WASHINGTON — For years, a coalition of properly-funded groups on the religious proper have waged an uphill battle to repeal a 1954 law that bans churches and other nonprofit groups from engaging in political activity.

Now, these groups are edging toward a as soon as-improbable victory as Republican lawmakers, with the enthusiastic backing of President Trump, prepare to rewrite massive swaths of the United States tax code as element of the $1.5 trillion tax package moving by way of Congress.

Among the adjustments in the tax bill that passed the House this month is a provision to roll back the 1954 ban, a move that is championed by the religious proper, but opposed by thousands of religious and nonprofit leaders, who warn that it could blur the line amongst charity and politics.

The Run-Up

The podcast that tends to make sense of the most delirious stretch of the 2016 campaign.

The adjust could turn churches into a nicely-funded political force, with donors diverting as significantly as $1.7 billion every year from classic political committees to churches and other nonprofit groups that could legally engage in partisan politics for the first time, according to an estimate by the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

The Senate will begin voting as early as Wednesday on its own version of the sweeping tax rewrite, which the leaves the ban untouched, and differs in other crucial techniques from the Home version. The Senate bill has however to garner enough assistance from Republicans to pass along celebration lines, with Republican senators raising concerns about the bill’s price and method, such as how tiny firms are treated and the elimination of the Cost-effective Care Act requirement that most Americans have wellness insurance coverage or spend a penalty.

Among these on the fence are Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, who has expressed issues about the bill’s effect on the spending budget deficit but favors ending the 1954 ban. In a achievable sign of the horse trading to come to attempt to safe votes, a spokesman for Mr. Lankford stated on Sunday that the senator was working to insert language into the Senate bill to roll back the ban, and believed it had a great chance of being integrated.

If the bill passes the Senate, lawmakers will nonetheless need to resolve key variations between the Residence and Senate bills, like regardless of whether to make the tax cuts for folks permanent, as the Home bill does, or short-term, as in the Senate legislation. Leaders will also want to make a decision what to do about well-known tax breaks, like the mortgage interest and state and local tax deductions, which each bill treats differently.

With time running out for Republicans to deliver a key legislative victory soon after almost a year of stalemate on the party’s best agenda items, lawmakers appear poised to agree to final-minute adjustments and tweaks to attempt to make certain the bill’s passage so it can be delivered to President Trump by Christmas. Tax bill negotiations are expected to kick into high gear on Monday, as lawmakers return to Washington with just a handful of legislative days left and large issues to contend with, which includes the need to pass a funding measure to preserve the government open beyond Dec. eight and action to shield the young undocumented immigrants identified as Dreamers.

The want for a legislative victory is giving comfort to those on the religious appropriate that the final bill sent to the president will incorporate the House language, which was drafted with significant input from evangelical groups.

The sudden movement toward their aim appears to trace back to a January 2016 meeting that Mr. Trump, then a presidential candidate, had convened at his Trump Tower workplace in Manhattan with evangelical leaders he was courting.

That meeting helped lead to a campaign pledge by Mr. Trump to repeal the ban, identified as the Johnson Amendment, and set the stage for its inclusion in the tax code overhaul that passed the Residence.

Critics warn that the change could substantially improve untraceable political spending and lead to the creation of “sham churches” to take benefit of the new avenue for political spending, which — in contrast to donations to candidates, “super PACs” and celebration committees — would enable donors to deduct contributions.

Thousands of religious leaders, as effectively as groups and denominations like the United Methodist Church, the National Council of Churches and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, say rolling back the Johnson Amendment would be the biggest threat to the stability and mission of their organizations in a generation. Charities and homes of worship whose members, staffs and boards of directors now span the political spectrum predict that they will be pressured to take sides in political campaigns. Nonprofits and religious groups that acquire government funding be concerned that politicians or donors will stress them for endorsements in exchange for continued funding.

“It will bring the partisan divide to our doors,” mentioned Jatrice Martel Gaiter, the executive vice president of external affairs for Volunteers of America, a ministry and social service provider that receives about 70 % of its funding from the government. “If the Senate does not stop this, there will be havoc in the nonprofit sector.”

Christian conservative leaders contend that the provision in the Residence bill was drafted narrowly to avoid any such abuse, and they cast the problem as a matter of constitutional rights, rather than politics.

Each sides agree that repealing or dialing back the Johnson Amendment seemed improbable at ideal as not too long ago as a year and a half ago. That was when Mr. Trump’s surprising embrace injected new life into it, and helped spark an alliance that benefited his campaign and the religious proper.

For evangelical leaders, it was an crucial signal that Mr. Trump — in spite of his two divorces, lack of religiosity and alleged mistreatment of ladies — may possibly do a lot more to advance their extended-stalled agenda than more classic Republican politicians. And for Mr. Trump, it expanded his attain into conservative Christian communities that had been skeptical of him, but are a crucial base of Republican assistance.

“That’s the way the world functions. The world is transactional. What can we pursue that is mutually advantageous?” said Tony Perkins, a top figure on the Christian appropriate who is the president of the Household Research Council. His group has been functioning against he Johnson Amendment for far more than a decade. “The awareness was constructing, but the actual catalyst of this conversation was Donald Trump.”

Conservative Christian leaders say Mr. Trump seized on the issue at the January meeting in his workplace. He asked “why Christian organizations and churches did not speak out more on the public policy problems,” said Jerry A. Johnson, the president and chief executive of the National Religious Broadcasters.

The assembled leaders responded in element by pointing to “the chilling impact of the Johnson Amendment,” Mr. Johnson mentioned. He attended the meeting, but later endorsed 1 of Mr. Trump’s primary opponents, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who was the very first selection of a lot of evangelical leaders.

Mr. Cruz later dropped out of the race, properly ceding the nomination to Mr. Trump, who formed a 25-member evangelical executive advisory board soon after he became the party’s presumptive nominee. At its very first meeting in June 2016, attendees said, it became clear that repealing the Johnson Amendment would turn into a centerpiece of his campaign to win over the religious right.

Mr. Trump “cited a certain conversation he had with a pastor whom he’d met along the journey who didn’t feel he could endorse him, but he wanted to,” mentioned Johnnie Moore, a Christian publicist who was appointed to Mr. Trump’s evangelical board. Mr. Trump mentioned the Johnson Amendment, which threatens religious organizations and charities with loss of their tax-exempt status if they endorse or oppose political candidates, had produced a scenario in which “some of his most committed supporters have been careful about the language they employed publicly about him,” Mr. Moore mentioned. He added that the candidate “appeared to be genuinely upset that the federal government would try to bully these organizations in this way.”

In a speech to hundreds of conservative Christians on June 21, 2016, Mr. Trump made his very first public vow to repeal the Johnson Amendment, predicting that its elimination “will be my greatest contribution to Christianity — and other religions.”

At his behest, the repeal work was integrated in the Republican platform for the first time. “Nobody else would even feel about carrying out it,” Mr. Trump boasted, explaining it was “for the evangelicals,” without whom, he mentioned “I could not have won this nomination.”

Much less than two weeks right after his inauguration, Mr. Trump renewed his commitment to the lead to, vowing in a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in February to “entirely destroy the Johnson Amendment and let our representatives of faith to speak freely and with no fear of retribution.”

The Republican congressional leadership, for whom the Johnson Amendment had not been a prime issue, followed the lead of the new president. Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the chairman of the tax code-writing Residence Approaches and Implies Committee, announced in a March speech that the tax strategy being hashed out by his committee would “repeal the damaging effects of the Johnson Amendment, after and for all.”

Not waiting for Congress, Mr. Trump integrated a provision aimed at weakening the currently anemic enforcement of the amendment in a Could executive order billed as “promoting totally free speech and religious liberty.” It directed the Treasury secretary, who oversees the Internal Revenue Service, not to pursue enforcement efforts against any “individual, home of worship or other religious organization” for speaking about “moral or political issues from a religious viewpoint.”

The order was almost immediately challenged in federal court by the nonprofit Freedom From Religion Foundation, which said the order gave preference to “religion more than nonreligion.”

The Johnson Amendment traces its origins — and its name — to Senator Lyndon B. Johnson and his 1954 re-election campaign. Concerned that his electoral prospects could be diminished by attacks from a pair of conservative nonprofit groups, he slipped a provision into a tax code overhaul to bar specific nonprofit groups from participating in political campaigns.

There is only one particular known instance of a church losing its tax-exempt status for operating afoul of the law, despite ample documentation of churches explicitly endorsing or opposing candidates. And a 2016 poll identified that the overwhelming majority of Americans oppose churches or pastors endorsing candidates in their official capacities.

Nonetheless, conservative Christian leaders have increasingly seized on the Johnson Amendment as an instance of what they see as government hostility to religion in the public square.

“The law has a chilling effect on cost-free speech,” stated Michael Farris, the president of the Christian conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom.

In 2008, Mr. Farris’s group started an work to overturn the Johnson Amendment in court via an annual civil disobedience protest referred to as “Pulpit Freedom Sunday.” His group and Mr. Perkins’s group helped recruit pastors to provide overtly political sermons and transmit the recordings to the I.R.S. The aim was to tempt the agency to attempt to revoke the churches’ tax exemption, providing them standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Johnson Amendment in court. It has yet to take the bait.

Other opponents started efforts to repeal the ban in Congress. Bills to do so were supported by powerful Christian conservative groups, including Mr. Perkins’s Family members Study Council, the Christian Coalition and the Standard Values Coalition, according to lobbying filings.

A more nuanced approach emerged from an interfaith commission convened in 2011 by one more nonprofit group, the Evangelical Council for Economic Accountability, which suggested leaving the Johnson Amendment intact but permitting churches and other nonprofit groups to assistance or oppose candidates in the “ordinary course of an organization’s standard and customary” activities, provided the amount spent on such activity was “de minimis.”

The recommendations became the basis for a bill called the Free of charge Speech Fairness Act, which was introduced last year in the Residence by Representative Steve Scalise, Republican of Louisiana, and this year in the Senate by Mr. Lankford, and for the language in the Residence tax bill.