IRS Issues Chilling Guidelines-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 38

NewsMax ^ | 1/17/04

[Valin]

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today reminded tax-exempt organizations that their public advocacy activity must adhere to tax rules as well as campaign-finance laws. On the eve of an election year, the IRS has issued Revenue Ruling 2004-6 concerning certain public advocacy activities conducted by social welfare organizations, unions and trade associations.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, social welfare organizations, unions and trade associations generally are permitted to engage in advocacy or lobbying related to their exempt purposes. However, they may engage in only limited political campaign activity. The guidance clarifies the tax implications of advocacy that meets the definition of political campaign activity.

According to the new rule, the criteria for identifying forbidden speech "include, but are not limited to":

a) The communication identifies a candidate for public office; b) The timing of the communication coincides with an electoral campaign;

c) The communication targets voters in a particular election;

d) The communication identifies that candidate's position on the public policy issue that is the subject of the communication;

e) The position of the candidate on the public policy issue has been raised as distinguishing the candidate from others in the campaign, either in the communication itself or in other public communications; and

f) The communication is not part of an ongoing series of substantially similar advocacy communications by the organization on the same issue. . .

The guidance provides examples and sets forth factors to be taken into account in determining whether expenditures for issue advertising are taxable. The situations and factors contained in the ruling are not exhaustive.

The guidance also serves as a reminder that the Bipartisan Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold) does not replace the tax rules on public advocacy by tax-exempt organizations. Tax exempt organizations, such as those described in sections 501(c) (4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, must adhere to both McCain-Feingold and the Internal Revenue Code.

The IRS remains committed to ensuring that assets of tax-exempt organizations are used for exempt purposes and requests comments on situations or factors that the public believes should be covered in future guidance.

Gun Owners of America argues that the new rule will have a bigger chilling effect on political speech than the McCain-Feingold law.

Revenue Ruling 2004-6 will be published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin on Jan. 26, 2004.

[Valin]

Yesterdays thread
Elections Board votes to study regulations for political ads
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1059216/posts



Note If you would like to be on/off this Campaign Finance Reform list please let me know

[verity]

I do not feel at all chilled.

Revoke all 501c status and let the fittest survive.

[Always Right]

Oh well, the First Amendment wasn't all that important. Since the Supreme Court held up CFR, there really is no limits on what the government can do to regulate free speech.

[Valin]

HOORAY For John!

Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob
Special to FreeRepublic | 17 December 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

This is nothing like the usual whine by someone whose post was pulled. JimRob pulled my previous thread for a good reason. "If direct fund-raising were permitted on FR, it would soon be wall-to-wall fund-raising."

So, let's start again correctly. This is about civil disobedience to support the First Amendment and challenge the TERRIBLE CFR decision of the Supreme Court to uphold a terrible law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.

All who are interested in an in-your-face challenge to the 30- and 60-day ad ban in the Campaign Finance "Reform" Act, please join in. The pattern is this: I'm looking for at least 1,000 people to help the effort. I will run the ad, and risk fines or jail time to make it work -- AND get national support.

But there should be NO mentions of money in this thread, and not in Freepmail either. This is JimRob's electronic home, and we should all abide his concerns.

Put your comments here. Click on the link above, and send me your e-mail addresses. I will get back to you by regular e-mail with the practical details.

This CAN be done. This SHOULD be done. But it MUST be done in accord with JimRob's guidelines.


Fair enough?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042394/posts

Note if you are interested in more on this please contact myself or Congressman Billybob

[Cicero]

The justices on SCOTUS who voted in favor of this kind of crap should be put out to pasture.

One good thing, I suppose, is that the IRS has traditionally discriminated against conservative advocacy groups like the Christian Coalition. Now they will also have to lean on the ACLU, NARAL, NOW, and the rest, presumably. This seems to include the labor unions, which is an interesting thought.

It would probably be foolish for major groups like the NRA to put themselves on the line testing these rules, but smaller test groups should certainly challenge them. Whatever SCOTUS may have said, this kind of thing seems to violate the first amendment--and I think SCOTUS did say in its decision that that issue might have to be revisited, if it turned out that Campaign Finance Reform was interpreted in such a way as to violate constitutional rights (as if it could be interpreted in any other way).

[BSunday]

Oh well, the First Amendment wasn't all that important. Since the Supreme Court held up CFR, there really is no limits on what the government can do to regulate free speech.

True. Once you cuff and stuff the Bill of Rights, it's only a matter of time.

[Valin]

If you pay very close attention, you'll notice I'm not disagreeing with you.


You might want to point this out to your Rep. when he/she comes around asking for your vote/support.
And rest assured they WILL be coming around.

[Principled]

How odd that a taxing authority promulgates permissible speech.

[Always Right]

You might want to point this out to your Rep. when he/she comes around asking for your vote/support. And rest assured they WILL be coming around.

I get calls all the time asking for contributions for Congress, Senate, and Presidential GOP asking for money. I think I will have to make that point the next time they call. No more money till CFR is repealed.

[Valin]

One of the reasons I think this can be repealed is it REALLY does cut right across party lines. It's not for nothing that both the NRA and the ACLU were part of the suit.
What gets me is people aren't up in arms over whats been done.

[Valin]

Well SOMEONE has to be in charge otherwise anyone could say anything..and we can't have that, who knows where that could lead to.

[TommyDale]

"Revoke all 501c status and let the fittest survive."

How will this solve anything? Enlighten me, please.

[proud American in Canada]

Thanks for the ping. I haven't been around much lately.

I've tried sending letters to the editor--they don't get published, which is no surprise since this monstrosity is in part a media creation.

The more I think about it, the more I think a grassroots act of civil disobedience, as proposed by Congressman Billybob, is the way to go.

[cheme]

I understand it to mean if they want to to political advocacy then they won't be tax exempt.

[WhiteGuy]

Might as well call them the IR-SS

[Principled]

He heh heh... that's pretty good! I'm gonna steal it! LOL

[WhiteGuy]

Wow, I actually came up with a good one!

Thanks!

Use it as you please, too bad it's accurate.

[Principled]

Yes, the unfortunate truth simultaneously provides the humor and the sadness.

[DustyMoment]

"What gets me is people aren't up in arms over whats been done."

I've been puzzled by the same thinguntil I recently communicated with a friend of mine who is politically active, albeit a dedicated liberal. His understanding of CFR was that it related to the money-side of campaigns and he really didn't understand the unConstitutional side until I virtually beat him over the head with it to make him understand.

Therein lies the problem with most Americans. They truly believe that CFR is about controlling campaign financing and have no comprehension of its darker attack on the Constitution. I suspect this is so because neither Tom, Peter, Dan or Perky Katie have said word one about this aspect of CFR (they probably don't understand it, either).

This is why it is up to us FReepers to keep spreading the word and keep complaining to our elected representatives.

Never forget - THE SQUEAKY WHEEL GETS THE GREASE!!! If we want CFR to be repealed, we have to keep squeaking!!