DEAR EDITOR:

The weekend edition (Aug. 2-3, 2025) of The Vindicator contained Judge Andrew Napolitano’s weekly column referencing Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code granting tax-exempt status to qualifying organizations, including churches.

His premise is that the trade-off exempting many otherwise taxpayers from paying income taxes is their willingness to forgo involvement in political endorsements. Napolitano supports the position in 501(c)(3) that requires religious organizations and clergy to refrain from preaching to support or criticize a political candidate or cause. In doing so, jeopardizes their tax-exempt status.

He, however, ignores the mandate of the First Amendment to the Constitution, and, more importantly, the reality of adverse political implications of attempting to enforce the Johnson Amendment (a federal statute) that prompted congress to enact Section 501(c)(3).

It can be argued that the First Amendment trumps a legislative law simply because the First Amendment is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution that controls the 1954 so-called Johnson Amendment, a creature of the legislature.

A clergy man or woman speaking in support of, or against a political candidate is exercising a constitutional right that Congress must not qualify with the threat of losing tax-

exempt status.

Congress could permit religious organizations as exempt under 501(c)(3) or the Supreme court could and should decare it unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Of course, President Trump cannot usurp the laws of Congress and his suggestions relaxing religious freedom restrictions is probably intended to prompt Congress to remove religious organizations from any 501 (c)(3) requirements.

Napolitano throws in Trump imposing tariffs as illegal, and they may very well be, but the “die is cast” and the negotiations and agreements far reaching and increasingly in place. This is the exact same strategy employed by the Democrats running up to the U.S. Supreme court decision upholding the ACA (Obamacare). It was already almost 10 years “down the road” and widely implemented. Therefore, no surprise there that the court upheld Obamacare as law.

Strictly enforcing Section 501(c)(3) as it pertains to restricting religious speech would likely cause such a political storm that no administration would attempt.

Catholic clergy either tacitly or directly supported John F. Kennedy’s campaign for the presidency, as was their Constitutional right to do.

Barack Obama’s clergy supporters did likewise. No one seriously challenged either’s right to speak freely in support of their respective candidates. To do so would have caused political consequences best avoided.

ATTORNEY C. RAFOTH

Boardman