HCR 9 is a concurrent resolution urging the federal government to repeal the federal Johnson Amendment, the tax-code restriction that limits certain nonprofit organizations, including churches, from engaging in political campaign activity. The resolution argues that the amendment is unconstitutional as applied to religious organizations and frames repeal as necessary to protect free speech and free exercise of religion. It also designates the measure as the “Leland Muhlenberg Resolution,” honoring historical pastors and religious figures referenced in the resolution.
The resolution is primarily declaratory and exhortatory: it does not change Ohio law or the Internal Revenue Code, but instead expresses the Ohio General Assembly’s position and directs copies to federal leaders, Congress, and the media. Its text relies heavily on historical and constitutional references to religion’s role in American founding-era politics, Ohio’s constitutional language, and the state motto and national motto to support its argument that religious bodies should be free to speak on public issues without risking tax consequences.
Impact
HCR 9 would not amend Ohio statutes or create new state regulatory requirements. Its practical effect is limited to a formal legislative appeal to federal officials to repeal the Johnson Amendment, which is part of federal tax law governing 501(c)(3) organizations and their political activity. If Congress were to act on the resolution’s request, the impact would fall on churches, synagogues, mosques, and other tax-exempt nonprofits by expanding their ability to engage in political speech without jeopardizing tax-exempt status.
Sentiment
The resolution is strongly supportive of religious speech and opposition to the Johnson Amendment, and the bill text reflects a clear pro-repeal stance. No committee testimony or vote record was provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or roll-call sentiment to assess beyond the introduced text. Based on the language alone, the measure appears intended to rally support among lawmakers who favor broader religious liberty and reduced federal restrictions on churches’ political expression.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether the Johnson Amendment is a constitutional and appropriate limit on political activity by religious organizations. Supporters of the resolution argue that the amendment chills speech, burdens churches financially, and infringes on free exercise and free expression. Opponents would likely argue that the rule helps preserve the separation of church and state and prevents tax-exempt religious entities from becoming political actors while retaining tax benefits. The resolution also uses highly charged historical and religious claims, which may intensify disagreement over both its legal premise and its framing of American history.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To amend sections 3505.01 and 3505.10 of the Revised Code to modify the deadline for a political party to certify its nominees for President and Vice-President to the Secretary of State.
To amend sections 3517.12, 3517.13, and 3517.155 of the Revised Code to modify the Campaign Finance Law regarding foreign nationals and statewide initiatives and referenda and to declare an emergency.
To delay the deadline for a major political party to certify its presidential and vice presidential candidates to the Secretary of State for the 2024 general election.