined by the Johnson Amendment. But giving the stamp of approval of official IRS policy to the way many churches have long flouted the law will only embolden them to go further. The potential for an influx of tax-exempt donations to churches for the purpose of securing their endorsement for the candidates of the donors’ choice is just one concerning avenue for this exemption to corrupt the mission and witness of faith communities around the country. 

As the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. famously proclaimed, “The church at its best is not called to be the master or the servant of the state, but to be the conscience of the state.” Gutting the Johnson Amendment threatens to corrupt that conscience and weaken the very institutions this administration claims to champion.

(The Rev. Adam Russell Taylor is president of Sojourners, a Christian organization dedicated to social justice, peace and faith-driven activism. He serves as board chair of Independent Sector. He also serves in ministry at the Alfred Street Baptist Church in Alexandria, Virginia. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)