Posted on 06/11/2002 2:06:19 PM PDT by vannrox
An animal-rights group should lose its tax-exempt status because it gave $1,500 to a group the FBI lists as "terrorist," say two pro-business groups on the other side of the ongoing debate on animal treatment.
An expert in tax law agrees that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals might have jeopardized its crucial status as a nonprofit charity.
A form PETA filed with the Internal Revenue Service shows it gave $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front last April "to support program activities." PETA offered several different explanations for the payment.
The Center for Consumer Freedom, a coalition of restaurants, and the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, a group composed of mostly business and property owners, say the donation should cost PETA its nonprofit status.
"The implication is PETA is funding someone who (wants to) overthrow the government of the United States," said Ron Arnold, Free Enterprise center executive vice president.
PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said groups that don't agree with its mission are looking for reasons to hurt them. PETA's attorney Jeffrey Kerr called it a "smear campaign."
"This is a straw man," Newkirk said. "They're trying to create dirt where no dirt exists."
The IRS reviewed PETA's records several years ago, "took us apart seam by seam," and came up with nothing, she added.
The FBI has labeled ELF and its ally Animal Liberation Front as terrorist organizations. It estimates the two groups have committed more than 600 criminal acts since 1996, primarily arson, causing at least $43million in damage.
ELF and ALF attacks on local universities and businesses, such as Washington State University in Pullman and Jefferson Poplar Farms in Oregon, have raised concern about eco-terrorism threats in the area.
U.S. Rep. George Nethercutt of Spokane has proposed tougher penalties for people convicted of "agro-terrorism."
The current ELF spokesman, Leslie James Pickering, did not respond to requests for a comment for this story.
Consumer Freedom's executive director, Richard Berman, complained about PETA's $1,500 donation early this year at a congressional hearing on eco-terrorism where Nethercutt's bill was discussed.
Patti Strand, president of the National Animal Interest Alliance in Portland, a nonprofit animal-welfare organization, contends the payment is part of a well-orchestrated effort.
"This is a very shrewd, business-savvy organization. Nothing they do is spontaneous," she said.
The conflict represents the different positions in the debate between animal-rights and animal-welfare advocates. Animal-rights groups like PETA believe animals shouldn't be used for research, food, products or entertainment. Animal-welfare groups like the alliance believe it's OK to use animals as long as they're treated humanely and thinks animal-rights groups exaggerate abuse claims to increase fund raising and membership.
Newkirk said animal-welfare groups don't want animal-rights groups to get their message out: "They don't want people to know what goes into their meat," she said.
Nonprofits, such as PETA, the alliance and the two pro-business centers, are all funded by private donations and permitted to give to other charitable organizations. The recipient doesn't have to be a nonprofit group but the money must go to charitable purposes. Federal law also prohibits nonprofits from financially supporting terrorism.
In a 12-page letter to the IRS in March, Arnold listed examples of PETA activities he said border on inappropriate behavior.
He requested a thorough examination of PETA's history, including paying legal fees for ALF and PETA members charged with misdemeanors and felonies. He also cited statements by Newkirk and Bruce Friedrich, PETA's vegan campaign coordinator, that Arnold believes encourage civil disobedience or more extreme tactics.
Newkirk said the group is just exercising its First Amendment rights. Strand said the group uses freedom of speech "as sword and shield."
Kerr, PETA's lawyer, said the group refuses to "condone or condemn actions attributed to ELF. (Actions) have occurred without any input or endorsement from PETA," he wrote to the House forest health subcommittee after its Feb. 12 hearing on eco-terrorism. Financial support for legal defense does not mean the group condones illegal actions, and to suggest it does is "wrong and inexcusable," he wrote.
Paying for someone's legal assistance is weak grounds to investigate a group's nonprofit status, said John Lawley, an American University law student who has researched PETA's tax-exempt status.
Such donations are a legitimate function of a nonprofit because they fall under social policy, which relieves the government of the obligation to provide defense counsel, he said.
But PETA's $1,500 donation to ELF could be grounds to lose its tax-exempt status, he said.
"Eco-terrorism clearly violates public policy," Lawley wrote in a recent study. "Activities employed by eco-terror groups call for the violent destruction of property and the express goal of inflicting economic damage on their perceived foes."
Kenneth Anderson, an American University College of Law professor who teaches nonprofit taxation, agreed: "Anything PETA does with money has to be a charitable purpose. How can it be a charitable purpose if they're giving it to a terrorist organization?"
The fact that the FBI labels ELF as a terrorist organization should be enough for the FBI to investigate PETA, he said.
In recent months, PETA officials have offered several explanations of the $1,500 check to ELF.
On Feb. 26, Newkirk told ABC News she did not remember the check. On March 4, the Associated Press quoted her as saying it was a request for funds for educational materials. The following day, she was quoted by KOMO-TV in Seattle as saying it was being used for "habitat protection."
Two days later, Lisa Lange, the group's director of policy and communications, said on a FOX News program the money was for a program about vegetarianism. On March 14, Kerr wrote to Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., chairman of the House Forest and Forest Health Subcommittee, that the $1,500 was "to assist (former ELF spokesman Craig) Rosebraugh with legal expenses related to free-speech activities regarding animal protection issues."
Newkirk offered that same explanation in a recent interview with The Spokesman-Review, saying the money assisted Rose-braugh for legal defense when he was subpoenaed to testify before McInnis's subcommittee. Rosebraugh invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 50 times during that appearance.
She believes Rosebraugh is being harassed: "He's not even being charged with anything. This country is supposed to hold free speech sacred and not pursue those that say they're fed up with animal abuse and will pass off information from those that are exposing it."
But IRS records show the check was written in April 2001, 11 months before the hearing was held. The group said the check was "to support program activities," which means the organization could be cited for improper record keeping, Anderson said. PETA used the same description for every expenditure in 2001.
"Not keeping proper records is a killer right there," Anderson said. "Even if they say it's an honest mistake, it was a record-keeping error. If you want the tax exemption, you have to keep proper records."
The IRS does not have to prove PETA gave money for improper purposes on an improper record-keeping charge, he added.
Josh Penry, spokesman for the subcommittee, said PETA's recent answer that the $1,500 was intended for legal defense is "weak."
"You can move money around. ELF could have spent that however they wanted," he said.
Anderson said it's up to the IRS to determine what the penalty is if it revokes PETA's tax-exempt status. But, he said the real question is whether the IRS will investigate an allegation that amounts to such a tiny percent of the group's annual $14 million budget.
"Most large charities wind up making expenditures that after the fact are questionable," Anderson said. "It's very rare for the IRS to revoke the status of an organization for, relatively speaking, minor amounts. It's just crazy."
If the IRS does revoke PETA's tax-exempt status, however, it would have a significant impact on the organization, Anderson said.
"People who donate can't take a tax deduction," he said. "It would make life much tougher for the organization. But it's not the end of the world; we're not talking about people going to jail."
Congress also could pass a new law, he said.
"Congress could say any group that contributes one penny to a terrorist organization listed by the FBI could lose its tax-exempt status," Anderson said.
Nethercutt's proposed legislation would increase penalties and fines for eco-terrorism-related violations. If that bill is passed, he said, the next step could be to look into nonprofit tax law.
"It's unacceptable that any nonprofit in this country would support a self-described group like ELF," he said.
Hopefully this will go through, and then will be a land mark case for other enviral and left wing non profits.
So what have you been battling these two eco terrorists about?
That's not news; that's simply printing some press release authored in the home of some guy who "heads" a "public interest group" consisting of himelf, his wife, his dog, and his first cousin.
To fight bestialityphobes. We deserve a right to have sex with our beloved animals, marry them, and adopt. They just don't understand.
Freedom of expression! All we asked was for them to destroy all those who oppose us. I thought that's what political correctness was designed for!
We thought they would hire some illegal middle eastern men to do some volenteer work for us.
But....but...rats have rights, too!
Look. We're innocent. All we want is to force the entire world to obey vegitarianism. Is that too much to ask?
"The implication is PETA is funding someone who (wants to) overthrow the government of the United States."The following statements apply to which organization?
The implication is that the NEA is funding someone who (wants to) overthrow the guvament of the United States.
The implication is that the AFL-CIO is funding someone who (wants to) overthrow the guvament of the United States.
The implication is that the Teamsters are funding someone who (wants to) overthrow the guvament of the United States.
The implication is that Rainbow/Push is funding someone who (wants to) overthrow the guvament of the United States.
The implication is that the ACLU is funding someone who (wants to) overthrow the guvament of the United States.
Can you spell D-e-m-o-n-R-A-T-s?
Throw them all in jail!
I want the to look into Jackson's not for profit status, and while they're at it the NAACP is using tax exempt money for political purposes. The dems keep whining about not having enough tax money? Eliminate the tax exempt status of all these bogus groups and they'd have plenty of tax money.
Sounds good to me. Now the next step is to get rid of "nonprofit status" altogether. Just another gubment spoils system we could do just fine without.
Liberals are going to rue the day they pushed RICO.
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.