Posted on 03/24/2009 10:17:26 AM PDT by Shellybenoit
Non-Profit may describe a newspaper's balance sheet, but it does not describe its tax status, unless of course, if Senator Benjamin Cardin( D-Md.) gets his way. The Senator introduced a bill on the Senate floor today that would allow newspapers to elect to receive tax-exempt status all they have to do is promise not to endorse any political candidates (but they can report on the campaign):
(Excerpt) Read more at yidwithlid.blogspot.com ...
They’re non-profit already. If they generated a profit, they wouldn’t be closing newsrooms.
Well, technically most newspapers are non-profit these days...
How about tax exempt status to talk radio?
They won't endorse a political candidate they'll just tell you how wonderful liberalism. They will just tell you how evil Republicans are and how you should vote for anyone but them.
This is hilarious - how would newspapers be able to function without endorsing a candidate or a political viewpoint. That’s all the are really good for anyway!
All it takes is for Rahm/Carville/Begala to discuss this brainstorm on their daily conference call and it’ll happen one way or another.
After all, aren’t all newspapers in Old Europe subsidized by the State?
Then again, seeing what happened to their last brilliant idea (demonizing Rush from the pulpit) they might be holding off on such stunts.
Let them! Then they have to receive either a 5013C status, and CANNOT get political (i.e., endorse candidates) without being at risk of losing their tax-exempt status (as a pastor and a GM for non-profit Christian radio, I should know), or be listed as a PAC!:)))
so much for no taxation with no representation.
Those for the left no taxes.
Those for the right HEAVY taxes.
Now we just have taxation WITH representation,,,,NOT!
No F***ing way!
Not for profits are subsidized by you and me with our taxes.
All we need is another 2,000 public radio clones and nobody will ever remember what a free press even was.
>but they can report on the campaign<
When McCain flatlined in the middle of the campaign, MSM brought out the crash cart.
They “reported on his campaign” non-stop until he was resurrected. Reporting on the campaign, while not a flat-out endorsement, can make or break a candidate and may be even more critical than an endorsement.
An endorsement is a simple, one-time editorial.
Camapign coverage is ongoing until the candidate drops out.
The crooked democrat party controlled newspapers do almost all their editorializing off the editorial page.
That’s why no one reads the damn things.
More taxpayer funding of the democrat party.
#12: bingo!
That is nuts!
Are you seriously stating that NPR is non partisan and has no slant??
I’ve run a few 5013C corps and I found many ways to do many things with virtual impunity - and that was without someone named Hussein and ACORN backing me up
They would be prohibited from not just ENDORSING a candidate or party or piece of legislation, they would also be prohibited from engaging in ANY advocacy for/against a candidate, party, or piece of pending legislation.
Of course taxpayer funded Pacifica Radio and NPR and PBS and other 501c3s violate this all the time (I saw Green Party literature in their "organizations" handout materials. If a church did that, the ACLU would be seeking to have the church stripped of its 501c3 status.
Staff at one Liberal Loon Left of the Dial radio station were “confused” as to why they were limited in their political speech while Rush Limbaugh is not. Rush engages in a commercial enterprise and pays taxes for the syndicated program revenue. Pacifica voluntarily gives up their “free speech” in exchange for a tax break. The government “does not” permit tax free enterprises to engage in politicking for/against candidates and legislation.
Oh, goody, another layer of faux objectivity with a government imprimatur! They can just report ‘facts’, and will be limited to deciding which side spare not effort in digging up dirt on, and which side give the benefit of spiking every story that suggests corruption, incompetence, or double-talk. “But we’re non-partisan! See the government says so!”
No thanks!
Cardin's assumption that the regular political reporting is unbiased, proves that he is either naive, or that he was abducted by aliens and missed the entire 2008 Campaign.
I will say that the MSM would love the idea, selfless servants of the public that they are. It would give them cover for a bias so open that liberals are laughing at it. And a very nice little gift packet from the taxpayer. What's not to like?
Untrue. A 501(c)(3) can advocate against a party & can certainly advocate for or against legislation, although there are limits.
The catch is that THE GOVERNMENT decides what it means to be ‘supporting a candidate’
A good story about a democrap: Fair and Balanced
A good story about a Republican: Evil partisan support
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Well, if they cannot endorse a dimocrat for office, they might as well shut down. That is their main reason for living anyway.
"In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
"Substantial part" has never been defined by the IRS or anyone else, although general rule of thumb is no more than 10% of resources allocated to lobbying/legislation.
It does not mean & should not be interpreted as ZERO lobbying/legislative activities.
This is the next nail in the coffin of the first amendment. When the government “grants” tax exempt status, they will find a way to own the newspapers. Of course, the papers already “self-censor” so it hardly matters...except, now they will not fail because of their lack of journalistic integrity...the government will hold them up just as they do with PBS.
When you are a newspaper, minister preaching to the congregation, radio station broadcasting daily...
Every word towards advocacy counts. They strip 501c3 status over such matters when they pan out.
Some organizations will establish a non-501 PAC to handle their political activism.
It won’t be “State Run Media”, that would mean that the Republican(s) controls it when in power.
This is Party Run Media that will receive the talking points from the DNC. There is already rampent collusion on news items and “scandals” (like 2006’s “Culture of Corruption”).
Even when Republicans are in power, the Shadow Government will push forth propaganda slanted against the seated administration. Just as there were those who sought to sabotage the Bush Administration’s plans.
Very rarely, if at all. On the rare instances when an organization is stripped of its 501(c)(3) status it's almost always for candidate endorsements not lobbying/legislative work. Unless, of course, you can come up with some examples.
Some organizations will establish a non-501 PAC to handle their political activism.
Irrelevant. (And many do not because then contributions are not tax-exempt).
“How about tax exempt status to talk radio?”
If the criteria for non-profit status is not endorsing candidates, shouldn’t virtually ALL businesses be tax-exempt?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.