Delaware Bill Would Codify Nonprofit Political Limits, Drawing Debate Over Necessity and Power

Delaware Live

HB 392 duplicates existing regulations while expanding the State Government’s role in monitoring nonprofit behavior.

DOVER, Del. (AP) — Legislation introduced in the Delaware General Assembly would formalize long-standing federal restrictions on nonprofit political activity in state law, setting up a debate over whether the measure protects neutrality or expands government oversight in a one-party-dominant state.

House Bill 392, sponsored by Rep. Melanie Ross Levin and Sen. Dan Cruce, would prohibit nonprofits from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office and bar the use of charitable funds for partisan political purposes. The bill largely mirrors the Johnson Amendment, a federal rule that conditions tax-exempt status on political neutrality.

What the bill would do

The legislation would authorize oversight by state agencies, including the Department of Justice and the Department of State, with periodic reviews by the State Auditor.

Penalties for violations could include:

• Loss of eligibility for state funding

• Civil fines

• Restitution of misused funds

• Required corrective actions

Supporters say the measure strengthens existing guardrails and ensures nonprofits remain focused on their missions rather than political campaigns.

Supporters: Reinforcing trust and neutrality

Backers argue the bill protects public confidence in nonprofits, many of which provide essential services regardless of political affiliation.

“Nonprofits are issue-based organizations, not political agents,” Ross Levin said in a statement. “By codifying the Johnson Amendment in our state code, we are protecting a decades-long tradition that has reinforced the integrity and nonpartisan nature of these organizations.”

Advocates, including the Delaware Alliance for Nonprofit Advancement, say the legislation is especially important as legal challenges test the durability of federal protections.

A recent case, National Religious Broadcasters v. Bessent, raised First Amendment concerns but did not result in changes to the law.

“Being nonpartisan is foundational to nonprofit organizations’ existence,” said Melissa Hopkins, an executive with the group. “It instills confidence among policymakers and the public alike.”

Critics: Duplicate law, expanded oversight

Critics question whether the bill is necessary, noting that federal law already governs nonprofit political activity nationwide.

They argue that HB 392 could duplicate existing regulations while expanding the state government’s role in monitoring nonprofit behavior.

“This is a solution in search of a problem,” said one policy analyst familiar with nonprofit law who was not authorized to speak publicly. “The Johnson Amendment is already enforceable. The question is why the state needs to step in.”

Concerns about political leverage in a one-party state

Others raise broader concerns about the potential for increased political leverage in a state where one party controls the governorship and both chambers of the legislature.

By adding a state-level enforcement layer, critics say, the bill could concentrate authority over nonprofit oversight within offices aligned with the ruling party.

“In a one-party environment, the risk isn’t necessarily the law itself, but how it’s applied,” the analyst said. “Even the perception of selective enforcement can influence how nonprofits engage in public debate.”

Free speech and compliance questions

Legal experts note that the line between prohibited partisan activity and permitted issue advocacy can be difficult to define, raising concerns that additional enforcement could have a chilling effect on nonprofit speech.

Smaller nonprofits, in particular, may face added compliance burdens and legal uncertainty.

Supporters counter that the bill applies equally to all organizations and provides clarity that can help nonprofits avoid violations.

Where the bill stands

HB 392 has been assigned to the House Economic Development/Banking/Insurance & Commerce Committee.