The social club liberals at the NAACP thought they were above the law. Well, there is no such thing as skin color entitlements when it comes to the IRS and its rules against political activity:
The Internal Revenue Service followed “established procedures” in deciding which tax-exempt entities to investigate for possible improper involvement in last year’s political campaign, and there is no evidence that the agency’s decisions were politically motivated, according to an inspector general’s report released yesterday.The IRS attracted headlines last fall when the NAACP announced that the agency was threatening to revoke its tax-exempt status because its chairman, Julian Bond, had given a speech attacking the Bush administration.
Bond called the IRS investigation “Nixonian,” and the civil rights group has since said it would not cooperate with the probe. (Source)
Julian Bond is a lifelong rabble-rousing activist, so he certainly knows how “non-profits” are supposed to work. If he doesn’t and he’s reading my blog, see this paragraph:
Under the law, certain types of groups, including charities and educational institutions, are exempt from federal income tax. These organizations, known as 501(c) (3) groups, after the tax-code section conferring the exemption, are barred from engaging in political campaigns, making political contributions, or engaging in activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to a particular candidate.
The law is clear. Perhaps it’s not always applied as efficiently and consistently as it should, but all parties involved have fair notice.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 34 comments }
La Shawn,
What’s fair is fair and the IRS has an appropriate point to be made with investigating the NAACP.
So, will the IRS also investigate other tax-exempt, non-profit groups who take such stringent partisan-political sides?
This is exactly why I fear Bush’s “faith-based” initiatives are wrong because many of these church organizations will take VERY partisan stands on issues and remain not only tax-exempt, but actually RECEIVE additional funds from the government.
So, La Shawn…what’s fair is fair. You make a great point, but is it all-inclusive?
Honestly, as much as I like the idea of gouging the NAACP, it’s the law that’s at fault here, in my opinoin.
The law making it illegal to participate in politics is a clear infringement on the principles of the first ammendment. It doesn’t technically violate the constitution, but its function is to severely limit freedom of speech, of association, of the press, and most of all, of religion. The law was passed in the 60’s specifically to prohibit churches from interfereing in Lyndon Johnson’s chances for re-election.
It’s a bad law, and it needs to be removed from the books. That said, the best way to get a bad law removed is to get it to be enforced properly. If this law had been enforced without distinction throughout American history, prohibitionists would never have gotten off the ground, nor suffragists, let alone Martin Luther King, Jr.
Mike, you need to visit my church. We pray for all, including America’s liberal leaders. We conduct no political activity and endorese no candidate, although most in my church are politically conservative.
La Shawn,
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for my own church. I’m Roman Catholic and last October the church was handing out political paraphernalia pretty much endorsing Bush.
They handed out the usual pro-life stuff, but it was filled with references to “choosing the right candidate” and “the wrong choice means more dead babies.”
I’m sure there are many churches–like yours–that don’t participate in such nasty politicking…
Now that I read Kyle’s post above…I somewhat agree. I still believe organizations receiving tax-exemptions should maintain some modicum of partisan anonymity. But trouncing on the First Amendment shouldn’t be an option.
Julian Bond’s rant against Bush was more annoying than offensively illegal. I don’t mind his rabble-rousing. Just make a darn point instead of repeating the same old crap we’ve all heard a million times.
PS…La Shawn,
Your site is a great read for those planning periods for a substitute teacher like myself!
President’s Tax Reform Panel Put On Notice
Thanks to the generous and rapid response of the People, our full-page, color ad will appear in the Daily Edition and the National Weekly Edition of a principal Washington DC newspaper, in time for next Wednesday’s first public meeting of the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform in Washington. The ad will reach hundreds of thousands of Washington Times readers on Monday and Tuesday.
http://www.givemeliberty.org
The NAACP is by definition a racist organization. Until an entity
dedicated to White peoples advancement is tolerated, the whole concept is a sucker’s bet!
“educational institutions” too? So, is a college professor or employee bound (barred) by the same requirements?
Pajamazon,
Perhaps you should do a little history on the NAACP. I’m not even going to respond to your ultimately (stupid), bizarre comment.
So, in response, I’ll say…go and make your own white organization if the NAACP upsets you so much.
There is an organization called the National Association for the Advancement of White People. It’s run by David Duke. Go sign up today, Pajamazon.
And regarding the 501 c 3 organizations, if they don’t like the restrictions, they can incorporate under another section of the code and forego the tax exemption.
‘But trouncing on the First Amendment shouldn’t be an option.’
Nobody’s stopping them from saying whatever they want, they’re reclassifying their tax exempt status.
Reclasifying somebody’s tax status for political speech is a means for prohibiting political speech.
As long as this kind of law stands, it’s possible to use the tax code to abridge the first ammendment in any way you please.
For instance, imagine a similar law that created a special “Alternative Political Tax”, which taxed an additional 34% if a person or group of people had participated in any political activity in the last year. How many people could afford to engage in politics?
Yet this is precisely the kind of tax that is imposed on non-profits for political speech. Political activity results in a dramatic increase in financial constraints. Reclassifying someone’s tax status to punish them for their political activity serves no purpose to the american citizen, other than to promote oligarchy and kleptocracy. It is nothing other than an extreme fine administered through the IRS.
I believe that there are reasons that a non-profit could lose its status: a legitimate change in status, for instance. If a non-profit begins to attempt to earn a profit, or a church converts to a homeownter’s association, such a change in status could legitimately result in a change of tax-status. Or a legitimate change in the tax code, such that ALL non-profits were affected the same. But a change based on political activity is nothing other than a prohibitive fine for political activity.
When an organization files for 501 c 3 status, they know what the rules are. If they don’t like the rules, or decide later to flout them, they can still speak out, but without the tax exempt status. No one is going to jail them, or assasinate them, or kidnap them and gag them with duct tape. They can still speak out, freely. Tax exempt status is not a right. It is a reward for following the rules.
I only got down to the first post (from Mike M.)(I’m amazed at the illogic of liberals) and saw that I had to clear things up….
The government paying for services rendered by a “faith based organization” (oh -no we can’t give money to THOSE people to perform services), is not against IRS rules Mike.
What is against the rules is clear. The NAACP has been flauntingly breaking the rules for a long time paying for advertisements against SPECIFIC candidates and the party. You just can’t do this.
I’d agree with Kyle that the law is stupid and should be abolished. While we’re at it, get rid of the IRS, and their complicated scheme of incentives and disincentives for constitutionally protected behavior and exchange.
Also on Mike M.’s discussion of churches as partisan, I think Mike misses an important distinction between the behavior of certain churches vs. the NAACP’s behavior. I too am Roman Catholic, and I too have seen the materials he speaks of. However, all materials and statements are always carefully worded as to never actually advocate a specific candidate. You might say “well if you tell someone to vote for a pro-life candidate, that clearly means Bush.” Not necessarily; in fact, the Voter Guide for Catholics that I read made it clear that as a Catholic you are obligated to eliminate any pro-choice candidate from your decision-making process, and then pick from the remaining eligible candidates. Hence, the Vatican just as easily advocated Pat Buchanan or Michael Peroutka as it did George Bush. Last on this issue, it should be noted that even if the advocacy of a certain policy implicated a vote for only one candidate, this is not tantamount to advocacy for that candidate. The reason is two-fold; first, a voter must still educate themselves as to what candidate favors such a policy, and second, if the institution in question has advocated the policy prior to the emergence of the particular politician in question, then the whole implication is moot. Obviously, the Catholic Church has for a very long time argued for the banning of abortion, well before Bush was ever a political candidate, or for that matter, was born.
Now I have no problem under my interpretation of this law if the NAACP were to tell you to disqualify any candidate that wishes to bar affirmative action (or any variation of that idea.) However, it clearly crosses the line when the NAACP begins to tell you that Bush is equivalent to the Taliban and that you ought not vote for him.
To Mike M.
As usual, to advance interests of folks who are not white is known as “civil rights”. If a white person even attempts to find common ground with others in his “ethnic group” he is labled as some sort of supremacist . His views are “stupid and bizzare”.
Your hateful reaction to a simple statement of fact and call for “tolerance” is so typical of freak libs like you.
i think that some christian right organizations in teh past have been investigated and fined. also about blackvoices i used to go on their site but i got sick of the leftist apologies and the mob mentality to equate bush with satan and hitler and black CONSERVATIVES with drones
Pajamazon,
You simply don’t get it. Perhaps you SHOULD take some African American history courses. Whites as a whole have had a nominal amount of racism portrayed towards them throughout history. Therefore, an organization based solely to promote white civil rights seems a bit unnecessary.
La Shawn may agree with me on this, but I feel that at one point the NAACP served a much needed purpose in this country. Your slamming of the organization–rather than disassociating these most recent, highly partisan years–is totally unfair. I took some black studies courses in college and came to my own conclusion that the NAACP is rather outdated now but that its original creation a century ago was hardly political at all. Instead the organization fought solely for the advancement and respect that blacks deserve.
Your all-encompassing statement that the NAACP is a “racist organization” is simply preposterous.
As for Baklava, I’ve tried to talk to you civilly in the past. You don’t understand a word I say. Instead of advancing an argument you pull out that “illogical liberal” BS. So I’m not even going to try. Never once have you tried to show any type understanding of what it means to be a liberal.
Andrew,
Thank you for the respectful and informative reply. Baklava, can you attempt something like this?
Be truthful for once.
Mike M.
Now you want to be methodical! What happened to the name-calling? How is calling an organization dedicated to advancing folks based simply on their race racist? Why is it constantly OK to talk about whites, “as a whole”, but not blacks “as a whole”? Or latinos “as a whole” or arabs “as a whole”?
To be as simple as I can Mike, your logical proccess is flawed. To support one racial group makes one a civil-rights activist. To support another skips the activist phase and proceeds directly to nazi! I guess you learned logical thinking at that “college” you so proudly mentioned.
Go back to my original comment and find the “slam” you claim I made. If you see hostility, Check your ability to reason.
Baklava,
Sometimes it isn’t a matter of truth. I could tell some “truth” and you would still accuse said “truth” of being liberal BS.
I’m gonna stop now. I don’t want to use La Shawn’s blog as a place to deal out animosity.
All I will say is that can you at least put forth a bit of an effort in trying to be civil? I’m one of a few liberals on here…shouldn’t I be the one to be all uppity?
Andrew hits a whole ‘nother point.
I am making the point that I am taking issue with what you wrote in this paragraph:
“This is exactly why I fear Bush’s “faith-based†initiatives are wrong because many of these church organizations will take VERY partisan stands on issues and remain not only tax-exempt, but actually RECEIVE additional funds from the government.”
Oh no…. organizations who are religious actually receiving funds to perform services for the poor. We can’t have that because Mike M. “FEARS” this.
You display an attitude that doesn’t deserve a respectful reply. Your attitude about “religious organizations” is one that I find extremely insulting coming from liberals. Liberals who find “FEAR” in something inane to find “FEAR” in.
Pajamazon,
The slam you made was by saying the NAACP was a “racist organization.” You didn’t qualify that statement by saying “when” the NAACP was or is a racist organization.
What I am saying is that the NAACP was a needed body to ADVANCE the plight of blacks at the turn of the 20th century. I would perhaps AGREE WITH YOU in saying that I feel the organization is somewhat outdated today as its core principals seemed to have been left by the wayside for hardcore partisan politicking.
But, at one time, the NAACP served a worthy cause to bring justice to the millions of blacks still suffering under “Separate but equal” and Jim Crow laws.
How else do you believe blacks would have eventually been able to vote or go to schools wit white children? They had to congregate and formulate their own platform of advancement. It wasn’t racism then and I don’t believe it’s racism now. Just terribly outdated.
It isn’t truthful to analogize organizations receiving funds to perform a service and an organization who is performing partisan politics on a daily basis…. Might I add that is against the law again?
…. for an organization who is tax exempt….
Baklava,
You’ve missed my point. La Shawn’s post was about the NAACP being tax-exempt. However, that status has come under scrutiny because of some harsh partisan speeches given by its leader, Julian Bond. I think it would be silly to retaliate for some dumb political speech by abandoning a group’s tax-exempt status, but the point I was making was that I believe if one group is to go down then a sufficient investigation must be done for other organizations who receive tax-exemptions but drive party-line politics into its audience. Included in these other groups, yes, are religious organizations that spout political doctrine like it’s gospel.
Baklava, I’m simply being fair. Can you not see that and at least give me some credit where it’s due?
It isn’t about Julian Bond’s “harsh” partisan speeches. It is daily activity by the entire organization, commercials developed and aired against specific candidates, and literature created against specific candidates. This is against the law Mike.
I’ve been to churches where issues are discussed but NEVER have I been to churches where specific candidates were on literature or in discussions or anything else.
YOU HAD “RECEIVE” in caps. That fact shows that you had a problem with “faith based” organizations recieving funds for some reason based on your word “fear”.
You mentioned fair. Here is fair.
What is fair is that there may be some other “faith-based” organizations who do partisan politics with specific candidates in their verbal or even written literature.
That’s against the law and the IRS should inform them of such and it shouldn’t happen again or it’s tax exempt status should be taken away.
I work at a non-profit, I was given a list of things that I can not do (politically speaking) both on and off the job. There are some very good reasons why non-profits must stay non-political. (example) If I discuss politics with a client, and then turn him down him for any reason. It could be then said I turned him down for services because I wasn’t kosher with his political standings (even if it was not true). Bond should steep down and leave the NAACP before his causes NAACP any more problems.
Again…. It’s not just about Bond. Much of the organization is working with creating verbal and written communications including commercials against and for specific candidates.
They have been able to get away with it for far too long and they seem to think they are above the law.
Sure Bond should step down. But the NAACP should have it’s tax exempt status removed until for a whole year they can prove they can stop with the specific candidate communications and literature and commercials. I know they can’t do it because it’s in their blood.
Just like it’s in a liberals blood to instead of debate the issues call conservatives names and accuse them of things. Liberals feel like they are above having to debate a conservative and they will keep losing election cycles as long as both of these disparities (how liberals and the NAACP think they don’t have to treat us fairly) exist.
And lose they will, Baklava.
They keep talking about how they need to get their message out. What they don’t realize is that it has been dilvered loud and clear. Afterall, they have the MSM and 527s to peddle their tripe, and ever increasing Americans said no thanks.
2 degrees of separation between the NAACP, the Urban League, the Center for Democratic Renewal, and the United Church of Christ (yeah, the one w/ the gay commercial last year) and Ward Churchill.
http://www.newcriterion.com/weblog/2005/02/ward-churchill-six-degrees-of.html
Did you people actually read Bond’s speech? I encourage you to read the speech, then read it again, then once more until you realize that of the 14 statements made about Bush, seven were in reference to statistical data from the 2000 elections and the other half were truthful commentaries about Bush’s obviously racist and subliminally antagonistic affronts to the organization and to Black people as a whole. Besides the political campaigning ban is very subjective. The IRS is known for turning a blind eye to the activities of other organizations, categorizing the activities as di minimus. And, if Bond’s statements are so problematic then fine Bond. The law is not at all clear on whether the statements of a member or leader should be deemed that of the org.
The law was thrown together as a response to LBJ’s problems and now everyone else who has ever had a valid opinion, must deal with the IRS’ subjectivity.
When you are finished reading the speach, do a search on how many anti-Kerry remarks the Catholic Church made. Is the IRS probing the Catholic Church. And while you are at that, look into the new Pope’s relationship with Bush, or rather his campaigning for Bush. The IRS is being retaliatory and Bush is behind it. Nixon did it when he was in office and Bush is doing it now.
Comments on this entry are closed.