Uh-oh! Trump & The Johnson Amendment

- - - - - - -

Patrick L. O’Daniel: [...] As these examples indicate, there is arguably widespread non-compliance with the prohibition and certainly no groundswell of public support for it. Further, these instances merely represent political activity by churches that was actually reported. One surmises that many other instances occurred which escaped the scrutiny of the press. One also surmises that this level of activity indicates a certain slackness of enforcement of the prohibition by the Internal Revenue Service.

An examination of the history of the prohibition indicates that it was passed in 1954 with little thought by Congress, or even by its sponsor, the Democrat Minority Leader (soon to be Majority Leader), Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson, concerning its effect on churches. In any event, the prohibition was not the product of a change in public opinion, but instead appears to have been proposed by Johnson as a way to squelch certain unsavory campaign tactics targeted at him by a few tax-exempt entities.

[...] Although Johnson was not opposed to using churches to advance his own political interests, he did seek to prevent ideological, tax-exempt organizations from funding McCarthyite candidates including his opponent in the Democratic primary, Dudley Dougherty. The illumination of these motivations is done through the extensive use of President Johnson’s personal papers and provides a more complete understanding of the contours of the prohibition.

[...] There is no evidence that a religious element played a significant part in Johnson’s decision to ban certain tax-exempt entities—including churches—from intervening in support of a political candidate. Rather, Johnson saw a cabal of national conservative forces, led by tax-exempt educational entities fueled by corporate donations, arrayed against him and wanted to put a stop to the meddling of these foreign interlopers—chief among these being CCG. [...]

In 1954, Texas was basically a one-party state dominated by the Democrat Party, so that the primary election scheduled on July 24, 1954, to choose the Democrat candidate became the de facto general election. Johnson drew as his opponent in the primary the relatively young and unknown thirty-year-old, first-term state representative from Beeville, Dudley Dougherty. This “young man from Beeville,” as Johnson called him in correspondence, projected the persona of a rabid, fire-breathing anti-communist. In a long, hand-written letter that he sent to Johnson after his defeat, Dougherty ruefully acknowledged, “I had a rather unhappy role to play, that of ultraconservative." Dougherty also had a religious role to play: he was Catholic and Johnson was protestant.

The year 1954 saw McCarthyism at its height and Texas was no exception to its allure. [...] Dallas millionaire, H.L. Hunt, had geared up a conservative tax-exempt organization, Facts Forum, which produced radio and television programs as well as books and other literature espousing a hard anti-communist line [...] Facts Forum, however, was not the only prominent tax-exempt organization trumpeting McCarthyism: the Committee for Constitutional Government (CCG) also joined the fray [...] CCG was adamantly opposed to Johnson’s election and vociferously supported Dougherty—and Johnson suspected that Facts Forum, in spite of its pledge not to involve itself in political campaigns, was clandestinely in support of Dougherty, as well.

[...] With this backdrop concerning the political events unfolding during the first half of 1954 and Johnson’s mental outlook regarding the upcoming election, one can better understand the motivations surrounding Johnson’s amendment to the Code preventing intervention in a political campaign by tax-exempt entities. Two tax-exempt organizations, in particular, drew his attention during the campaign: Facts Forum and CCG. It is apparent from both inter- and intra-office correspondence that both these organizations figured prominently in his decision to enact the prohibition.

Hunt started the tax-exempt organization Facts Forum in 1951 as a platform dedicated to the dissemination of his conservative views, which he disingenuously labeled as “constructive.” Hunt, through this organization, soon acquired a stature which his opponents viewed with alarm. [...] As discussed, Hunt’s Texas-based outfit was not the only tax-exempt entity causing problems for Johnson. [...] Perhaps most infuriating to Johnson was that CCG was raising funds from corporate contributors and then using those funds to wage war against his campaign. This tactic, too, was apparently typical of CCG which had raised funds from corporate donors for years, in apparent violation of the Corrupt Practices Act, with little fear of reprisal because of the lax enforcement of the law.

[...] On July 2, 1954, the House Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations ended its deliberations. That same day, Johnson offered his amendment on the Senate floor, banning such tax-exempt entities [...] from participating in a political campaign by supporting a political candidate. The next day’s front page of the Washington Post carried an article that described the amendment as one that “would withdraw tax-free status from any foundations or other organizations that attempt to ‘influence legislation’ or dabble in politics in behalf of any candidate for public office.”

[...] By the end of his campaign, Johnson had effectively cowed these organizations, with CCG in particular [...] Further, Johnson also wanted to stomp out a potential threat in his own back yard that might arise in the guise of H.L. Hunt’s Facts Forum. Even though Siegel’s memorandum makes clear that Facts Forum, as it was then operating, would not be affected by the prohibition, Hunt never again sought to cross Johnson through the organization. Finally, Johnson was still smarting from the innuendo surrounding the 1948 election; and Coke Stevenson’s support for Dougherty and continued airing of charges in the national media from that prior election simply added to the already volatile mixture that led to the enactment of the prohibition.

Although the involvement of churches in political campaigns did not spur Johnson’s amendment, such involvement did figure in his actual candidacy. One might discount the claim, made in the heat of the campaign, “that religious politics are being used against Senator Johnson.” Clearly, however, there was a religious element to the 1954 election. Certainly, Johnson did not disdain to use religion as a wedge when it suited his purposes or to neutralize certain religious elements that might prove to be potentially hostile. Further, Dougherty was very much aware that his Catholicism would be an impediment to winning office in Texas, a predominantly Protestant state, and was quite proud of the showing he was able to make in spite of such a perceived disability. It appears that Dougherty was one of the first Catholics to run for state-wide office in the State of Texas, and that a lesson that may be drawn today from his quixotic campaign is the impossibility of unraveling the interweaving of politics and religion.

In the face of lackluster opposition by the Internal Revenue Service, the Democrats and Republicans—harkening back to the Buffs and the Blues—continue to use the literal bully pulpits of the churches to preach to the party faithful. Lyndon Johnson, as the sponsor of the amendment that made such conduct problematic, clearly had no compunction against using such tactics to advance his own political candidacy. When he pushed through the prohibition, he was not acting in response to any public outcry against such activities. Indeed, there is no indication of any concern expressed regarding such politicking. Little has changed since that time—except now some churches feel compelled to pay lip service to Johnson’s prohibition, one that is increasingly becoming “more honored in the breach than the observance.” --MORE HONORED IN THE BREACH:A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE PERMEABLE IRS PROHIBITION ON CAMPAIGNING BY CHURCHES

= = = = = = = =

Other interesting excerpts

[...] As derisively noted by Johnson, it seemed that most of Dougherty’s support came from outside of the State. Indeed, although unsuccessful in securing endorsements from Texas newspapers and periodicals, Dougherty did receive an endorsement from the notorious anti-semite, Robert H. Williams [...] from Santa Ana, California. [...] Dougherty was also the beneficiary of the mass-mailing of a story by Willis Ballinger under the auspices of the Washington, D.C.-based group, Human Events [...]

Johnson—worried about the conservative tenor of the Texas electorate [...] privately took Dougherty very seriously, [...] Many of Johnson’s tactics consisted of the typical parry-and-thrust of campaigning [...] However, other tactics were of a different character which reflected a more aggressive campaigning style and indicated that Johnson was willing to pursue a number of different tactics to rout his opponent. Dougherty, in a letter written to Johnson after his defeat, explained, in a sardonic manner, his use of “vigorous artillery” against Johnson “[s]ince some of your people [...] were kind enough to wire tap my home.”

[...] Robert L. Clark, a Dallas attorney and Johnson confidante, 60 was associated in activities directly concerning church involvement in the political campaign. He sent a copy of a typed letter to Senator Johnson’s office a few days prior to the July 24 primary that was signed by “Rev. Lewis L. Shoptaw” and addressed “Dear Fellow Minister”:

I regret having to write you and other good pastors a letter concerning politics. I do not think that under ordinary circumstances any Minister of the Gospel should take part in any political campaign, but I feel compelled to do this because I think you feel as I do, that we must always be alert and viligant [sic] in any issue which seeks to combine Church and State. I want to call your attention to the fact that there definitely is a campaign being waged against our fine Texas Senator Lyndon B. Johnson on religious grounds. Lyndon Johnson is protestant. His opponent belongs to the Roman Catholic faith. I have no criticism as to his opponent’s religious belief but I am very much alarmed at the fact that religious politics are being used against Senator Johnson. An impartial state-wide poll indicates that the Roman Catholic Mexican vote has been organized against him. In small communities in North, Central and South Texas, where German, Czechs and Polish citizens reside, an overwhelming vote against Senator Johnson is indicated in this very thorough poll. I am not asking you to do anything politically but I am very humbly warning you that this under-cover attack on a fine Christian Senator does exist. I hope that you will regard this letter as entirely confidential and may the Good Lord Bless you for the fine work you are carrying on for protestant Christianity.

The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The wording in the free-exercise clauses of state constitutions that religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] The clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.”[2] The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons. In the terms of economc theory, the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects.[3]
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause

Organizations with a focus on the environment may be the most visible nonprofits engaging in the policy process, but lobbying is no less important for nonprofits working on every issue area, from the arts to wildlife preservation. In a 2007 Stanford Social Innovation Review article, "Creating High-Impact Nonprofits," the authors identified a best practice that all successful high-impact nonprofits share: the combination of providing services in their communities and engaging in policy advocacy, including lobbying, at the local, state, or federal level. Who, after all, knows the problems of their communities more intimately and is in the best position to suggest practical solutions than the nonprofit organizations that work in those communities every day? Nonprofits that do not take advantage of their ability to lobby miss an opportunity to advance policies that will improve the lives of their constituents.
- https://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/blt/2009-03-04/mehta.shtml

The section goes on to defend communism from various objections, including claims that it advocates "free love" or disincentivises people from working. The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands—among them a progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances and private property; free public education; nationalisation of the means of transport and communication; centralisation of credit via a national bank; expansion of publicly owned etc.—the implementation of which would result in the precursor to a stateless and classless society.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto#Synopsis