Why It Matters
Maryland lawmakers are grappling with how to regulate tax-exempt charitable organizations’ political activities, a debate that cuts to the heart of free speech and religious expression. Senate Bill 4, known as the Keeping Charities Nonpartisan Act of 2026, would codify federal restrictions on 501(c)(3) nonprofits engaging in partisan campaigns—a rule that has stood for 72 years but now faces potential weakening at the federal level. The Maryland legislation emerged as one of the most contentious issues during the state’s recent legislative action, with Black lawmakers warning the bill could suppress the political voice of Black churches, institutions historically central to civil rights movements.
What Happened
Senate Bill 4 faced intense debate Friday as Maryland’s legislature rushed to complete work before the legislative crossover deadline. The bill, sponsored by Senator Cheryl Kagan (D-Montgomery) and Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City), would preserve the Johnson Amendment—a federal tax code provision prohibiting tax-exempt nonprofits from participating in or intervening in political campaigns on behalf of candidates.
The emergency measure emerged in response to recent federal action. Last summer, the Internal Revenue Service proposed weakening the Johnson Amendment to allow churches and houses of worship to formally endorse political candidates without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. The proposal represents a significant shift from decades of enforcement under the rule. Maryland’s bill would take effect only if the federal government eliminates or substantially changes the existing restriction, ensuring the state maintains its own safeguard regardless of federal action.
Under SB 4’s language, a charitable organization in Maryland could not “participate in or intervene in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office, including through publication of or distribution of statements.” The bill specifies that the restriction would be interpreted according to IRS guidance as it existed on January 19, 2025—the day before the Trump administration took office.
Senator Ron Watson (D-Prince George’s) emerged as a vocal opponent, raising concerns about the bill’s potential impact on Black churches. “I don’t think this bill is needed, and I think it’s an attempt to stifle conversation that occurs in Black churches,” Watson stated during Friday’s debate. He invoked the historical roles of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. in mobilizing the African American community through religious institutions, arguing that such political engagement remains vital to Black churches today.
By the Numbers
- 72 years: The length of time the Johnson Amendment has been in effect as a federal tax code provision
- 501(c)(3): The tax classification for nonprofit charitable organizations regulated under the bill
- January 19, 2025: The date SB 4 uses as the reference point for IRS interpretation of campaign restrictions
- Friday, March 21, 2026: The date of heated Senate debate on the bill during legislative crossover week
Zoom Out
The Maryland debate reflects a broader national conversation about religious organizations’ political participation. The Johnson Amendment has remained largely stable since its 1954 enactment, but the Trump administration’s proposal to weaken it has prompted defensive action in multiple states concerned about maintaining campaign finance restrictions on tax-exempt groups.
Maryland joins a growing number of states considering legislation to preserve or strengthen limits on nonprofit political activity, regardless of federal policy shifts. The legislation also highlights ongoing tensions between protecting free speech and religious expression on one hand and preventing tax-exempt organizations from directly participating in electoral campaigns on the other.
Black churches occupy a unique position in this debate. These institutions have historically served not only religious but also political functions in the African American community, playing leading roles in civil rights movements and voter mobilization efforts. Lawmakers opposing SB 4 argue that codifying campaign restrictions could disproportionately affect Black churches’ ability to engage on issues affecting their communities.
What’s Next
Senate Bill 4 remains in the legislative pipeline as Maryland’s General Assembly works toward completing its session. The bill’s path forward depends on whether it advances past the Senate and moves to the House for consideration before crossover day deadlines pass. Both chambers face pressure to finish work on competing bills during the compressed legislative calendar.
The measure’s ultimate fate may hinge on whether the federal government moves forward with the IRS proposal to weaken the Johnson Amendment. If federal restrictions remain intact, Maryland’s emergency bill would have no practical effect, making continued legislative support uncertain.
Continued negotiations among lawmakers, particularly those concerned about protecting Black church political participation, could reshape the bill’s language or lead to its withdrawal before final votes occur.