Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anti-abortion group loses tax status
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060915/ap_on_go_ot/irs_operation_rescue ^ | 9 15 06 | yahoo news

Posted on 09/15/2006 7:35:38 PM PDT by freepatriot32

WASHINGTON - The Internal Revenue Service has revoked the tax-exempt status of the anti-abortion organization Operation Rescue West for prohibited political activity during the 2004 election.

President Troy Newman said the Wichita, Kan., group, now known as Operation Rescue, relinquished its charitable status and reorganized more than a year ago.

"We gave it back. We didn't fight any sort of deal," he said.

The laws that permit some organizations to organize as tax-exempt entities also bar them from participating in or intervening in elections, including advocating for or against any candidate.

The IRS revoked the group's tax-exempt status last week, and it was reported Friday by The New York Times.

The tax agency said earlier this year that it found violations in three of four churches, charities and other civic groups suspected of running afoul of restraints on political activity. It did not identify any of those organizations.

Most of those examinations found only a single, isolated incident of prohibited campaign activity. In a few cases, they found flagrant violations of the law.

IRS Commissioner Mark Everson called the amount of political intervention discovered through their examinations "disturbing" for the impact it could have on the integrity of churches and charities.

The examinations looked at only a tiny fraction of the more than 1 million tax-exempt groups organized under section 501(c)(3) of the tax law.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: antiabortion; govwatch; group; irs; kansas; libertarians; loses; operationrescue; status; tax; taxes; taxreform; troynewman; washingtondc

1 posted on 09/15/2006 7:35:41 PM PDT by freepatriot32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org; Coleus; Mr. Silverback; cgk

ping


2 posted on 09/15/2006 7:38:32 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abram; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Allosaurs_r_us; Americanwolf; Americanwolfsbrother; Annie03; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
3 posted on 09/15/2006 7:39:10 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Did IRS look at NARAL or Planned Parenthood?

Obviously not.

4 posted on 09/15/2006 7:39:41 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
So we just give them a little more and the persecutors can go stuff themselves.
5 posted on 09/15/2006 7:40:58 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

With just a little bit of luck, MADD will be next.


6 posted on 09/15/2006 7:41:26 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

But it is OK for Clintonistas and RATs to go to black churches and spew the pooolitiks!


7 posted on 09/15/2006 7:44:51 PM PDT by Leo Carpathian (ffffFReeeePeee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
Amen. I like getting tax credit for my tithes and offerings but I will continue to give when it is taken away. I would probably switch some of my giving from other things to my church to cover the shortfall, but so would other people. Then we could really have homilies on the evils of abortion and who is voting for it and who is voting against it.
8 posted on 09/15/2006 7:50:25 PM PDT by Talking_Mouse (wahhabi delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Leo Carpathian

"But it is OK for Clintonistas and RATs to go to black churches and spew the pooolitiks!"

That's different.
You just don't understand.


9 posted on 09/15/2006 7:54:05 PM PDT by rogator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Well, that's a weak start. Now, how about the NEA, the AFL, AFSCME, the United Food, Commercial group, the Teamsters and all the other thug-o-crat groups who worship Her Thighness, Nancy Baloney, the Swimmer, John F'n, Algore u.s.w. (Nazi for and so forth).


10 posted on 09/15/2006 8:00:03 PM PDT by Rembrandt (We would have won Viet Nam w/o Dim interference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
Yea, them too.

L

11 posted on 09/15/2006 8:01:12 PM PDT by Lurker (islam is not a religion. It's the new face of Fascism in our time and we ignore it at our peril.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rembrandt

All I can say is "Stay oudda Bushes!"


12 posted on 09/15/2006 8:01:25 PM PDT by Wristpin ("The Yankees announce plan to buy every player in Baseball....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Isn't it time for the Republicans to put someone in charge of the IRS who will enforce the laws and regulations equally?

You could expect this kind of blatant unfairness under clinton. But why is it continuing under Bush?


13 posted on 09/15/2006 8:05:38 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Apparently the WH is indifferent to this. The rule is watch what they do, not what they say.


14 posted on 09/15/2006 8:09:09 PM PDT by Pelham (McGuestWorkerProgram- Soon to serve over 1 billion immigrants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

One more reason to support tax reform.


15 posted on 09/15/2006 8:10:29 PM PDT by antceecee (Western countries really aren't up to winning this war on terror... it might offend the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Or Pacifica Radio (which often has Green Party campaign literature "handouts" in their lobby in addition to on air advocacy).


16 posted on 09/15/2006 8:47:22 PM PDT by weegee (Remember "Remember the Maine"? Well in the current war "Remember the Baby Milk Factory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

okay, but when will we see the irs bust a black church that claims 401(c)(3) but hosts demorats to give political speeches? when pigs fly


17 posted on 09/15/2006 8:48:47 PM PDT by drlevy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

This is actually a good thing. Now the group is free to do what it wants.


18 posted on 09/15/2006 8:49:32 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Ah but they *are* enforced equally. You miss the footnote that Democrat sympathizers are excluded from those laws and regulations.

What we need is a scorched earth policy to rigidly enforce these rules. Maybe a double-blind analysis so you don't know the leanings of the target under investigation. There must be some way to ensure Dems are held to the same standards as the GOP.

19 posted on 09/15/2006 8:53:38 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Support Arnold-McClintock or embrace high taxes, gay weddings with Angelides.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; ...


20 posted on 09/15/2006 8:56:44 PM PDT by Coleus (Abortion and Euthanasia, Don't Democrats just kill ya!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
The tax agency said earlier this year that it found violations in three of four churches, charities and other civic groups suspected of running afoul of restraints on political activity. It did not identify any of those organizations. Most of those examinations found only a single, isolated incident of prohibited campaign activity. In a few cases, they found flagrant violations of the law. IRS Commissioner Mark Everson called the amount of political intervention discovered through their examinations "disturbing" for the impact it could have on the integrity of churches and charities.

I'd like to see what other 'institutions' were shut down during this increase in activity before commenting more.
21 posted on 09/15/2006 9:29:58 PM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

This is a joke. NARAL and Planned Parnthood do nothing BUT political activity. And half the black churches in the country are involved in direct political activity. There are liberal careerist moles in every government agency--government work attracts liberals. But this is a democracy and there are elections. Why were Bush political appointees at IRS unable to guarantee balanced treatment? Or will we learn tomorrow that Planned Parenthood has lost its tax exempt status?
22 posted on 09/15/2006 9:56:21 PM PDT by Godwin1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Rembrandt
Well, that's a weak start. Now, how about the NEA, the AFL, AFSCME, the United Food, Commercial group, the Teamsters

LOL. These groups are tax-exempt organizations but not charitable organizations, meaning they don't pay income tax but the public cannot give them money and deduct it on their tax returns. You can only do that if a group is (501)(c)(3). That's what the IRS revoked here.

My guess would be that the groups you named are all 501(c)(5)or 501 (c)(6), the classifications for labor unions and business leagues/professional societies, etc.

23 posted on 09/15/2006 11:51:50 PM PDT by freespirited (We have met the enemy and it is Wal-Mart. ---The Democratic Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32; Taxman; pigdog; Principled; EternalVigilance; rwrcpa1; phil_will1; kevkrom; ...
A Taxreform ping for you all.

The arcane mix of the Income Tax System and statutes used to limit political campaigning strike once again against free political speech under the Bill of Rights.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If anyone would like to be added to this ping list let me know.

John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25) offer a comprehensive bill to kill all federal income, SS/Medicare payroll, and gift/estate taxes outright replacing them with with a national retail sales tax administered by the states.

H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

Refer for additional information:


24 posted on 09/16/2006 12:02:19 AM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godwin1
NARAL and Planned Parnthood do nothing BUT political activity.

NARAL is not a charitable organization. They don't have favored tax status because like you point out they lobby way too much to qualify and they endorse candidates for office--verboten. They must be a (c)(4).

Planned Parenthood probably gets away with some lobbying on grounds that it is not their primary activity.

And half the black churches in the country are involved in direct political activity.

I don't know how many are, but you are on to something there that the feds just don't have the cojones to deal with.

25 posted on 09/16/2006 12:02:30 AM PDT by freespirited (We have met the enemy and it is Wal-Mart. ---The Democratic Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: freespirited; Rembrandt
What part of

Webster Online Dictionary

abridge
Pronunciation: &-'brij
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): abridged; abridg·ing
Etymology: Middle English abregen, from Anglo-French abreger, from Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + brevis short -- more at BRIEF
1 a archaic : DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH <attempts to abridge the right of free speech>

 

Amendment I, Constitution of the United States:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, "

Do you not understand?

26 posted on 09/16/2006 12:12:39 AM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Long past time to be Scrapping The Slave Tax 
I discussed the importance of abolishing the income tax because of its tendency to form a habit of servility in the souls of a people that accepts it.

Servility of soul is bad not only in itself, it is also an open door through which will soon walk the abuses of ambitious government power.

Leaders who find themselves with governmental power over a servile people will be quick to conclude that such a people exist to serve them.

Alan Keyes 1999


27 posted on 09/16/2006 12:28:16 AM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Screw the IRS. I demand that the Republicans demolish the IRS .


28 posted on 09/16/2006 2:59:58 AM PDT by Maeve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Amen. And truth(hahaha).org, and all of their lying ilk.


29 posted on 09/16/2006 5:52:15 AM PDT by 383rr (Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither- GUN CONTROL=SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey; Cicero
"scorched earth policy, double blind analysis, put someone else in charge"?.....you mean keep playing the same old bureaucratic games that have made this mess possible in the first place.

We need to get rid of the IRS period! No more adding layers of bureaucracy, no more social engineering via taxes, no more political strong arming with our freedoms.
For crying out loud, why would you ever want for any government to continue to have this kind of power over US?
analysis, schmanalysis.
30 posted on 09/16/2006 5:54:04 AM PDT by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer; Rembrandt
What part of Webster Online Dictionary abridge do you not understand

Geezer, the individuals who work in these groups have not lost their personal right to engage in political speech. It is the organization that is restricted in exchange for the very favorable privilege of PAYING NO TAXES.

If you maintain the government can't do this, take it up with the courts, not me.

31 posted on 09/16/2006 5:58:25 AM PDT by freespirited (We have met the enemy and it is Wal-Mart. ---The Democratic Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: antceecee
One more reason to support tax reform.

Yes, it is a very strong reason to support tax reform.

32 posted on 09/16/2006 6:06:49 AM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Geezer, the individuals who work in these groups have not lost their personal right to engage in political speech. It is the organization that is restricted in exchange for the very favorable privilege of PAYING NO TAXES.

An organization is nothing more than an assembly of individuals acting to common purpose.

Conditioning any right guraranteed under the constitution exercised either individually or in assembly cannot by predicated merely on the payment or non-payment of taxes. There is only one purpose of taxation authorised for the collection of taxation, the payment of the nations bills.

 

Constitution for the United States of America:

Note the lack of authority to use the collection or taxes regulate who may exercise the right of free speech and who may not.

Not to mention the express prohibition in the Bill of Rights against any such action in the significance of the word:

abridge
Pronunciation: &-'brij
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): abridged; abridg·ing
Etymology: Middle English abregen, from Anglo-French abreger, from Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + brevis short -- more at BRIEF
1 a archaic : DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH <attempts to abridge the right of free speech>

 

And the injunction against making any law in that regard:

Amendment I, Constitution of the United States:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, "

 

If you maintain the government can't do this, take it up with the courts, not me.

And just who responsibility is it to assure the courts ultimately abide by the constitution?

The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
-John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790.

"Actually, the "price" we pay for civilization-- true civilization-- is nothing more, and nothing less, than the inconvenience attendant upon scrupulously respecting our neighbors' rights."
-Peter E. Hendrickson


33 posted on 09/16/2006 7:00:31 AM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Conditioning any right guraranteed under the constitution exercised either individually or in assembly cannot by predicated merely on the payment or non-payment of taxes.

LOL. We have courts geez. File a suit.

34 posted on 09/16/2006 7:10:10 AM PDT by freespirited (We have met the enemy and it is Wal-Mart. ---The Democratic Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

LOL. We have courts geez. File a suit.

And just who's responsibility is it to assure the courts ultimately abide by the constitution? Your answer speaks for you.

I see you have no interest in correcting the essential problem by replacing those who make the law and changing the laws to those more conformant with fundamental liberties guaranteed under the consitution.

Not surprising.

"a free people that pays slave taxes to its government is willingly training itself for bondage."

"I discussed the importance of abolishing the income tax because of its tendency to form a habit of servility in the souls of a people that accepts it.

Servility of soul is bad not only in itself, it is also an open door through which will soon walk the abuses of ambitious government power.

Leaders who find themselves with governmental power over a servile people will be quick to conclude that such a people exist to serve them."

--Alan Keyes 1999


35 posted on 09/16/2006 7:22:37 AM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Anti-Abortion group?????

I guess it gives the pro-choice crowd the right to rename the other side the pro-murder or pro-killer crowd. Not wise to go down that road, but then that would take members of the left actually using their brain.

36 posted on 09/16/2006 7:52:55 AM PDT by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Nobody is removing freedom of speech from these organization's. They are just removed from ability for people to deduct their contributions to them as tax right offs. The organization's can say what they want, and people can give what they want, but it will no longer be a write off.

Now your point about a national sales tax, that would eliminate tax write offs, which would eliminate some of the control the government has on what people can say or do. So I figure that true tax reform will never really happen until the government figures out a way to hold tax revenues over peoples heads.

As an aside. For a person who lives their life by what the Bible says, and votes by their convictions, its impossible for them to seperate politics and religion. If ALL churches didn't have a tax exempt status, that the money given wasn't a write off, then preaching the Bible against "political" issues wouldn't be a problem. But I guess its more important for people to have a write off, versus hearing the Word of God convict them on society or politics.

37 posted on 09/16/2006 12:18:26 PM PDT by mountn man (The pleasure you get from life, is equal to the attitude you put into it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mountn man

Now your point about a national sales tax, that would eliminate tax write offs, which would eliminate some of the control the government has on what people can say or do. So I figure that true tax reform will never really happen until the government figures out a way to hold tax revenues over peoples heads.

Guaranteed it won't happen if we don't place their ability to exercise power at risk by voting those out of office that refuse to make the necessary changes.

OTOH, one can be assured:

The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
-John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790.

we bring upon ourselves that which is appropriate to our lack of exercise of responsibility as an American citizen.

38 posted on 09/16/2006 4:09:23 PM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Revocation of charters comes awfully close to prohibition.


39 posted on 09/16/2006 4:17:40 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountn man

Nobody is removing freedom of speech from these organization's.

Removal is not the criteria.

Even passing a law that is merely an attempt in reduction scope of one's right to exercise free speech is prohibited under the first Amendment, whether that right be exercised individually or in peaceful assembly of individuals in an organization.

Note the language of that 1st Amendment and its usage

abridge
Pronunciation: &-'brij
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): abridged; abridg·ing
Etymology: Middle English abregen, from Anglo-French abreger, from Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + brevis short -- more at BRIEF
1 a archaic : DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH <attempts to abridge the right of free speech>

 

And the clear prohibition against making any law in that regard:

Amendment I, Constitution of the United States:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, "

 

to step beyond that express prohibition by even the least represents a grave violation of the provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights:

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That `all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
Thomas Jefferson: Opinion, February 15, 1791


40 posted on 09/16/2006 5:32:03 PM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

"The laws that permit some organizations to organize as tax-exempt entities also bar them from participating in or intervening in elections, including advocating for or against any candidate."

The 1st ammendment applies to the MSM only! (is a sarc tag necessary?)


41 posted on 09/18/2006 4:53:00 AM PDT by CSM ("When you stop lying about us, we'll stop telling the truth about you." No Truce With Kings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

"It is the organization that is restricted in exchange for the very favorable privilege of PAYING NO TAXES."

I don't necessarily disagree with you, however, whatever happened to the right of free assembly? What is the difference between restricing a group of assembled individuals due to their tax status and limiting an individual's political activity based on their tax status. For example, if this type of ruling is considered constitutional, why can't we suspend an individual's voting privelages if they don't pay taxes?


42 posted on 09/18/2006 4:58:18 AM PDT by CSM ("When you stop lying about us, we'll stop telling the truth about you." No Truce With Kings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CSM
For example, if this type of ruling is considered constitutional, why can't we suspend an individual's voting privelages if they don't pay taxes?

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean if an individual doesn't pay taxes because none are owed, or doesn't pay taxes because he is evading them? Depending on where he lives in the latter case I imagine he could lose his right to vote.

All I can tell you is my own observation: when money is involved, the courts have no problem allowing restrictions on speech. Think about all the restrictions on advertising--for example, drug ads on TV. It used to be that drug companies couldn't advertise their products to the consumer at all! Now the govt thinks it is so progressive that it allows us to hear about new drugs that might benefit us, but companies are required to spend much of their advertising time reciting the side effects, lest anyone get the idea that the drug is actually a good thing.

43 posted on 09/18/2006 6:23:47 AM PDT by freespirited (We have met the enemy and it is Wal-Mart. ---The Democratic Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

If an individual is not carrying any of the burden of the Federal government, why should they have any voice in the allocation of the burden being carried by others? For example, we have nearly half of the country today that carries no burden of the Feds, yet they get to continue to vote for bigger benefits, therefore increasing the burden on those that actually have to pay.

Considering that organizations are nothing more than an assembly of individuals, and that the constitution is supposed to protect the right of individuals to assemble with like minded folks, yet our society has deemed it constitutional to restrict the political voice of an assembled group of individuals...Why can't we just restrict the political voice of individuals?

What is the difference?


44 posted on 09/18/2006 6:46:56 AM PDT by CSM ("When you stop lying about us, we'll stop telling the truth about you." No Truce With Kings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

The New York Times reported it?
OMG! What a SURPRISE!!!!


45 posted on 09/18/2006 10:50:22 AM PDT by NathanHale92276
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CSM
Considering that organizations are nothing more than an assembly of individuals, and that the constitution is supposed to protect the right of individuals to assemble with like minded folks, yet our society has deemed it constitutional to restrict the political voice of an assembled group of individuals...Why can't we just restrict the political voice of individuals?

I think the argument here would be that the tax law does not restrict the political voice of individuals. It restricts how money is spent by nonprofit organizations. For example take a scientific organization dedicated to educating the public about some environmental issue. They have the coveted 501(c)(3) status meaning that the public can take a tax deduction for money donated to them. This group can't devote more than some fraction (25% I think) of their budget to lobbying and can't endorse political candidates.

You see this as restricting their political voice. But the very same organization is free to spin off a separate unit that uses its money for nothing but political activity. It would probably have (c)(4) status. Money donated to that group would not be deductible on your tax return. However, it could be used by the same people to lobby all day and send out fliers endorsing political candidates, etc.

46 posted on 09/18/2006 11:45:18 AM PDT by freespirited (We have met the enemy and it is Wal-Mart. ---The Democratic Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson