Although several presidential primaries remain, the leading candidates have reached the qualifying threshold of delegates to secure their respective parties’ nominations. Barring unforeseen circumstances, the race will be between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. 

As a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, Good Faith Media (GFM) is prohibited from any activity that supports or opposes a candidate running for public office. The prohibition is contained in the 1954 Johnson Amendment. 

The regulation aims to prevent religious and other non-profit organizations from becoming de facto political action committees. If this prohibition were repealed, donors to political campaigns could effectively evade taxes by funneling their contributions through a religious or other non-profit organization. 

(The IRS has provided guidance for following the Johnson Amendment here.) 

The Johnson Amendment nudges churches and religious non-profits to operate with their mission, not shifting political winds, as their guiding principle.

However, the prohibition against political activity also presents a challenge. Regardless of how much we disdain the term “politics,” everything about how humans order our lives in relation to each other is political.

It is, in fact, the very definition of the word. No one could avoid politics if they tried.

Considering that every faith tradition includes guidance for how to order our lives in relation to each other (politics), this creates a dilemma: How can a religious non-profit organization make a political statement in alignment with its values while, at the same time, refrain from supporting or opposing political campaigns? 

On the surface, there is a seemingly easy solution to this dilemma. The Johnson Amendment prohibits non-profits from supporting or opposing political candidates, but it doesn’t forbid them from making statements about political issues. 

So, a religious, non-profit organization can be political. It just can’t be partisan. 

But this naturally muddies the waters, especially in a system that only allows the viability of two political parties. If the political stances of a religious, non-profit organization are in lock-step with those of a particular political candidate or party, then making a “political but not partisan” statement can seem like a wink and a nod toward that candidate or party. 

Some churches are notorious for exploiting this grey area in the system. Pastors will invite political candidates to speak and then essentially tell their congregation, “I can’t tell you who to vote for. But what you just heard aligns with what this church stands for.” 

Or, churches will distribute “voter guides” that purport to be nonpartisan. These guides list various issues and where particular candidates stand on them. The list is carefully curated and framed to favor one candidate over another without explicitly making an endorsement. 

For religious 501(c)(3) organizations trying to be above reproach regarding the law, while simultaneously acknowledging the importance of political involvement to their mission, every election year can feel like walking a tightrope. 

In recent years, walking this tightrope has felt more precarious than ever. The reason for this is Donald Trump.

The political enterprise in the United States has rarely been steeped in virtue. Politicians have always stretched the truth or outright lied to get elected. 

Systems that help some people wield power over others have been created and maintained in smoky backrooms. Moral virtue usually gives way to moral compromise. 

Before Trump burst onto the scene, these political vices were, more or less, distributed evenly among most people who hold higher office. This isn’t to say corruption is a binary. 

It certainly exists on a spectrum. It also doesn’t deny the exceptions to the rule. Both political parties have had their profiles in courage, but they stand out because they are out of the ordinary. 

Even so, Donald Trump elevates lying and corruption for political gain to a level not seen in modern times. He leans into his authoritarian impulses. 

Lies come out of his mouth like a rapid-fire assault on truth. His extreme moral degradation infects the body politic with collective vertigo. 

From his most loyal supporters and fiercest critics to those trying desperately to remain out of the fray, we have all been walking around in a frantic haze since he descended that escalator. 

This is by design. It is the weapon he wields. 

It also heightens the predicament for religious non-profits attempting to be “political but not partisan.” Media organizations face the same dilemma. Oh, and by the way, Good Faith Media is both. 

On the one hand, responding to every lie and dangerous utterance that comes out of Trump’s mouth distracts us from what he and his theocratic supporters are up to. It feeds into accusations of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and gaslights us into questioning our sanity. On the other hand, allowing hateful and damaging language to go unanswered is a dereliction of our duty as truth-tellers. 

Earlier this year, GFM’s staff writers and contributing correspondents got together to discuss how we would meet this moment. As in any healthy organization, we didn’t agree on everything. 

From the wisdom of third-party movements to how often we respond to Trump’s demagoguery, there is considerable daylight between us. Still, several themes emerged from our conversation that will provide guardrails for covering the 2024 Presidential election: 

• Our “home base” of inclusive Christianity compels us to work toward a society where all people have a place at the table. We will celebrate rhetoric and policies that dismantle the barriers of gender and religious expression, race, ethnicity, sexuality and all other identities that have been built to divide and conquer. We will speak up in opposition when rhetoric and policy proposals reinforce those barriers. 
• We will not allow dehumanizing language to go unanswered. This isn’t solely a call to kindness, but a recognition that physical violence almost always follows rhetorical violence. Whether it is Joe Biden referring to migrants as “illegals” or Donald Trump referring to them as “vermin,” the result is the same: migrants (and those perceived as such) are less safe. We will lead the way in honoring the image of God in every human by using person-centered language wherever possible. 
• We will strive for fairness. However, fairness doesn’t imply equal coverage. If one candidate attacks transgender youth in a stump speech and another bungles the details of an obscure policy proposal, we will likely address the former and pass on the latter. If history is an indication, we will cover Trump more than Biden. At the same time, accusing us of being a pro-Biden PAC will be difficult, as recent opinion pieces on Biden’s foreign policy and sense of self-importance will attest. 
• We believe democracy is worth saving and is on the ballot, not just at the top but down to the final obscure resolution. In this endeavor, we will work to amplify the work of our partner organizations, such as BJC, Democracy Forward and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 

We will not always get it right, but we are committed to being a valuable resource for people of good faith who want to live in a more just, equitable and vibrant world.