Don’t Ask Me to Endorse Your Favorite Candidate

I knew it had to happen. I just did not expect it so soon.

Once again, a prominent member of the clergy offered an endorsement of a candidate running for elected office, this time Vice President Kamala Harris. About two weeks ago, Rabbi Lauren Holtzblatt told a gathering of the Jewish Democratic Council of America that "…. I could tell you that Jews need to elect Vice President Kamala Harris because our sacred texts tell us to build a world where we feed the hungry, care for the sick, ……………Those are her values”

In other words, God wants you to vote for Kamala Harris.  That may not be a fair assessment of her remarks.  But I am sure that there are plenty of other values in those same sacred texts that might cause a more Republican leaning colleague to say the same of Donald Trump.  Indeed, some have. Personally, I am always amazed by the clarity with which the divine voice speaks to certain religious leaders during an electoral season.

Back to Rabbi Holtzblatt.  She may indeed be right. I may or may not agree with her. I'm somewhat divided on the question of whether members of a religious congregation should know with 100% certainty how their religious leaders will vote. But what I am sure of is that Rabbi Holtzblatt, as a Rabbi of one of the largest synagogues in America, violated the Johnson Amendment, the 1954 provision of the Internal Revenue code (section 501(c) 3),  which governs political activity by non-profit – tax exempt organizations.  Religious institutions, like other tax-exempt organizations, are allowed to engage in political speech, to speak specifically about political issues and candidates, even encourage people to vote, but what we cannot do is endorse in a partisan manner a candidate for elected office. 

I've been talking about this issue for many years. I talked about it last February when the minister of one of America's largest churches endorsed the Republican candidate for the US senate race in California, and was forced to apologize for it. I talked about it 17 years ago when Rabbis for Obama entered the scene, quickly followed by Rabbis for McCain, and then four years later, Rabbis for Romney. These Rabbis, most of whom were pulpit Rabbis serving congregations very much like ours, publicly endorsed their preferred candidates, justifying their endorsements in their capacities as private citizens. But in that their prominence was due to their leadership positions within their congregations, I found their self-serving justifications for skirting the Johnson Amendment disingenuous, if not dishonest. As Rabbis, we have both a moral obligation as leaders in the community to follow the laws of our great nation as well as a fiduciary responsibility to our congregations to obey the rules that guarantee our tax-exempt status, which among other obligations prohibits us, as I mentioned earlier, from endorsing candidates.

I’m a firm believer in the Johnson Amendment. I’ve studied it, written about it, and even lectured my colleagues about it.  Simply put, the Johnson Amendment allows any religious leader serving a congregation, or the leadership of any other tax-exempt organization, to speak about any issue, political, or otherwise that we wish to speak about.  I can talk about abortion, taxes, the deficit, immigration, China, you name it. I can praise or condemn the decisions, judgement, or behavior of any elected or appointed official. Yet at the same time, clergy are not permitted to endorse candidates for political office.  

I regularly talk about the great moral and political issues of our time in my sermons, writings, and Shabbat messages to the congregation. The Johnson Amendment protects free speech and expression by religious leaders. It also prevents our religious institutions from surrendering to hyper-partisanship masked as religious piety.

I understand and respect (and if we are being honest, share) the political sensibilities which motivated Rabbi Holtzblatt’s endorsement. She has the right to speak about them, and even advocate for them from her pulpit.  Yet at the same time, she, like any other citizen serving in a leadership position of a tax-exempt organization, must respect the limits that come with it. It is not too much to ask.  Nonprofit organizations and their leaders need to stay above the fray. Or they can choose to have the courage of their convictions and stop taking the government’s money.  But they can’t have both.

I understand the temptation of religious leaders to use their good name in support of a particular candidate. I too have been asked by both congregants as well as local politicians to support them publicly from the pulpit during electoral seasons.  There are many elected officials who have earned our trust, and our votes.  We must vote for candidates who share and will promote our values and vision for the future, and forcefully oppose those who don’t.  Yet at the same time,  let’s remember that our great nation was founded by people who understood the need for a religious society, and a secular government as well. The Johnson Amendment protects these values.

I believe with all my heart that a great deal is riding on maintaining the integrity of the Johnson Amendment -- like the future of religious life in our great nation. So, don’t ask me to endorse your favorite candidate. At the JCCP/CBT, we are going to continue to follow the rules, and I will continue to advise all my colleagues to do the same.