Sunday, June 25, 2006

Are There Rules, Or Not?

A quick word here before honey-do time hits.

TeachTheFacts.org is registered with the IRS as a nonprofit corporation. That means we have a lot of rules about what we can do, especially having to do with endorsing political parties and candidates. We're new at this, and are trying to figure out what we really need to do to comply with the rules, which are subtle and complicated.

But then I see the top story in this morning's Washington Post:
Nonprofit Groups Funneled Money For Abramoff:
Funds Flowed to Lobbying Campaigns


Newly released documents in the Jack Abramoff investigation shed light on how the lobbyist secretly routed his clients' funds through tax-exempt organizations with the acquiescence of those in charge, including prominent conservative activist Grover Norquist.

The federal probe has brought a string of bribery-related charges and plea deals. The possible misuse of tax-exempt groups is also receiving investigators' attention, sources familiar with the matter said.

Among the organizations used by Abramoff was Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform. According to an investigative report on Abramoff's lobbying released last week by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Americans for Tax Reform served as a "conduit" for funds that flowed from Abramoff's clients to surreptitiously finance grass-roots lobbying campaigns. As the money passed through, Norquist's organization kept a small cut, e-mails show.

A second group Norquist was involved with, the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, received about $500,000 in Abramoff client funds; the council's president has told Senate investigators that Abramoff often asked her to lobby a senior Interior Department official on his behalf. The committee report said the Justice Department should further investigate the organization's dealings with the department and its former deputy secretary, J. Steven Griles. Nonprofit Groups Funneled Money For Abramoff

And it goes on and on.

Now, look, here we are, trying to figure out how to be careful to treat everybody evenly, even though we know there will be school board elections this year and we will definitely prefer some candidates over others, and I'm reading that these other "nonprofits" are giving millions of dollars to lobbyists, which ends up going to politicians as "contributions," directly influencing the course of the elections and the legislative process that follows.

The thing is, even if they crack down on these organizations now -- the water is already under the bridge. Laws have been passed, goodies have been given out, people have been elected into office on the basis of ads paid for by this dirty money. So even if you took away these groups' nonprofit status, you can't undo the damage that's been done, you can't un-elect these crooks, you can't un-pass their laws.

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

June 26, 2006 11:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation,

June 26, 2006 11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda

June 26, 2006 11:25 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

It's pretty bad when we can't tell if this is one of our regular trolls or a spam-bot.

JimK

June 26, 2006 11:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

IRC 501(c)(3)

June 26, 2006 12:03 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

The truth is that the subtleties of the tax law are not obvious, and the balancing of individual rights with IRS organizational proscriptions requires walking a very fine line. But these organizations existed purely to promote partisan activities. It is kind of discouraging to think that we have to worry about whether we should let anonymous strangers comment on the blog, while these guys, in the same tax-exempt category as us, are channeling millions of dollars into The Party. Whatever, we'll figure out what we have to do, and will obey the law as it's written, unlike some of our top officials in the government.

JimK

June 26, 2006 12:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim

When you filed your application for exempt status, the IRS was supposed to review if it complied with the requirements of 501(c)(3), which has been provided by anon above. Either they were asleep at the wheel or you haven't acted in conformity with the purpose you stated there because this blog is definitely partisan and propagandistic.

I was at a conference last week and spoke to Lois Lerner, who heads up the Exempt Organization Division at the IRS, and she told me a couple of things that might interest you. Firstly, the IRS is going to start routinely pulling applications after a couple of years and auditing the activity of the organizations to see if they are pursuing the activity and for the purposes they told the IRS they would pursue. Secondly, they will start taking the position that simply informing the public about the positions taken by politicians will be considered partisan activity if your organization has regularly and consistently informed the public what the position of your organization is on those same issues.

You probably should have become some other type of exempt organization and not a C3. Why don't you post the purpose you stated on your exempt application in the interest of public disclosure? You should also probably not accept any tax deductible contributions. The ability to accept them is not a right but a privilege granted to organizations that act in the public interest. TTF hardly qualifies.

Slipperily on Slope

June 26, 2006 2:45 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

SS, if opposing liars and bigots is partisan, then we've got a problem, but I doubt that the IRS will rule that way. We are working carefully to see that our statements do not take sides along party lines or in support of any candidate, and will continue to do so. There are some hard questions about unmoderated discussions that we are still trying to find the answers to. Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with us expressing a position on the issues -- that is exactly what this category is for.

The 501(c)(3) category is not for making million-dollar contributions to campaigns, which is what these crooks have been doing. I will agree that it is not totally clear along the edges of the IRS rules, but these guys have not been working in a borderline-legal manner, they were simply out of bounds.

JimK

June 26, 2006 3:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"they will start taking the position that simply informing the public about the positions taken by politicians will be considered partisan activity if your organization has regularly and consistently informed the public what the position of your organization is on those same issues."

If Snifty's info is correct, it should mean all those church-sponsored GOP voting guides will cause all the churches that handed them out to lose their tax-exempt status.

It's about time.

MCPS Mom

June 26, 2006 3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh-ho-ho, Big Momma MSPS

We got a problem, now.

This is America. The Constitution does not restrict the activities of religious groups- it restricts the ability of government to restrict religious groups. For the government to penalize churches for certain types of speech is unconstitutional.

You don't believe me?

Just ask my good friends: John, Samuel, Clarence, Antonio and Anthony. We're running this country, now.

SOS

June 26, 2006 7:46 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

No, the govt doesn't restrict churches, it only restricts the availability of tax exemptions.

JimK

June 26, 2006 8:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wyatt = SpamBot

June 27, 2006 12:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh-ho-ho Slim Jim

We got a problem now.

Churches are tax exempt to avoid a constitutional crisis that would ensue if the government were allowed to tax and harass religions that don't like. The British royalty tried that stuff with non-Anglican churches and that's how we got our own country.

You don't believe me?

Ask my good friends, J,S,C,A & A!

SOS

June 27, 2006 5:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home