Schools, Churches and Religious Organizations: What They Can and Cannot Do in Elections

Lesson 8 set out the basic 501(c)(3) rules and the 2026 changes for Idaho churches (see Nonprofits in Politics). This lesson takes each kind of institution in turn, starting with houses of worship, then religious groups that are not churches, private schools, public schools and universities, and the parent groups and booster clubs that orbit them. For each one, the question is the same: what the institution itself may do, and what the people inside it may do on their own.

Who is covered, and by which law

Private nonprofits answer to federal tax law, because their exemption depends on staying out of candidate campaigns. Public bodies answer to Idaho's Public Integrity in Elections Act, Title 74, Chapter 6, because the money they hold belongs to taxpayers. Idaho's Sunshine Law, Title 67, Chapter 66, adds reporting once a private group spends money on Idaho voters. A public body has nothing to report there, because it may not spend on advocacy at all.

Institution	Main federal rule	Main Idaho rule	Lobbying measured by
Church, convention of churches	501(c)(3) campaign ban; Church Audit Procedures Act	67-6606 if it spends over $1,000; AG Opinion 26-1 and Guidance 2026-6	Substantial part test only
Religious nonprofit that is not a church (ministry, religious charity, religious school)	501(c)(3) campaign ban	67-6606; Guidance 2026-6 says other religious groups depend on the facts	Substantial part or 501(h), unless an integrated auxiliary
Private school, college or university	501(c)(3) campaign ban	67-6606 if it spends over $1,000	Substantial part or, usually, 501(h), unless it is an integrated auxiliary
Public school district, public college or university	Not a 501(c)(3); Hatch Act does not reach education employees	74-604 ban on public funds and resources; 34-913 and 34-914 disclosures for its own bonds and levies	Not applicable
Parent-teacher group, booster club, education foundation with 501(c)(3) status	501(c)(3) campaign ban	67-6606 if it spends over $1,000	Substantial part or 501(h)

Churches and houses of worship

The ban, as the IRS applies it to churches

The IRS guide for congregations is Publication 1828, last revised in August 2015. It says churches and religious organizations, like every 501(c)(3), are "absolutely prohibited" from participating or intervening, directly or indirectly, in any campaign for or against a candidate for elective office. Contributions to a campaign fund and public statements for or against a candidate clearly violate it. A church that crosses the line risks revocation, and the spending also draws excise taxes: 10 percent of the amount on the church and 2.5 percent (up to $5,000 per expenditure) on any manager who knowingly agreed, rising to 100 percent on the church and 50 percent (up to $10,000) on managers who refuse to correct it.

The ban covers candidates, for any office, partisan or not. A school board race counts. It does not cover issues, and it does not cover ballot measures, which the tax code treats as legislation.

The pastor as a citizen, and the pastor in the pulpit

Publication 1828 says the ban does not stop religious leaders from speaking for themselves as individuals, and does not stop anyone from discussing policy. What a leader may not do is make partisan comments in official church publications or at official church functions. The guide's examples draw the line clearly:

• A minister is one of several ministers listed in a candidate's full-page newspaper ad as personal endorsers, identified as the church's minister, with a line saying titles are for identification only. The campaign paid. No intervention by the church.
• A minister endorses a candidate at a press conference at the campaign's headquarters, without claiming to speak for the church and without church money or assets. No intervention.
• A minister endorses a candidate in his regular column in the church's newsletter and pays that page's share of the printing cost himself. Intervention, because the newsletter is an official church publication.
• A minister urges the congregation to vote for a named candidate during a regular worship service. Intervention.

The same reasoning appears in Rev. Rul. 2007-41, the IRS's 21 election-season situations. Its Situation 21 is a church that posts a message on its website shortly before an election urging support for a member running for town council. That is intervention, even for a small local race.

Candidates in the building

A candidate may set foot in a church. The question is in what role. For a candidate invited to speak as a candidate, Publication 1828 lists factors that include whether every candidate for the office gets an equal opportunity, whether the church signals support or opposition (the guide says to state at the introduction and in publicity that it does not endorse), whether fundraising occurs, and whether the event stays nonpartisan. The nature of the event counts too: inviting one candidate to a packed banquet and the opponent to a sparse weeknight meeting is not equal.

The worship-service examples are useful. Three candidates for one office speak on successive Sundays with neutral introductions: no violation. A fourth candidate declines, and the church's publicity says the order was random and that one candidate declined: still no violation. A single candidate preaches at a service, asks the congregation for votes, and no opponent is invited: intervention.

A candidate may also appear for another reason, such as expertise, public office or fame. Then the church should not mention the candidacy or the election. Acknowledging a statewide official at a prayer service in the customary way is fine. Thanking a mayor at a public concert and asking the crowd to support the mayor's reelection is not. A candidate forum that includes all candidates, uses questions from a nonpartisan panel, covers a broad range of issues and has a moderator who does not comment on answers is treated as education.

Voter guides, registration and turnout

Publication 1828 allows voter education, registration and get-out-the-vote work if it is nonpartisan. For voter guides the IRS asks whether all candidates are included, whether a broad range of issues is covered, whether the questions and descriptions are neutral, and whether candidate positions are compared to the church's own. A neutral questionnaire sent to every candidate for governor passes. Questions worded to show the "right" answer fail. A registration booth with no candidate or party references passes. A phone bank that thanks callers who favor one candidate and offers rides to the polls only to them fails, because it targets turnout by preference.

Bulletins, buildings, mailing lists and websites

Publication 1828 treats facility rentals, list rentals and paid ads as business activity, and asks whether the item is offered to all candidates on equal terms, whether it is offered to the general public, whether the fee is customary, and whether the activity is ongoing or done just for one candidate. A church that rents its hall to the public on a first-come basis at its standard fee may rent it to a candidate's fundraiser. A church that rents its mailing list to one candidate and refuses others has intervened. Websites are treated like printed material: posting content that favors a candidate is intervention, and the church answers for the links it posts. A link to a neutral voter guide that in turn links to every candidate's site is fine.

Church activity	Federal tax law (candidates)	Idaho reporting under Guidance 2026-6 (spending on candidates or measures)
Sermon on a ballot measure	Lobbying, not intervention	Not reportable; Guidance 2026-6 assigns no value to a sermon
Sermon endorsing a candidate	Intervention	Not a reportable cost, but the tax problem remains
Regular bulletin mentions a measure	Lobbying	Not by itself an expenditure
Special bulletin edition or paid insert on a measure	Lobbying	Added printing and postage count toward $1,000
Neutral voter guide insert covering all candidates	Allowed if it meets the IRS factors	Track added costs
Hall rented to a campaign at standard fees	Allowed if open to all on the same terms	A paid rental is not church spending; free use for a campaign is an in-kind contribution
Mailing list given or rented to one candidate	Intervention	Federal problem first
Existing website, podcast or email list used on a measure	Lobbying	Not reportable without paid promotion
Boosted posts, signs, radio ads on a measure	Lobbying	Reportable; count toward $1,000
Special collection for a measure campaign	Lobbying	Makes the church a political committee, and the donor protection falls away

Issues, lobbying and ballot measures

Churches may speak on any issue, including the issues candidates fight over, as long as the message is not a campaign message in disguise. Publication 1828 lists the warning signs: naming or otherwise identifying a candidate, judging a candidate's positions, running close to the election, mentioning voting, and lacking a tie to some non-election event like a scheduled vote. Its example of a radio ad naming a governor shortly before the governor's reelection, on an issue the opponent was using, is intervention. An ad urging a vote on a pending bill, timed to the floor vote, is not.

Lobbying is allowed for churches, within limits. Publication 1828 defines legislation to include public votes on referendums, ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments, so a church campaign for or against a measure is lobbying. The limit is the vague "substantial part" test, measured by time and money. Other charities can trade that for a dollar formula, but the tax code disqualifies churches: 26 U.S.C. 501(h)(5) lists churches, integrated auxiliaries of churches and members of an affiliated group that includes them, and Publication 1828 says churches "aren't eligible" for the expenditure test. Excessive lobbying can cost a church its exemption.

Idaho adds a reporting layer. A church that spends more than $1,000 of its own money in a calendar year on Idaho candidates or measures files a nonbusiness entity statement within 30 days under Idaho Code 67-6606, which normally lists everyone who paid the group more than $500 in either of the two prior calendar years, or paid or agreed to pay more than $500 in the current one. On August 27, 2026, the Attorney General issued Opinion 26-1, at the Secretary of State's request. It concluded that when a church spends general funds for or against the 2026 abortion initiative as an exercise of religion, Idaho's Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act bars the state from requiring the general-donor list. The church must still name itself as the source, file independent expenditure statements for spending over $100, and follow the political committee rules if it takes money given specifically for a measure. The opinion turns on the facts of each case, does not address candidate spending, and does not address federal tax law.

The Secretary of State's Guidance 2026-6, issued September 11, 2026, puts that into practice. Sermons, regular staff pay, ordinary use of an owned or leased building, volunteers, and existing websites, podcasts and email lists used without paid promotion are not reportable. Added costs are. Mixed-purpose costs may be split by "a reasonable, good-faith allocation," with records kept. In its examples, a church spending $4,500 of general funds on printed materials and radio ads files as a nonbusiness entity and may leave general donors off. A special collection for advertising makes the church a political committee, and the donor protection falls away. The guidance also repeats that routing political money through a church to hide its source violates Idaho Code 67-6614.

How an IRS church audit works

Congress gave churches extra procedural protection in 26 U.S.C. 7611, the Church Audit Procedures Act. The IRS may open a church tax inquiry only if an "appropriate high-level Treasury official" reasonably believes, based on facts recorded in writing, that the church may not qualify for exemption or may owe tax on unrelated business or other taxable activity. Then the steps run in order:

1. A written inquiry notice explaining the concerns and the church's rights, including the right to a conference.
2. A reasonable time for the church to answer in writing. If the answer settles the concern, the matter closes.
3. If not, an examination notice, sent at least 15 days before the examination starts and no earlier than 15 days after the inquiry notice, with a description of the records sought. An inquiry that does not lead to an examination must end within 90 days of the inquiry notice.
4. A conference with the IRS if the church asks for one before the examination begins.
5. An examination completed within two years of the examination notice, with time paused for litigation or church delay.

If revocation follows, income tax generally reaches back only the three most recent tax years before the examination notice, or six if the church was not exempt in any of those three; unrelated business income tax can reach back six. Section 7611(f) also bars a new inquiry or examination of the same church for five years after one that ended with no revocation, deficiency, assessment or required significant change, unless it involves different issues or is approved in writing at a high level. The protections cover churches, conventions and associations of churches, and groups claiming to be churches. Publication 1828 says they do not cover a school a church runs as a separate legal entity, or the church's integrated auxiliaries, and they do not cover criminal investigations or inquiries into a minister's own taxes.

Enforcement history

The ban dates to 1954, and a 1987 change made clear it reaches statements opposing candidates, according to the IRS page Charities, churches and politics. Revocations of churches have been rare. The leading case started on October 30, 1992, four days before the presidential election, when the Church at Pierce Creek ran full-page ads in USA Today and The Washington Times headed "Christians Beware," urging Christians not to vote for one of the major-party candidates and stating that tax-deductible donations for the ad were "gladly accepted." The IRS opened a church tax inquiry in November 1992 and an examination in February 1993, and revoked the church's exemption on January 19, 1995. The church, through its corporate body Branch Ministries, sued. The district court ruled for the IRS in 1999, and on May 12, 2000, the D.C. Circuit affirmed in Branch Ministries v. Rossotti.

The court called it the first time the IRS had revoked a bona fide church's exemption over politics. It found no substantial burden on religion, calling the loss "more symbolic than substantial": the church could regain its benefits by staying out of campaigns, and it could form a separately incorporated 501(c)(4), which could then form a PAC, as long as records showed tax-deductible gifts did not pay for the politics. It rejected the selective-prosecution claim because other churches' reported activity did not involve national newspaper ads soliciting deductible gifts.

Since then, enforcement has mostly meant inquiries, not revocations. A July 2026 Congressional Research Service legal sidebar reports that an IRS political activities compliance program investigated 47 churches in 2004 and 44 in 2006 for campaign activity. Since 2008 an advocacy group has organized "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," urging pastors to preach on the moral qualifications of candidates to set up a court test. Citing a 2012 law review article, the sidebar says that of more than 30 participating churches in 2008, one was investigated, and the IRS dropped it without enforcement action. The same sidebar reports the GAO's count: from fiscal 2010 through 2017, the IRS investigated 205 501(c)(3) organizations of all kinds for alleged campaign activity, without saying how many were churches.

The 2025 to 2026 litigation over pulpit speech

In August 2024, the National Religious Broadcasters, Intercessors for America and two East Texas churches, First Baptist Church Waskom and Sand Springs Church, sued the IRS in the Eastern District of Texas, arguing the campaign ban violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise, both on its face and as applied to them. After an amended complaint in February 2025, the IRS and the plaintiffs filed a joint motion for a consent judgment in July 2025. It stipulated that when a house of worship, in good faith, speaks to its congregation through its customary channels, on matters of faith in connection with religious services, about electoral politics, it does not "participate" or "intervene" in a campaign, and it asked the court to bar enforcement against the two churches for such speech.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State moved to intervene as a defendant. The court denied that motion, but Americans United filed an amicus brief and argued against the decree at a hearing, warning it would have wider precedential effect and let the parties bypass Congress and ordinary rulemaking. Other amici, including the Campaign Legal Center, Public Citizen and Common Cause, filed a brief opposing it. The court held argument on November 25, 2025. On March 31, 2026, it dismissed the case, National Religious Broadcasters v. Bessent, No. 6:24-cv-00311, without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Tax Anti-Injunction Act and the tax exception to the Declaratory Judgment Act, which bar suits to restrain tax assessment or collection, without reaching the First Amendment questions. The court said it was barred from entering the requested consent judgment, and it pointed to other routes for a church facing revocation: a refund suit, or a declaratory suit on its exempt status after an adverse IRS determination. The consent judgment never took effect.

Two things have happened since. On April 3, 2026, Treasury announced that it and the IRS would issue guidance with "clear, administrable standards for houses of worship," restating its litigation view that bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, in connection with religious services, are not prohibited intervention. And the plaintiffs appealed, filing their notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit on April 22, 2026. In that appeal, No. 26-40237, the Justice Department, though nominally on the appellee side for the IRS, joins the plaintiffs in asking the court to reverse on the jurisdictional ground and send the case back for entry of the consent judgment. No appellate ruling had been issued as of October 2026. Advocacy and legal groups filed briefs for reversal in July 2026, among them the American Center for Law and Justice and Citizens United, and one was joined by two members of Congress. The Campaign Legal Center and Public Citizen filed one on September 28, 2026 urging the court to affirm. That brief identified no published IRS guidance on the subject, and we found none issued as of mid-October 2026.

So the status, as of October 2026: the statute is unchanged, no court has approved a pulpit exception, the appeal is pending, and the promised guidance has not been published. The IRS has said in court that it reads the law to allow internal worship-service speech, and the proposed consent judgment rested in part on the statement that the agency "generally has not enforced" the ban against such speech. A litigation position is not a rule, and it binds no future IRS. The November 2026 election is running under the text of the statute and Publication 1828.

Religious organizations that are not churches

Ministries, religious charities, religious camps, faith-based relief groups and religious schools that are organized separately from a congregation live under the same campaign ban. The differences are in the machinery around it.

• Lobbying. Publication 1828 says that although churches are not eligible, religious organizations may elect the 501(h) expenditure test by filing Form 5768. Integrated auxiliaries of a church cannot, because 501(h)(5) disqualifies them along with churches. Under Treas. Reg. 1.6033-2(h), an integrated auxiliary is a 501(c)(3) public charity affiliated with a church and internally supported, and church men's and women's organizations, seminaries, mission societies and youth groups count automatically. The regulation says a group is not internally supported if it both sells services to the general public, other than incidentally, and normally gets more than half its support from government, public solicitation and those sales. A religious school that charges tuition to all comers and lives mostly on tuition and public gifts, or a fee-charging relief agency, would likely fail that test, so it would likely not be an integrated auxiliary and could elect 501(h). The regulation's examples do not involve schools, and we found no IRS ruling applying the test to one, so each school's facts control. A school run as part of the congregation itself, with no separate organization, is likely treated as the church.
• Audit protection. Publication 1828 says the Church Audit Procedures Act does not cover integrated auxiliaries or church-run schools organized as separate legal entities.
• Idaho reporting. Guidance 2026-6 is titled for churches and other religious organizations, but the donor-list protection from AG Opinion 26-1 was written for churches spending on the 2026 abortion initiative and depends on showing a religious exercise burdened by disclosure. Guidance 2026-6 says that in other situations the protection under Idaho's Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act depends on the facts of the religious exercise and the burden. A religious relief agency should expect to file a full 67-6606 statement unless it can show the same facts.

Everything else carries over: personal-capacity speech by leaders, fair forums, neutral voter guides, ballot measure work as lobbying, and no gifts to candidates or candidate PACs.

Private schools, colleges and universities

A private K-12 school or college that is a 501(c)(3) may not endorse, contribute to or campaign against a candidate. The hard questions come from the fact that a campus is full of people with opinions. The IRS answered most of them in its 2002 continuing-education text, Election Year Issues, a training document for IRS staff that summarizes the revenue rulings but is not itself official guidance. To count as the school's intervention, it says, the activity "must be that of the college or university" and not the individual activity of faculty, staff or students.

• Classes. In Rev. Rul. 72-512, a political science course sent students to work 60 to 80 hours on campaigns of their own choosing. The university did not pick candidates and was paid back for services it provided. No intervention. Had faculty told students which candidates to work for, the students' work would have been the university's.
• Student newspapers. In Rev. Rul. 72-513, a university funded a student paper, gave it office space and assigned faculty advisors. Student editors set editorial policy, and the editorial page said the views were the students'. The paper could run student editorials on political matters without the university intervening.
• Student groups and facilities. Whether letting a student group use rooms for campaign activity is intervention depends on the facts, chiefly whether rooms go to political groups on the same basis as other groups and to similar groups equally.
• Officials. In Rev. Rul. 2007-41, Situation 4, a university president endorsed a candidate in his "My Views" column in the university's alumni newsletter the month before an election. Intervention, even though he paid that column's share of the cost, for the same reason as the minister's column. Situation 12, a one-line alumni note that a graduate is running for mayor, with nothing else about the race, is fine. Situation 14, a university newspaper ad urging readers to contact a senator about a bill scheduled for a vote, run before a primary in which the senator was a candidate but with no mention of the election, is lobbying, not intervention.

The CPE text adds a warning on attribution. Students' actions generally are not the school's unless a school official directed or authorized them, but an organization that fails to disavow unauthorized acts done under apparent authority, promptly and as publicly as the original acts, can be found to have ratified them.

Public schools, school districts, public colleges and universities

The public resources ban

A public school district or state university is not a 501(c)(3). It is a public entity, and Idaho's rule for it is shorter and stricter. Under 74-604, unless the law requires it, no public entity, employee or official may make an expenditure from public funds, or use public property or resources, to advocate for or against a candidate or a ballot measure. Section 74-603 defines resources broadly: goods, services, equipment, software, hardware, college extra credit and facilities. Subsection (3) of 74-604 bars offering extra credit at a state college or university to get a student to vote, not vote, or vote a certain way.

The exceptions are in 74-605. Employees and officials may speak, campaign and give their own money as individuals, with no public funds behind it. The entity may neutrally encourage people to vote. It may publish an objective statement of a measure's purpose and effect, including cost per taxpayer for a bond or levy. It must publish the notices that election law requires. And subsection (8) protects "a balanced student classroom discussion or debate" of current or pending election issues. Public facilities that are open to the general public may be used by political parties at the same times and in the same way, if every party gets equal and fair access, under the definition in 74-603(5).

Watch one definition. A "ballot measure" in 74-603 means constitutional amendments, bond measures and levy measures. Initiatives and referendums are not on the list, though the 2024 legislator exception mentions them. Lesson 7 covers that gap; we found no ruling settling it.

A district's own bond or levy

A district may tell voters the facts about its own measure, and for a bond it must. Under Idaho Code 34-913(5), any communication a taxing district sends to 20 or more voters about a proposed bond, and any poster, website or social media post it presents to the public, must carry the anticipated interest rate, total repayment with principal and interest, estimated average annual tax cost per $100,000 of taxable value, repayment period, existing debt and any state tax relief disclosure from the official ballot statement. Under 34-913(6), if a court finds the district did not comply, it must declare the outcome of the ballot question invalid and award costs and fees to the prevailing party. For a levy, Idaho Code 34-914 requires the same kind of mass communication or public post to carry the estimated annual tax per $100,000 of taxable value and how long the levy will run, with the same remedy. Lesson 7 works through the cost formula.

Idaho cases

Three recent matters show where the line sits.

Idaho Falls School District 91, 2022 to 2023. In May 2023 the Bonneville County prosecutor filed civil complaints against the district's former superintendent and its public information officer over posters, postcards and bookmarks the district paid for before a $250 million bond election in November 2022, which voters rejected. The prosecutor argued that words like "need," "aged" and "overcrowding" turned information into advocacy. In December 2023 the case settled: the complaint against the information officer was dismissed, the former superintendent's $250 fine was paid with money that was not the district's, and no one admitted wrongdoing. District records showed nearly $90,000 in legal fees from July through October 2023. The prosecutor said the case sent districts statewide a message to be careful with public funds.

A school board chair, 2026. At a mandatory staff meeting on school property on January 5, 2026, with breakfast paid by the district, the board chair of the Twin Falls School District urged staff to vote in the May primary and said many legislators do not support public education. No candidates were named, but he cited the vote margins in two close 2024 legislative primaries. Four legislators, all facing primary challengers, complained to the Attorney General. On April 23, 2026, the Attorney General's office found a violation of 74-604, saying of the unnamed candidates, "your message was clear." The letter noted that a teachers union campaign's talking points had "striking similarities" to the remarks, and said that while the union may exercise its own rights, a trustee cannot get around the law by coordinating with outside groups. It asked the chair to cease and desist and warned that a future violation would bring a request for a civil penalty and fees, with no penalty this time, Idaho Education News reported. The test was the whole message, not whether names were spoken.

An event at an elementary school, 2021. In October 2021 the lieutenant governor held a gathering in a public elementary school after a parent booked the room without saying what it was for. The lieutenant governor's attorney, then a candidate for attorney general, spoke there about what he would do in that office. The Attorney General's office found no violation, because although a candidate advocated for his own election, no public official or entity had authorized the use of public property for that purpose. A spokesperson said it "may violate the spirit" of the Act but not "the letter of the law," and offered to help the Legislature amend the statute, KIVI reported.

Employees' own speech

Teachers and staff do not give up their citizenship at hire. In Pickering v. Board of Education (June 3, 1968), an Illinois teacher was fired for a letter to the local paper attacking the school board's handling of bond issues and a tax increase that voters had rejected. The Supreme Court reversed, weighing "the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern" against the state's interest as an employer in running efficient public services. A teacher's speech on public issues could not be grounds for dismissal absent knowing or reckless falsehood.

The protection has an edge. In Garcetti v. Ceballos (May 30, 2006), the Court ruled 5 to 4 that when public employees speak pursuant to their official duties, they "are not speaking as citizens" for First Amendment purposes. The Court set aside the question of teaching and scholarship, so how it applies in a classroom is unsettled. Put both cases next to 74-604 and a workable rule appears. A teacher's letter to the editor, yard sign, donation and Saturday door-knocking are protected. Using the school email account, a classroom bulletin board or a staff meeting to push a candidate or measure is using public resources, and speech delivered as part of the job gets far less constitutional protection.

Students

Students have their own rights. In Tinker v. Des Moines (February 24, 1969), the Court held 7 to 2 that students wearing black armbands to protest a war could not be suspended for it, because students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." A school may restrict student speech that would "materially and substantially interfere" with discipline and school work, or invade others' rights. So a student's campaign button or T-shirt is generally protected. A school that pressures students toward a side is the one breaking the law.

Student clubs get help from the federal Equal Access Act. A public secondary school that receives federal financial assistance and lets any noncurriculum student group meet during noninstructional time has a limited open forum, and may not turn groups away for the "political, philosophical, or other content" of their speech. Meetings must be voluntary and student-initiated, the school may not sponsor them, and outsiders may not run them or regularly attend. A student club for a candidate or a measure can meet on the same terms as the chess club.

School boards taking positions

Board members are public officials under 74-603. As individuals, under 74-605, they may campaign for or against a candidate or measure with their own money and time. Acting as the board, the limits are 74-604: no public funds, property or resources to advocate. We found no Idaho ruling on whether a board vote on a resolution backing or opposing a ballot measure is by itself a violation. Paying to print it, mail it or post it on the district's channels would use public resources, and the 2026 letter shows the Attorney General's office will read a message as a whole. For a citizen initiative, the definition gap noted above applies too.

The federal Hatch Act

The Hatch Act's state and local provisions cover people "principally employed" by a state or local executive agency in work financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants. They bar coercing employees to give, using official authority to affect an election, and candidacy for partisan office by employees paid entirely with federal funds, according to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. But the definition in 5 U.S.C. 1501(4) excludes anyone employed by an educational or research institution supported by a state or political subdivision, or by a recognized religious, philanthropic or cultural organization. OSC gives teachers as an example. Federal money in a school's budget does not make its teachers Hatch Act employees. A worker at a county or state agency running a federally funded program, by contrast, may be covered.

Parent-teacher groups, booster clubs and education foundations

Many PTAs, PTOs, booster clubs and school foundations are 501(c)(3) public charities. Check the group's status in the IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search, because an unincorporated club with no IRS status is not under the campaign ban, though it is under Idaho's reporting rules once it spends. A 501(c)(3) parent group may not endorse school board candidates, rate them or host a one-sided meet-and-greet. It may hold a forum for all candidates, register parents to vote and campaign on a bond or levy as lobbying. Unlike a church, it may elect 501(h) and work from a dollar limit, as lesson 8 explains. It may give to a committee formed only for the measure, counted as lobbying, and never to a candidate PAC.

Being a private group is what lets a booster club say "vote yes" when the district cannot. That freedom likely stops at district property. District email lists, backpack mail, copiers and staff time fit the statute's definition of public property or resources in 74-603(5), so a district employee who lets a parent group use them for a bond campaign risks a 74-604 violation. The same section exempts resources offered to the general public on the same terms, so a district channel truly open to any community group on equal terms may be treated differently. We found no Idaho ruling or official guidance applying 74-604 to a parent group, so ask the county prosecutor or the Secretary of State's elections division before using any district channel. The 34-913(5) disclosures bind the taxing district, not the parent group, but the group's paid materials need a sponsor line under Idaho's attribution rules, and spending past $1,000 triggers 67-6606.

Side by side

Activity	Church	Other religious nonprofit	Private school or college	Public school or university	Individual employee or member
Endorse or oppose a candidate officially	No	No	No	No (74-604)	Yes, in personal capacity
Give to a candidate, party or candidate PAC	No	No	No	No	Yes, own money, within Idaho limits
Fair forum with all candidates	Yes	Yes	Yes	Not listed in 74-605; a neutral forum is not advocacy, and rooms open to the public go to all on equal terms	Yes
Nonpartisan voter registration	Yes	Yes	Yes	Neutral encouragement to vote (74-605)	Yes
Campaign for or against a ballot measure	Yes, as lobbying	Yes, as lobbying	Yes, as lobbying	No; neutral facts and required disclosures only	Yes, own time and money
Lobbying measured by 501(h) dollar test	No, not eligible	Yes, unless an integrated auxiliary	Usually, unless an integrated auxiliary	Not applicable	Not applicable
Use its email list, website or newsletter for a candidate	No	No	No	No	Only personal accounts
Rent facilities to campaigns	Yes, standard fees, open to all	Yes, same terms	Yes, same terms	Only as available to the general public; equal access for parties	Not applicable
Church Audit Procedures Act protection	Yes	No	No (unless part of the church itself)	No	No
Idaho filing after $1,000 on candidates or measures	67-6606; general donors may be withheld for 2026 abortion initiative spending under AG Opinion 26-1	67-6606, facts decide any religious exemption	67-6606	Not applicable; spending is barred	Contributions are reported by the receiving committee

Questions and answers

These are the questions pastors, church boards, principals, teachers and parent groups ask most. The full set of who-can-give-to-whom answers is in lesson 13.

Can our pastor endorse a candidate?

Yes, as a private citizen. Publication 1828 lets a minister endorse in a campaign ad, at a press conference or on a personal social media account, with the church named only for identification. The endorsement may not come from the pulpit during a service, appear in the bulletin or newsletter, or go out on the church's website, email list or accounts, even if the pastor pays for the space.

A candidate asked to speak at our Sunday service. Can we say yes?

Only if you give every candidate for that office the same chance, on similar terms, and say at the introduction and in publicity that the church does not endorse. No fundraising, no request for votes from the pulpit, and no opponent left uninvited. If the candidate is coming for another reason, such as a sitting official reading Scripture at a community service, leave the race out entirely.

Can our church hand out voter guides?

Yes, if the guide covers every candidate, asks a broad range of questions in neutral words and does not compare answers to the church's own positions, the factors in Publication 1828 and Rev. Rul. 2007-41. A scorecard that rates candidates "right" or "wrong" on the church's issues is intervention, however it is labeled. Read any guide an outside group mails you before putting it in the pews.

Can our church campaign for or against a ballot measure?

Yes. The IRS treats a measure as legislation, so a church campaign on one is lobbying, limited only by the substantial part test. Idaho adds reporting: once the church spends more than $1,000 of added costs in a calendar year, it files under 67-6606 within 30 days. Sermons, regular staff pay and an existing website are not counted, according to Guidance 2026-6.

Do we have to list our members' donations if we spend on the 2026 abortion initiative?

Not the general-donor list, if the church spends general funds as an exercise of religion, under AG Opinion 26-1. The church still files, names itself as the source and reports independent expenditures. If it takes a special collection for the campaign, it becomes a political committee and its contributors are reported like any PAC's. The opinion does not reach candidate races or other measures automatically.

Can a public school teacher put up a yard sign or post about a candidate on Facebook?

Yes, on a personal account, on personal time, with personal money. Idaho Code 74-605 keeps that right, and Pickering protects a teacher's speech as a citizen. What the teacher may not do is send it from a district email account, post it on a classroom wall or push it at a staff meeting, which uses public resources under 74-604.

Can the school district mail families a flyer about its own bond?

Yes, if it sticks to an objective statement of purpose, effect and cost, and if it carries the disclosures in 34-913(5): interest rate, total repayment, annual tax cost per $100,000 of value, repayment period, existing debt and any state tax relief language. Leaving those out can let a court void the election. Words that judge the measure, and any version of "vote yes," are what got Idaho Falls in trouble.

Can our PTO say "vote yes" on the levy?

Yes, with its own money and its own channels. A 501(c)(3) PTO campaigning on a levy is lobbying, and it may elect 501(h). It may not use district email lists, backpack mail, copiers or staff time unless those channels are open to every community group on equal terms. It must put its name on paid pieces and file under 67-6606 once it spends more than $1,000.

Can students form a club for a candidate at a public high school?

Yes, if the school already lets other noncurriculum clubs meet. The Equal Access Act bars a federally funded secondary school with a limited open forum from turning clubs away for political content. The club must be student-run and voluntary, and the school may not sponsor it.

Hard questions

Isn't the ban on pulpit endorsements an unconstitutional gag on preachers?

That is the claim in the pending Fifth Circuit appeal, No. 26-40237, and no appeals court has ruled on it there. The case law so far has treated the ban as a condition on a tax benefit, not a ban on speech. In Regan v. Taxation With Representation (1983), a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court upheld 501(c)(3)'s lobbying limit, saying Congress "has simply chosen not to pay for" the lobbying. In Branch Ministries, the D.C. Circuit called the burden on a church "more symbolic than substantial," because the church could speak through a separate 501(c)(4). Those who challenge the ban answer that a pastor's sermon is religious exercise, not a subsidy, and that the IRS itself now says internal worship speech is not intervention. A court has not yet tested that view on the merits.

Why should churches get to keep their donors private when other groups spending on the same measure cannot?

Because Idaho's Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act puts a burden on the state to justify substantial burdens on religious exercise, and AG Opinion 26-1 concluded that forcing a church to list general donors fails that test when the spending is itself religious exercise. Those who object point out that a secular nonprofit spending general funds on the same measure must list donors over $500, and that disclosure is about the voters' right to know, not about the speaker's faith. The opinion is limited: it covers general funds, not special collections, and Guidance 2026-6 warns that using a church to hide another donor's money violates 67-6614. The Legislature can change the result either way.

If the IRS almost never revokes a church's exemption, isn't the ban a dead letter?

Revocation is rare, but the ban still bites. The IRS investigated 47 churches in 2004 and 44 in 2006, and 205 charities of all kinds from fiscal 2010 to 2017, according to the CRS sidebar. Excise taxes can hit a church and its managers personally. And donors, insurers and denominations watch a church that is under inquiry. The fair criticism is uneven enforcement: churches that openly defy the ban have mostly been left alone, which feeds the argument that a rule this rarely enforced should be rewritten by Congress.

Why can't a school district tell voters its schools are overcrowded?

It can tell them facts: enrollment, building capacity, the age of a roof, the cost of the bond. Section 74-605 allows an objective statement of purpose and effect, and 34-913 requires cost details. The trouble is words that argue rather than inform, which a prosecutor in Idaho Falls treated as advocacy. Districts say the line is too vague and costs them legal fees for trying to inform. Taxpayers who oppose a bond say they should not fund the other side's persuasion. The practical answer is numbers in place of adjectives, with the case for a yes vote left to a private committee.

Doesn't letting teachers campaign bring politics into the classroom?

The law draws that line at the classroom door. Teachers keep the citizen's right to campaign on their own time under 74-605 and Pickering. Inside class, 74-605(8) allows only "a balanced student classroom discussion or debate," and speech as part of the job gets less protection under Garcetti. Parents who see a teacher campaigning to students can complain to the district and, if public resources were used, to the county prosecutor under 74-606.

Pictures, Numbers and Infographics

Figure	Number	Source
Year the campaign ban entered the tax code	1954	IRS, Charities, churches and politics
First IRS revocation of a bona fide church over politics	January 19, 1995	Branch Ministries v. Rossotti (D.C. Cir. 2000)
Churches investigated for campaign activity in the IRS compliance program	47 (2004), 44 (2006)	CRS legal sidebar, July 2026
501(c)(3)s of all kinds investigated for campaign activity, fiscal 2010 to 2017	205	GAO, as reported by CRS
Church tax inquiry time limit	90 days	26 U.S.C. 7611(c)(1)(B)
Church tax examination time limit	2 years	26 U.S.C. 7611(c)(1)(A)
Idaho nonbusiness entity spending threshold, filing window, donor line	$1,000; 30 days; over $500	Idaho Code 67-6606
Voters reached that trigger bond cost disclosures	20 or more	Idaho Code 34-913(5)
Idaho Falls bond advocacy case: fine paid; district legal fees, July to October 2023	$250; nearly $90,000	Idaho Education News, December 21, 2023