Campaign Intervention as The Ghost of LBJ

Mike Batts chaired the Commission on Accountability and Policy For Religious Organizations, an organization commissioned by Senator Grassley a few years back to report on political speech by religious organizations.  He spoke to my Nonprofit Seminar students last night and reminded the students how vigorously the Congress debated the ban on campaign intervention before it was enacted.  He really had them riled up, too, about whether religious organizations should be exempt from tax at all.  From page 13 of the Commission’s repot to Senator Grassley:

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Texas [Mr. Johnson] has been recognized.

Mr. Johnson of Texas:  President, I have an amendment at the desk, which I would like to have stated.

The Presiding Officer:  The Secretary will state the amendment.

The Chief Clerk:  On page 117 of the House Bill, in section 501(c)(3), it is proposed to strike out “individuals, and” and insert “individual,” and strike out “influence legislation.” and insert “influence legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.”

Mr. Johnson of Texas:  Mr. President, this amendment seeks to extend the provisions of section 501 of the House bill, denying tax-exempt status to not only those people who influence legislation but also to those who intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for any public office. I have discussed the matter with the chairman of the committee, the minority ranking member of the committee, and several other members of the committee, and I understand that the amendment is acceptable to them. I hope the chairman will take it to conference, and that it will be included in the final bill which Congress passes.

Mr. Millikin: Mr. President, I am willing to take the amendment to conference. I understand from the minority leader that the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. George] feels the same way about it.

The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Texas [Mr. Johnson].

The amendment was agreed to.

That’s it.  We all knew the ban on campaign intervention was a middle of the night thing, but it is still kinda jarring to read and contemplate it again.  Citing 100 Cong. Rec. 9,604 (1954).

darryll k. jones