With all the distressing things going on in the world, we are really concerned with the preservation of democracy in America. What can our 501(c)(3) charity do to promote participation in the upcoming election?
What election? Are there elections coming up in 2026?
Actually, for federal tax purposes, it doesn’t make a difference what election you are talking about. Under the so-called “Johnson Amendment,” no 501(c)(3) charity may intervene in an election by supporting or opposing any candidate for any public office in any jurisdiction in the country. (See Ready Reference Page: “IRS Guidance Has Not Changed on Electioneering”) Under a proposed settlement of pending litigation, “churches” may become able to support or oppose candidates through internal communications with congregants in connection with their religious services. (See Court Denies Intervention in Johnson Amendment Case) But even if that settlement is finalized, it would not affect the myriad of other 501(c)(3) social service, arts, environmental, health, education or other charities active locally and nationally. While “electioneering” may still be prohibited, conducting nonpartisan voter registration drives is still specifically permitted.
Voter registration was protected for charities during the early civil rights era in the South. During the 1980s, when then-President Ronald Reagan was proposing significant cuts in federal funding for the arts, it seemed hard to find a performing arts organization not urging its participants to register to vote during the intermission of their programs. Voter registration drives are an important part of the work of many charities.
Private foundations cannot specifically fund local voter registration efforts at public charities, but they can fund general operations that include voter registration. They can also fund nonpartisan voter registration activities that cover more than five states and more than one election cycle if the efforts meet certain other criteria. National organizations that are interested in voter registration could seek support from a private foundation interested in such activities.
A very quick computer search will yield a number of guides that are available for charities wishing to conduct a nonpartisan voter registration effort if you don’t know how to do one. I would not recommend that you consult with a single political party on how to conduct a voter registration drive. It could be claimed to be a partisan activity if you don’t consult at least both of the major parties in the area.
I would also suggest that you confirm with the local voting authority that the specifics of your program are legal. Not all jurisdictions want more voters, especially when the local officials think the new voters are not likely to vote for them. Be careful that you are authorized to collect voter registration applications and take them to the official registration site, for example, if that is what you plan to do. It may be illegal to be the transmission vehicle, or illegal if not done within a very few days of the signature. You don’t want to be threatened with criminal prosecution just because you want your constituents to be able to vote. The nationally available guides may not be clear on the limitations in your jurisdiction.
It is never too early to begin a voter registration drive, even if it's only to remind your constituents that they should be sure to get themselves registered. The earlier you begin, the easier it will be to make voter registration information a routine part of your program. When you look at the number of elections that are decided by a very few votes each year, it seems a shame for your constituents to be on the wrong side of one of those elections if you could have caused more people in your circle to get themselves into a position to vote.
Comments
Great question. Clearly Jane Goodall could carry any sign relating to an election that she wanted to carry when acting solely in her personal capacity and not as a representative of her charity. A charity CEO could carry a similar sign today under IRS interpretation because there is no election imminent and its context would not promote one candidate over another. During an election campaign it might be considered electioneering if it clearly favored one candidate over another. The IRS published Ruling 2004-06 in 2004 spelling out its effort to describe the facts and circumstances that would cause certain activity to be considered electioneering. But those criteria were recently ruled unconstitutional by the federal District Court for the District of Columbia in a case involving the (c)(4) status of Freedom Path. (See Nonprofit Issues, "Court Further Confuses Status of 501(c)(4) Rules"). The IRS might have a hard time arguing that such a sign, even one specifically authorized by a charity and hanging in its office window, would constitute electioneering today. —Don Kramer
The 1998 Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 included a mandate that requires institutions of higher education to engage in voter registration activities during years when there are elections for federal office, governor or other executives within the state. The universities I led in Arizona, Alaska, and Illinois offered voter registration when students registered for classes. In Alaska, the three public universities competed with each other for the most registered voters. We also encouraged students to become voter registrars. On 8/19/25, the US Dept. of Education rescinded Biden-era guidance that allowed Federal Work Study (FWS) programs to pay students to engage in nonpartisan political activities. The DOE also specified that the HEA "does not require institutions to distribute voter registration forms to students known to be ineligible to vote" (as if that were ever the case!). —Elaine Maimon
Jane Goodall, of the famous nonprofit org Jane Goodall Institute, campaigned during the last presidential election in the US, holding a simple cardboard sign that said, "Vote for Nature" in many public appearances and television shows. She said to think about which candidate would be best for preserving the natural world. This was her way of skirting around the requirements, by not naming any particular candidate, but by pointing out an issue. She also may have been able to do this as a private person, and not as representing her 501(c)(3). Could that be a strategy to consider, just stating a general issue of importance relevant to the organization, rather than any party or candidate? Such as, "Vote for human rights", or "Vote for democracy", or "Vote for conservation"? Or would that be too leading for an org? —A.M.