February 05, 2005
The Taxman Cometh
Although I was familiar with the basic details behind the Internal Revenue Service’s decision to audit the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), I was not ready to join the chorus of those decrying it as politically motivated.
The violation that prompted the move:
'organizations with a 501 (c) 3 tax exemption are barred from "from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office,"'
was based on a single speech given by the group's leader Julian Bond, at the organization's annual meeting in April '04.
However, as some have subsequently pointed out, many non-profit groups known to have a not so secret political agenda have crossed the same impervious void, as well. Yet, it was George Bush's decision to forgo an expected address before the NAACP Annual Convention he deemed hostile and partisan - coming shortly before the move by the IRS - that was the only fuel necessary for those calling the audit 'political payback'.
Well the NAACP, calling the IRS probe 'politically motivated', has now decided not to cooperate with the Revenue Agency. The move has prompted at least one 'non-partisan' Editorial page, The Washington Times, to summarily judge the group guilty as charged. However I will be curious to see if their unequivocal standards against non-profit advocacy apply now to Conservative Evangelical James Dobson and his group, Focus On The Family.
An organization that monitors religious groups called Citizens Project, has asked the IRS to investigate whether Dobson's group violated the same statute in an article printed in a magazine, distributed by the organization. Although, the group's spokesman asserts the magazine falls under the control of a separate 'Focus' lobbying unit, the magazine is featured prominently on the group's main web page and offered complimentary for signing their guest book.
This is an issue that needs to be addressed in this current climate of intolerance, perpetuated mainly by Dobson and his followers. Where finally, loud objections should come from those who believe such hypocritical, political assaults in the name of religion, antithetical to American values, must come to an end.
Using the IRS to intimidate has always been a Republican Tactic. The Great Richard Nixon did the same thing in his time. Its ironic how many parallels there are between him and Dubya The DimBulb.
Posted by: Aldous at February 5, 2005 01:58 PMVery good point Aldous,
And if I’m not mistaken, wasn’t it also a tactic employed frequently by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover?
Not being certain enough to address it in my post, I was hoping a discussion of whether the IRS is or should be an autonomous government entity would be debated here.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 5, 2005 02:09 PMYou can tell how partisan someone is when they make a statement like “Using the IRS to intimidate has always been a Republican Tactic.” How about Bill Clinton using Republican’s FBI files to intimidate them?
Anyway, lets debate the particular merits of this particular action, rather than pretending that your party’s leaders moral characters are somehow inherently superior to that of the opposition.
On the particular issue, the statute’s langague clearly needs to be applied equally across the board. Both the NAACP and some evagelical groups seem to have acted in a political way in the previous election. Hopefully an agency determination, followed by federal court review of those decisions, will lead to a result that is consistent with the statute in both cases.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 5, 2005 02:09 PMThe Christian Coalition was investigated by the IRS about their tax free status,if I recall correctly. Whose tactic was that?
Posted by: Dee Lee at February 5, 2005 04:18 PMThis thread is beginning to sound like whining about “tactics”.
Isn’t the real issue whether 501(c)3’s should be allowed to maintain their status, if they are getting involved in a political campaign.
Now, back to the real issue, please …
Posted by: mike at February 5, 2005 06:01 PMThere are different forms of non-profit groups, if a group is one that can get tax deductable donations, anything that can even be precieved as partisan politically is a no no.
Its a very very complex law governing things like that.
Posted by: Beagle at February 5, 2005 06:20 PMBeagle,
At this early point in the comment thread debate, let me erase any doubt as to the exemption status of Dobson’s Focus On The Family.
On the IRS website, there is page devoted to specifically detailing which and how Churches, Religious and other Charitable groups earn status under the 501(c)(3) exemption code. As you can see from the third paragraph, Dobson’s group fits several descriptions necessary to earn the exemption. And finally, their mission statement leaves no room for doubt.
I will also offer up this link the IRS sent to the political parties in Oct ‘04, to further clarify what possible violations by a tax exempted group look like.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 5, 2005 07:59 PMDee Lee wrote:
The Christian Coalition was investigated by the IRS about their tax free status,if I recall correctly. Whose tactic was that?
According to this article, the IRS revoked (retroactively) the tax-exempt status of the Christian Coalition in 1999, after a decade long investigation launched in March 1989 in response to a complaint filed by a religious watchdog group. The investigation centered on contributions made to Pat Robertson’s Presidential campaign in 1988, by the group he headed.
Oh yeah, I think Reagan was President at the time also.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 5, 2005 08:35 PMI just heard from Conrad that about 1/3 of a trillion dollars owed to the government each year in taxes is not even collected, and IRS collections may be reduced and budget cut back. Appears Pres. Bush is trying to promote waste, fraud, and abuse in his budget proposal.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 8, 2005 03:06 AMBert,
Perhaps the NAACP should simply mirror what Dobson’s Focus On The Family claims to have done?
Namely, create an NAACP Action Committee that can cover anyone within the organization under an umbrella of a “lobbying arm” operating under a different set of tax criteria whenever a comment is made that might somehow be construed as being partisan.
I thought about that too, Adrienne,
But, I’d consider such machinations a concerted effort to skirt the tax-exempt provision.
Consider though, that a single speech by Julian Bond is what triggered the IRS audit of the NAACP, yet the Focus Magazine being cited in the call for an investigation is being promoted and used as a free premium promotion on the group’s main website.
If you read for instance the background of evidence that may form an indictment of Tom De Lay, you’ll notice a similar lack of subtlety or effort given to avoiding at least the appearance of impropriety. In both cases, the primary interpretation of the regulation is met - at least to the extent of plausible denial. However, it is the extenuating aspects and improper adherence to strict guidelines - like keeping a magazine separate from your non-profit advocacy - that raises the red flag.
If you’ve ever read Molly Ivins, you’d know Texans are not very efficient at political graft. And, if you read what Pat Robertson did to trigger the Christian Coalition IRS audit in 1989, the Evangelicals are no better at it either.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 8, 2005 09:23 PMBert:
“But, I’d consider such machinations a concerted effort to skirt the tax-exempt provision.”
It would indeed. But consider this Bert, the NAACP is a group dedicated to the ADVANCEMENT of Black Americans. If Republicans (most especially our current administration) were also dedicated to that goal, there would have been no need for Mr. Bonds comments.
It appears to me that the IRS is unfairly going after the entire organization as payback for one man’s truth telling. If that is true, whatever they have to do to avoid that unfairness can and should be employed. And doing so should give anyone on the left who admires the work of the NAACP a sense of poetic justice too, since those on the right have already set the precedent of convienently using a “lobbying arm” to promote their agendas.
“However, it is the extenuating aspects and improper adherence to strict guidelines - like keeping a magazine separate from your non-profit advocacy - that raises the red flag.”
I guess the question becomes: Do YOU think that the NAACP shouldn’t be allowed to maintain its non-profit status because it advocates whatever political party best supports and furthers their objectives?
I think they should be able to, because if their entire purpose is to work for the advancement of Black American’s, it should only be expected that they would prudently advise the people their organization represents.
And rather than lashing out at the organization, it should be raising a red flag with Republican’s that they aren’t representing the kind of ideas that the NAACP would need to see in order to become a completely non-partisan organization.
