Posted on 09/15/2006 7:35:38 PM PDT by 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?)
"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?
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.
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?
The New York Times reported it?
OMG! What a SURPRISE!!!!
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.
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.