Nonprofits in Politics: Charities, Social Welfare Groups, Trade Associations and 527s

Most nonprofits in Idaho never go near an election. The ones that do usually trip over the same thing: they assume the letters after their name, (c)(3) or (c)(4), settle what they may do in an election and what they must report. Those letters come from the federal tax code. They settle what the IRS will tolerate before it takes away the exemption. Idaho's Sunshine Law asks a different question, about money spent on Idaho voters, and it does not care much how the IRS classifies you. A group has to satisfy both. This lesson takes the tax rules first, then the Idaho rules. For the money map that places nonprofits next to PACs and committees, see lesson 1, and for the basic case for and against donor disclosure, see Campaign Finance Basics in the elections course.

Why the tax code polices elections at all

A gift to a 501(c)(3) is usually tax deductible. Congress decided in 1954 that taxpayers should not subsidize campaigns that way, and added the language people now call the Johnson Amendment. The statute, 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3), gives the exemption only to a group that does not "participate in, or intervene in" any political campaign for or against a candidate for public office, including by publishing or distributing statements. The same sentence says no substantial part of its activities may be lobbying.

The IRS reads the campaign clause as absolute. Its guidance page says 501(c)(3) groups are "absolutely prohibited" from it, whether by contributions or by statements of position for or against a candidate. There is no small-amount exception and no percentage test. One endorsement is a violation.

The penalties come in two layers. The IRS can revoke the exemption. And 26 U.S.C. 4955 sets excise taxes on the political spending itself: 10 percent on the organization, plus 2.5 percent on any manager who knowingly agreed to it, capped at $5,000 per expenditure for the manager. If the group does not correct it, a second tax of 100 percent hits the organization and 50 percent (capped at $10,000) hits a manager who refused to go along with the fix. A worked example with a $2,500 check comes later in this lesson.

Note what the clause covers: candidates. A bond, a levy, an initiative or a referendum is not a candidate. Federal tax law treats a charity's work on those as lobbying, because 26 U.S.C. 4911(e)(2) defines legislation to include action "by the public in a referendum, initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure." So an Idaho charity may campaign for or against a school levy, inside its lobbying limit. Idaho's reporting rules still apply to that spending, which comes up below.

What a charity may do in election season

The IRS's most useful document here is Rev. Rul. 2007-41, published in 2007. It walks through 21 short situations, each marked as intervention or not. The ruling says the answer "depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of each case," which means there is no bright line. But the examples cluster into a few patterns you can learn.

Activity	Generally allowed when	Becomes intervention when
Voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives	Open to everyone, no mention of candidates or parties	Targeted at voters expected to back one candidate, or paired with candidate messages
Candidate forums and questionnaires	All qualified candidates invited, broad range of questions, neutral moderator, no comment on answers	Some candidates left out, questions slanted, or the group signals which answers it likes
Candidate appears at the group's event	Appears as a non-candidate (an expert, a sitting official on agency business) and nobody mentions the race	Campaign talk or fundraising at the event, or only one side gets the stage
Leader speaks out	On personal time, in personal capacity, outside the group's publications and functions	In the group's newsletter, website, pulpit or official event
Issue advocacy	Part of an ongoing series, tied to a scheduled vote or other non-election event	Names a candidate, praises or faults the candidate's position, and runs near the election
Renting space or a mailing list	Same terms and customary fees offered to every candidate	Discounts or access for one candidate only
Website links	Links serve an exempt purpose, such as a full candidate list	Links point only to one candidate's endorsements

For issue ads near an election, the ruling lists the factors the IRS weighs: whether the message identifies a candidate (by name or by other means, such as party or platform), whether it approves or disapproves of the candidate's positions, how close it runs to the election, whether it mentions voting, whether the issue has become one that distinguishes the candidates, whether it is part of a series that started before the race, and whether its timing ties to a non-election event like a scheduled council vote. A charity's billboard that says "Tell Senator X to protect the aquifer" in the week before a hearing on a water bill looks like issue advocacy. The same billboard in October, with Senator X facing a challenger who has made the aquifer his issue, looks like campaigning.

Lobbying limits, and how to make them a number

The default lobbying rule for charities is the "substantial part" test, which nobody can measure in advance. Most charities, but not churches or private foundations, can swap it for a dollar formula by filing IRS Form 5768, the 501(h) election. The form can be filed any time during the year it covers and stays in effect until revoked. Lobbying totals go on Schedule C of the Form 990.

Under the election, the lobbying ceiling, called the nontaxable amount, comes from 26 U.S.C. 4911(c)(2):

Exempt purpose expenditures for the year	Lobbying nontaxable amount
Up to $500,000	20 percent
Over $500,000 to $1,000,000	$100,000 plus 15 percent of the excess over $500,000
Over $1,000,000 to $1,500,000	$175,000 plus 10 percent of the excess over $1,000,000
Over $1,500,000	$225,000 plus 5 percent of the excess over $1,500,000, capped at $1,000,000

Grassroots lobbying (urging the public to contact lawmakers about legislation) has its own cap of 25 percent of the nontaxable amount. A message urging voters to pass or defeat a ballot measure is different: the regulations count it as direct lobbying, because the voters are the legislature for that measure. Go over either limit in a year and the charity owes a 25 percent excise tax on the excess. Go well over it across a four-year period and the exemption itself is at risk.

Can a 501(c)(3) give to an Idaho PAC?

The question usually shows up as an email from a board member: can our charity send $2,500 to a PAC registered in Idaho? If the PAC supports or opposes candidates, no. If it is a committee formed only to pass or defeat a ballot measure, probably yes, as lobbying and within limits. So the first thing to ask is what the committee actually does. Its name will not tell you.

Candidate PACs, party committees and candidate committees: no

The statute, 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3), bars a charity from participating or intervening in any campaign for or against a candidate. The IRS campaign intervention page says contributions to political campaign funds "clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity." The IRS answers the PAC question in so many words in its FAQ on contributions to political organizations: "No, a section 501(c)(3) organization may not make a contribution to a political organization described in section 527 (such as a candidate committee, political party committee or political action committee (PAC))." The same answer says it may not establish and maintain its own separate segregated fund under section 527 either. The IRS treats every candidate committee and PAC as a 527 (see lesson 1), and Idaho's are no exception.

The bar reaches more than a check from the general fund:

• Giving money to an Idaho PAC that backs or fights candidates, in any amount.
• Moving charitable funds into such a PAC, whatever the board calls the transfer.
• Giving to a candidate's own committee.
• Paying a PAC's campaign bills for it: printing, ads, postage, staff or rent. In Idaho that is an in-kind contribution the committee reports, and under federal tax law it is money spent intervening in a campaign.
• Forming the charity's own candidate PAC.

Rev. Rul. 2007-41 says whether an activity is intervention "depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of each case." That test does real work for forums, voter guides and issue ads, and genuinely nonpartisan voter education can pass it. A contribution to a candidate's campaign fund is not one of the close calls. The IRS lists it as a clear violation.

The price is the exemption itself, plus excise taxes under 26 U.S.C. 4955, which defines a political expenditure as any amount a 501(c)(3) pays or incurs in participating or intervening in a campaign. The charity owes 10 percent of the amount. A manager who knowingly agreed owes 2.5 percent, up to $5,000 per expenditure. If the spending is not corrected, the taxes rise to 100 percent on the charity and 50 percent, up to $10,000, on a manager who refused to agree to the correction. On a $2,500 check, the first round is $250 for the charity and $62.50 for the director who signed off.

Idaho law will not rescue the gift. Idaho Code 67-6610A caps what corporations, political committees, other entities and individuals may give to candidates and to committees organized on a candidate's behalf. It sets no cap on gifts to other PACs, and lesson 2 covers Idaho's permission for corporations to give. That settles what a PAC may lawfully receive. What a charity may give is a federal tax question, and the answer there does not change at the state line. A charity can satisfy every line of the Sunshine Law and still lose its exemption over the same check.

Ballot-measure committees: yes, counted as lobbying

Federal tax law treats a ballot measure as legislation. The IRS lobbying page says legislation includes action "by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure," and Publication 1828, the IRS guide for churches, uses the same definition. So working for or against a measure is lobbying, and the candidate ban does not apply to it. The IRS FAQ on ballot measure committees answers the money question directly: "Yes, a section 501(c)(3) organization may make a contribution to a ballot measure committee (committees supporting or opposing ballot initiatives or referenda) but it must include such contributions in its lobbying calculations" for the substantial part test.

Which lobbying calculation depends on the charity.

• The substantial part test is the default and has no dollar figure. The FAQ's answer is written in terms of this test. Churches must use it: Publication 1828 says churches are not eligible for the 501(h) election, though other religious organizations may make it.
• The 501(h) expenditure test uses the dollar limits in the table above. Treas. Reg. 56.4911-2(b)(1)(iii) says that for a ballot measure, the general public in the state or locality where the vote will take place is the legislative body, so a communication to them that refers to the measure and takes a side is direct lobbying unless it is nonpartisan analysis. The regulation's own Example 12, a bumper sticker, a 30-second TV ad and a billboard all urging a no vote on Prop. X, comes out as direct lobbying. And under 56.4911-2(d)(1)(ii), a measure placed on the ballot by petition becomes specific legislation when the petition first circulates for signatures, so spending during the signature drive counts too.

On one point the IRS sources leave a gap. The FAQ says to count a contribution in the substantial part calculation and stops there; it does not say how a charity that elected 501(h) classifies a cash gift to a committee. The regulations come closest. Treas. Reg. 56.4911-3(c)(3) covers gifts for less than fair market value from an electing charity to a group that is not a 501(c)(3) and that lobbies. It counts the gift as grassroots spending, then direct lobbying, up to the recipient's own spending in each category, and treats any remainder as non-lobbying. A 501(h) charity should get the committee's spending breakdown in writing and keep it.

The limits and risks that come with the yes:

• Mixed committees are off limits. The FAQ's yes covers committees supporting or opposing initiatives or referenda. A committee that also supports or opposes candidates is a candidate PAC for this purpose, and the FAQ's no applies. Read the committee's Sunshine reports for candidate contributions and candidate spending before you give.
• No earmarking for candidates. Publication 1828 says the ban covers participating "directly or indirectly." Money a charity gives to a measure committee with an understanding that it will reach a candidate is still intervention.
• Idaho disclosure. Under Idaho Code 67-6606, a nonprofit that spends more than $1,000 in a calendar year on Idaho candidates or measures files a statement within 30 days naming everyone who paid it more than $500 in either of the two prior calendar years, or who paid or agreed to pay more than $500 in the current one. Guidance 2026-5 says the $1,000 includes contributions to an Idaho candidate or PAC, so the check to the measure committee counts. AG Opinion 26-1 lets a church spending general funds on the 2026 abortion initiative as religious exercise leave its general donors off, but the church still names itself, and the opinion does not reach candidate spending or federal tax law. That exception is narrow and is covered below.
• Private foundations play by stricter rules. Under 26 U.S.C. 4945, money a private foundation spends to influence legislation, or to influence the outcome of any specific public election, is a taxable expenditure with a 20 percent initial tax. Treas. Reg. 53.4945-2(a)(1) borrows the 56.4911-2 definitions, ballot-measure rule included. Private foundations also cannot elect 501(h). The FAQ's yes is a public charity's answer.

Activity by a 501(c)(3)	Candidate PAC, party or candidate committee	Ballot-measure-only committee	Governing rule
Cash contribution from general funds	Barred	Allowed; counts as lobbying	IRS FAQs on political organizations and ballot measure committees; 501(c)(3)
Moving charitable funds into the committee	Barred	Allowed within lobbying limits	Same
Paying the committee's printing, ads or staff	Barred; a political expenditure	Allowed as lobbying; an in-kind contribution in Idaho	4955; 56.4911-2; 67-6606
Gift with an understanding it reaches candidates	Barred	Barred (indirect intervention)	501(c)(3); Publication 1828
Forming its own committee	Barred (no 527 separate segregated fund)	Not addressed in the IRS pages checked	IRS FAQ on political organizations
Nonpartisan voter education, forums and guides	Allowed if nonpartisan on the facts	Nonpartisan analysis is not lobbying	Rev. Rul. 2007-41; 56.4911-2(b)(1)(iii)
Idaho spending over $1,000 in a year	The gift is barred before Idaho reporting comes up	67-6606 statement listing payers over $500	67-6606; Guidance 2026-5
Same activity by a private foundation	Barred; 4955 and 4945 taxes	Taxable expenditure	4945; 53.4945-2

The contrast: 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) groups

A social welfare group or a trade association may give to an Idaho candidate PAC. The IRS social welfare page says a 501(c)(4) "may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity," and adds that "any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f)." The business league page says a 501(c)(6) "will not be disqualified merely because it engages in some political activity," and warns it may need to give members notice of the dues used for such activities or pay a proxy tax. That page sets no percentage. A trade association that keeps politics well short of its main activity, the line a (c)(4) must hold, is on the safe side.

The 527(f) tax applies to any 501(c) group that spends on an exempt function "directly (or through another organization)," so a check to a PAC counts. The tax falls on the lesser of the group's net investment income or the amount spent. Under 527(e)(2), the exempt function is influencing the selection, nomination, election or appointment of an individual to office, which is candidate work; a gift to a measure-only committee falls outside it. In Idaho, either group's gift counts toward the same 67-6606 threshold as a charity's, and either may use the separate-PAC route the Secretary of State recommends. A 501(c)(3) may not, for candidates.

Churches after 2026

Churches are 501(c)(3) organizations and are under the same campaign ban. In July 2025 the IRS and a group of religious broadcasters and churches asked a federal court to approve a consent decree saying a church does not violate the ban when it speaks to its own congregation about candidates during religious services. On March 31, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas refused to approve it and dismissed the case, National Religious Broadcasters v. Bessent, without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction under the Anti-Injunction Act and the tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act, without reaching the merits. The consent judgment never took effect. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit on April 22, 2026 (No. 26-40237), and the Justice Department's brief asks that court to reverse on the narrow ground that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply, according to the National Law Review. We found no appellate ruling as of October 2026. The statute is unchanged, and the general rule in 26 U.S.C. 6501(a) gives the IRS three years after a return is filed to assess tax.

Idaho reached its own answer on the state side. On August 27, 2026, the Attorney General issued Opinion 26-1 at the Secretary of State's request. It held that when a church is a nonbusiness entity and spends more than $1,000 for or against the 2026 abortion initiative as an exercise of religion, Idaho's Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act bars the state from enforcing the 67-6606 donor list, because disclosure would substantially burden that exercise and is not the least restrictive means; the state can require the church to name itself as the source instead. The analysis is case by case, and the opinion does not take up candidate spending or federal tax law. A church that takes money given specifically for a candidate or measure becomes a political committee, with the full rules, and funneling political donations through a church to hide them still violates Idaho Code 67-6614.

The Secretary of State followed on September 11, 2026 with Guidance 2026-6. It says sermons, regular staff pay, ordinary use of the church building, and existing websites, podcasts and email lists without paid promotion are not reportable spending. Extra costs are: a special edition of the bulletin, paid inserts, mailers to non-members, boosted posts, signs, a consultant. The guidance gives three examples. A sermon against a measure posted to the church's existing website needs no report. A church that spends $4,500 of general funds on printed materials and radio ads files a nonbusiness entity statement and may leave general donors off. A special collection taken to oppose a measure makes the church a political committee, and the donor protection does not apply. The guidance applies the donor protection specifically to the 2026 abortion initiative and says other cases depend on the facts of the religious exercise and the burden.

For pulpit speech, candidate visits, church audits, religious schools and the pending appeal, see lesson 12, Schools, Churches and Religious Organizations.

Social welfare groups, trade associations and the 527 tax

A 501(c)(4) must be operated primarily to promote social welfare. The IRS says it may lobby as its primary activity, and may engage in some political activities "so long as that is not its primary activity." Gifts to it are generally not deductible as charity. A new (c)(4) must notify the IRS within 60 days of forming, on Form 8976, under 26 U.S.C. 506.

A 501(c)(6) is a business league: chambers of commerce, trade associations, real estate boards, professional associations. The IRS says some political activity does not by itself disqualify one, and lobbying that furthers its purpose is fine. Both (c)(4)s and (c)(6)s that lobby or campaign may have to tell members what share of dues went to that work, or pay a proxy tax instead.

There is one more federal tax catch for both. Under 26 U.S.C. 527(f), a 501(c) group that spends on elections owes tax on the lesser of its net investment income or the amount it spent. A group with no investment income owes nothing under this rule, which is one reason large (c)(4)s can spend on elections cheaply. A separate segregated fund, the tax code's term for a group's own PAC, is treated as its own organization.

A 527 organization exists mainly to influence elections. Under section 527(i) and (j), a 527 that is not exempt must file Form 8871 within 24 hours of forming and then Form 8872 reports listing contributors of $200 or more in a year (with occupation and employer for individuals) and expenditures of $500 or more. Many 527s are exempt from one or both IRS filings: FEC-registered committees, state and local candidate and party committees, qualified state or local political organizations, and groups expecting under $25,000 a year. Those groups report to the FEC or to the state instead. Idaho candidate committees and PACs file with the Secretary of State, not the IRS.

Type	Candidate campaigns	Ballot measures	Lobbying	Donors on public IRS records
501(c)(3) charity or church	Banned	Allowed as lobbying, within limits	Limited (substantial part or 501(h))	No; names reported to IRS only
501(c)(4) social welfare	Allowed if not primary activity; 527(f) tax may apply	Allowed	Unlimited if it serves the purpose	No; names not reported to IRS since 2020
501(c)(6) business league	Allowed if not primary activity; 527(f) tax may apply	Allowed	Allowed if it serves the purpose	No; names not reported to IRS since 2020
527 political organization	Its main purpose	Allowed	Allowed	Yes on Form 8872 ($200+), unless it reports to the FEC or a state instead

Donor lists at the IRS, and the courts

Every Form 990 filer with large donors attaches Schedule B. The IRS first tried to drop the donor-name requirement for most non-charities by revenue procedure, and a federal court in Bullock v. IRS (D. Mont. 2019) set that approach aside for skipping notice-and-comment rulemaking. The IRS then adopted the change by regulation: T.D. 9898, effective May 28, 2020, published in the Federal Register and summarized by the Journal of Accountancy. Now only 501(c)(3)s and 527s list donor names and addresses for the IRS. Groups such as (c)(4)s and (c)(6)s report amounts only, though they must still keep the names and give them to the IRS on request. Even for charities, the copy the public can see leaves the names out. Private foundations are the exception: their donors are public.

States wanted the lists too. California required charities to file their Schedule B with the state attorney general. On July 1, 2021, in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that "California's blanket demand for Schedule Bs is facially unconstitutional." Three justices, in a part of the lead opinion the other three in the majority did not join, held that compelled disclosure faces exacting scrutiny, which requires narrow tailoring to the state's interest; the other three found the demand failed under any standard. All six agreed it was not narrowly tailored. The ruling did not touch election disclosure laws directly. Those still stand when they are tied to election spending, which is the next section.

Federal election law also reaches nonprofits. A nonprofit corporation that makes independent expenditures in federal races files FEC Form 5 once those pass $250 with respect to an election in a calendar year. After a federal court ruling in CREW v. FEC (2018), the FEC told filers on October 4, 2018 to list each contributor who gave more than $200 in the calendar year, and to flag those who gave for the purpose of furthering an independent expenditure.

When an Idaho nonprofit must report

The Secretary of State says it plainly in Guidance 2026-5 (September 11, 2026): tax status and state of organization do not decide whether Idaho's rules apply. What decides it is paid political activity aimed at Idaho voters. Unpaid speech, volunteer work, unpaid social posts and emails to members generally are not reportable. Money is. Depending on what the group does, one or more of these filings applies:

What the nonprofit does	Idaho filing	Who gets named
Takes money given to support or oppose candidates or measures and spends more than $1,000 in a year, or is set up for that purpose	Becomes a political committee: treasurer, account, monthly reports (67-6602(14), 67-6607)	Contributors over $50 to the committee
Spends more than $1,000 of its own funds in a calendar year on Idaho candidates or measures, including contributions and in-kind items	Nonbusiness entity statement within 30 days (67-6606)	The group, its principal officer or directors, and everyone whose payments to it exceeded $500 in either of the prior two calendar years, or who paid or agreed to pay more than $500 in the current year
Pays for express advocacy over $100 for or against one candidate or measure	Independent expenditure statements (67-6611)	Vendors paid more than $50; not donors
Pays more than $100 for a communication that names a candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 of a general	Electioneering statement (67-6628)	People who gave the filer $50 or more

The 67-6606 list is the one that surprises boards. It covers people who paid dues or gave for the group's ordinary mission, not only people who gave for politics. A wildlife group whose members pay $600 a year in dues would list every one of them after spending $1,001 on a levy. That is why the Secretary of State recommends, in Guidance 2026-5, that a nonprofit set up a separate PAC (for candidate work, an option only for groups other than 501(c)(3)s). The PAC keeps its own account, only the PAC's donors are reported, and the PAC may solicit at the nonprofit's meetings as long as the money stays separate. Money, staff time or office space the nonprofit gives the PAC is still the nonprofit's own spending and counts toward its $1,000. Any political ad still has to say who paid for it under 67-6614A, covered in lesson 6.

Idaho has tested this before. In October 2012, the Secretary of State sued Education Voters of Idaho, a self-described 501(c)(4) that ran TV ads backing education Propositions 1, 2 and 3 and argued its tax status exempted its donors. On October 29, 2012, a 4th District judge ordered it to comply with the Sunshine Law, and it filed two days later, the Spokesman-Review reported. The report showed more than $641,000 from 25 donors, ten of them from outside Idaho, including a $200,000 gift from an out-of-state donor. The largest single gift, $250,000, came from an Idaho donor. Out-of-state donors gave about $320,000 and Idaho donors about $321,000. A week later voters rejected all three measures, each failing by at least 15 percent of the vote, Boise State Public Radio reported. The group's tax status had not protected its donor list. Its spending on Idaho measures had exposed it.

Dark money, described fairly

Dark money means election spending whose original funders the public cannot see. It is a description of a gap in disclosure and proves nothing about the spender. The usual route: donors give to a (c)(4) or (c)(6), which reports no names on public IRS records, and the group gives to a committee or buys ads itself. In Idaho, the 67-6606 and 67-6628 rules close part of that gap, because they name the people who paid the group. A layer remains when one nonprofit is funded by another nonprofit: the list shows the second group's name and stops there.

People across the political spectrum use dark money and object to it, often in the same season. Groups that defend donor privacy point to Bonta, to the harassment donors can face when lists go public, and to NAACP v. Alabama (1958), a civil rights era case protecting members from forced exposure. Groups that want more disclosure point to Citizens United v. FEC (2010), where the Court upheld federal disclaimer and disclosure rules 8 to 1 even as it struck down limits on corporate independent spending. When you describe a nonprofit's spending, say what the record shows: "The committee's largest donor is a 501(c)(4) that does not publish its donors." That sentence is true, checkable and fair to everyone in it.

Questions and answers

The questions nonprofit boards, executive directors, treasurers and church leaders ask most. The questions about who may give to whom, including forums, voter guides and club-and-PAC pairs, are answered one by one in Who Can Give to Whom: Questions and Answers.

Our executive director wants to endorse a candidate on her personal social media. Is the charity at risk?

Not if she does it as herself. Rev. Rul. 2007-41 lets leaders speak in a personal capacity, on personal time, outside the organization's publications and official functions. She may list her title for identification, and Publication 1828 suggests saying it is for identification only. The endorsement may not appear on the charity's page, newsletter, website or at its events, and she may not use charity staff or equipment to post it.

A legislator running for re-election wants to speak at our annual dinner. Can we say yes?

Yes, if she appears in a role other than candidate, such as the sitting legislator on the committee that handles your issue, and nobody at the event mentions the race. No campaign signs, no fundraising and no remarks about the election. Rev. Rul. 2007-41 treats a candidate appearance as intervention when the event turns into campaign talk or only one side gets the stage. Keep a record of why she was invited.

Do we have to file the 501(h) election before we lobby on a bill?

No. Without it, a charity is under the default "substantial part" test, which allows some lobbying but sets no number. Filing Form 5768 trades that uncertainty for the dollar limits in 26 U.S.C. 4911. Churches and private foundations cannot make the election.

We gave $5,000 to a committee working only on a county levy. What do we file in Idaho?

A nonbusiness entity statement under Idaho Code 67-6606, within 30 days of the day your Idaho political spending passed $1,000 for the year. It names the group, its principal officer or directors, and everyone who paid you more than $500 in either of the two prior years, or paid or agreed to pay more than $500 this year, for any reason. On the federal side, count the $5,000 as lobbying. The receiving committee reports your gift as a contribution too.

Does our 501(c)(4) owe tax on its election spending?

Possibly. Under 26 U.S.C. 527(f), a 501(c) group that spends on candidate work, directly or through another organization, owes tax on the lesser of its net investment income or the amount spent. A group with no investment income owes nothing under the rule. A check to a measure-only committee falls outside 527's exempt function, which is candidate work.

Our church wants to print a "Vote No" insert for the bulletin. What counts?

The insert's added printing and design costs count; the sermon, the regular bulletin and the pastor's pay do not, under the Secretary of State's Guidance 2026-6. Once the church's added political costs pass $1,000 in the year, it files a nonbusiness entity statement. The donor protection in AG Opinion 26-1 applies to general funds spent on the 2026 abortion initiative; for other measures, the guidance says it depends on the facts. Federally, the insert is lobbying, which a church may do within the substantial part test.

Can we rent our mailing list to a candidate?

Yes, on the same terms and at the customary fee you would offer every candidate in the race, and only if you would rent it to anyone on those terms. A discount, or access for one candidate only, turns a business deal into intervention under Rev. Rul. 2007-41.

Our treasurer already sent $1,000 to a candidate PAC. What now?

Ask for the money back and stop any further payments. Under 26 U.S.C. 4955(f)(3), "correction" means recovering the expenditure to the extent possible and putting safeguards in place to prevent another one, such as a board policy that no check goes to any committee without the steps in the checklist above. The first-tier tax is 10 percent on the charity and can reach a manager who knowingly agreed; the 100 percent second tier applies only if the spending is not corrected. The 4955 taxes are reported and paid on IRS Form 4720.

Is a 501(c)(6) chamber's endorsement list reportable in Idaho?

Not if it costs nothing extra. Guidance 2026-5 says unpaid speech, unpaid social posts and emails to members generally are not reportable. Paying to print and mail the list, boost it or buy ads with it is spending, and once the chamber's own Idaho political spending passes $1,000 in a year it files under 67-6606. Express advocacy over $100 also triggers 67-6611 independent expenditure statements.

Hard questions

Isn't the Johnson Amendment an unconstitutional gag on charities and churches?

Courts have upheld it so far, on the theory that the government may decline to subsidize political activity with tax deductions. In Regan v. Taxation With Representation (1983), the Supreme Court upheld the lobbying limit on that basis, and the D.C. Circuit upheld the revocation of a church's exemption over newspaper ads against a presidential candidate in Branch Ministries v. Rossotti (2000). A group that wants to campaign can form a (c)(4), which gets no deduction for its donors. The religious broadcasters and churches in National Religious Broadcasters v. Bessent argued the rule burdens religious speech, and in 2025 the IRS agreed to a consent decree that would have narrowed it for sermons to a congregation. In March 2026 the district court refused to enter that decree and dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds without deciding the constitutional question, so the decree never took effect and the statute stands as written. The plaintiffs appealed to the Fifth Circuit in April 2026, where the Justice Department supports reversal on the jurisdiction question, and we found no ruling on the appeal as of October 2026. The argument now rests with that appeal, Congress or a future case.

Isn't "dark money" just free speech by people who fear retaliation?

Sometimes it is exactly that. NAACP v. Alabama (1958) protected members of a civil rights group from forced exposure, and Bonta (2021) struck down a blanket donor demand because it was not narrowly tailored. The same Court upheld election disclosure 8 to 1 in Citizens United, reasoning that voters may learn who is paying to persuade them. Idaho draws its line at spending on Idaho elections, and a group that wants to protect general supporters can move political work to a PAC. Both values are real, and the law tries to protect each in its own place.

Why should a wildlife group name every dues-paying member because it spent $1,001 on a levy?

That is the strongest criticism of 67-6606. The statute reaches people who gave for any reason, not only for politics, which is broader than most disclosure rules and the kind of fit Bonta asked courts to examine. The Secretary of State's answer is the separate PAC, which limits disclosure to political donors. We found no Idaho decision testing 67-6606 against Bonta's narrow tailoring standard as of October 2026, and the 2025 and 2026 disclosure bills described in lesson 05 did not change it.

Why do churches get a donor exemption that secular nonprofits do not?

Because Idaho has a statute that protects religious exercise specifically: the Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act bars the state from substantially burdening religious exercise unless it uses the least restrictive means. AG Opinion 26-1 applied that test to churches spending general funds on the 2026 abortion initiative. No parallel statute protects a secular group's members. The church still names itself as the source, and money given specifically for politics gets no protection. Whether the line should exist at all is a fair question for the Legislature.

Why can a charity campaign on a levy but not on a candidate?

Congress treats a ballot measure as legislation and a candidate as a person who will hold power. A charity may lobby on legislation within limits, including when the voters are the legislature, as 26 U.S.C. 4911(e)(2) provides. Helping elect a person with tax-deductible money raises the risk that donors buy influence with an officeholder at public expense, which is the risk the 1954 clause was written to stop.

Why can a 501(c)(4) spend on a race without public IRS donor records when a candidate must name every $50 donor?

Because the two are regulated by different laws for different purposes. The candidate's reports exist to show who funds the person who will hold office. The (c)(4)'s IRS filings exist to verify its tax status, and since 2020 the IRS no longer collects most of its donor names. Idaho closes part of the gap: once the (c)(4) spends more than $1,000 on Idaho races, 67-6606 names its payers, and federal Form 5 filers list donors who gave for political purposes after CREW v. FEC.