Free Speech Fairness Act Loosens Political Speech Rules for 501(c)(3) Non-Profits, Citing 'De Minimis' Costs

The aptly named Free Speech Fairness Act is looking to change the rules of the game for 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations—the charities, schools, and religious groups that rely on tax-deductible donations. Currently, these groups are strictly prohibited from intervening in political campaigns. This bill carves out a new exception: a 501(c)(3) organization won’t lose its tax-exempt status for making statements related to a political campaign, provided two big conditions are met. First, the statement must be made as part of the organization’s “ordinary course of carrying out its tax-exempt purpose.” Second, the extra money spent on making that statement must be “de minimis”—meaning trivial or very small.

The Fine Print of 'De Minimis' Free Speech

This legislation is trying to thread a very specific needle, allowing mission-driven non-profits a little more latitude in their advocacy. Think about a food bank (a 501(c)(3)) that regularly publishes reports on food insecurity. Under this bill, if they publish a report that happens to critique a candidate’s stance on farm subsidies—and that critique is a natural part of their regular reporting—they might be in the clear, as long as the cost of adding that critique is tiny. This change also affects how charitable deductions are handled, meaning donors can still claim their tax break even if the organization engages in this limited political speech. The new rules apply to tax years ending after the bill becomes law.

Who Benefits from the Gray Area?

The immediate beneficiaries are advocacy groups whose core missions inherently bump up against political issues—environmental groups, certain religious organizations, or health care foundations. They gain the freedom to speak more directly about policy issues during an election cycle without the looming threat of the IRS revoking their tax-exempt status. For example, a non-profit focused on renewable energy could potentially issue a press release criticizing a candidate’s fossil fuel policy as part of its “ordinary course” of education, provided the cost is negligible. This gives them a louder voice in the public square, which is the clear intent of the bill.

The Real-World Ambiguity Problem

Here’s where the policy meets the pavement and things get messy. The entire structure hinges on two highly subjective terms: “ordinary course” and “de minimis.” What counts as “ordinary” for a massive university might be totally different than for a local church or a small foundation. More critically, “de minimis” is a legal term for “too small to matter,” but it has no fixed dollar amount here. This vagueness creates a huge enforcement headache for the IRS and potentially allows groups to push the envelope. An organization could argue that a $10,000 political statement is “de minimis” compared to their $100 million annual budget, essentially masking significant political activity under the guise of routine mission work. For the average person, this means it becomes harder to tell if a supposedly non-partisan charity is actually engaging in partisan electioneering, blurring the lines between genuine advocacy and campaign spending.