It is time to end the NAACP's tax exempt status.

1) Is it tax-exempt?

2) Is it a church?

Not sure on the first one. Positive on the second one (it's not)-- it's just a group of nutjobs.

 

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to finally bring up the NRA. Those gun-toting crazies have poured millions into the Republican Party.

 

I know...those "crazies" actually believe in the Second Amendment, go figure. You can't just pick and choose which Amendments of the Bill of Rights you like. It is the Bill of Rights, not a cafeteria.

 

Giving money to the Parties is not the issue, either, and does not preclude being tax exempt.

Oh, by the way, the NRA itself is also not tax exempt. The NRA Foundation, a separate legal entity, is.

 

It's definitely tax-exempt and I said church group, not church. I've never seen Ralph Reed speaking at the DNC like he does at the RNC.

 

IRS DENIES CHRISTIAN COALITION
TAX EXEMPTION

ACTION IS 'DEVASTATING BLOW' TO TV PREACHER
PAT ROBERTSON'S POLITICAL GROUP,
SAYS AMERICANS UNITED

The Internal Revenue Service has denied the Christian Coalition status as a tax-exempt organization, a move hailed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

"It’s about time," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, in response to a copyrighted report in today's St. Petersburg Times. "The Christian Coalition is a hardball political machine that has been masquerading as a tax-exempt group. The IRS has finally pulled off the mask.

"This is a devastating blow to TV preacher Pat Robertson's political ambitions," continued Lynn. "His crusade to politicize America's churches is now almost certain to fail. I, for one, say 'amen.'"

Americans United has been the leading critic and opponent of the Coalition since the Robertson group's inception. In 1997, AU launched a national campaign to warn churches about legal limits on political activities and to urge them to reject Coalition voter guides.

"The Coalition's primary political weapons are its voter guides," Lynn added. "Every year the Christian Coalition attempts to flex its political muscle by distributing these slanted guides in thousands of churches.

"In light of the IRS action, pastors would have to be out of their minds to distribute these guides now. The Christian Coalition's credibility is shot. That's the real impact of the IRS action."

Americans United has urged the IRS to deny the Coalition's application for tax exemption and has submitted voluminous evidence to the tax agency of the Coalition's obvious partisan nature.

Most notably, AU gave the IRS a tape of a September 1997 closed-door Robertson speech to Coalition state lieutenants outlining his partisan political goals and strategies. Urging the group to emulate political machines such as Tammany Hall, Robertson took credit for the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 and laid plans to elect a Republican to the presidency in 2000.

"That tape was the smoking gun," concluded AU's Lynn. "Robertson sounded more like a ward boss than a religious leader. After that, the IRS had no choice but to deny the group's tax exemption."

In 1990, in the wake of his failed bid for the GOP presidential nomination, Robertson formed the Christian Coalition, which sought tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. Since that time, the group has operated as a tax-exempt organization pending a final decision from the IRS.

 

IRS Denies Christian Coalition Tax-Exempt Status
By Thomas B. Edsall and Hanna Rosin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 11, 1999; Page A4


The IRS has rejected the Christian Coalition's 10-year struggle to win tax-exempt status, dealing a major setback to a mainstay of the Republican Party and to the political-business empire that turned broadcaster Pat Robertson into a power broker of the religious right.
The IRS action is virtually certain to make conservative pastors, concerned about risking their charitable status, reluctant to maintain their close ties to the Christian Coalition, and less willing to distribute its controversial voter guides and other material, according to supporters and critics of the coalition.

In the wake of other damaging developments, the IRS ruling, which was first reported yesterday by the St. Petersburg Times, further diminishes the ability of the coalition to maintain its influence in the Republican Party. Over the past 10 years, the Christian Coalition has emerged as the counterpart to organized labor and the women's movement in the Democratic Party.

In states with large evangelical and fundamentalist constituencies, the coalition, the premier organization of the religious right, has helped Republicans at every level of the ballot, playing a crucial role in the GOP takeover of the House and Senate in 1994.

A number of conservatives described the IRS action as a roundhouse punch to a group that is already on the ropes, as its revenue dropped from $26 million in 1996 to $17 million in 1997.

"This will be a surprise to all the people who believed the Christian Coalition was what it said it was, those conservative Christians who thought it was above back-room wheeling and dealing," said Arne Owens, communications director for the coalition until November 1998. "This is the last piece of a puzzle. The Christian right has been potent for a while, but now it's going away," said John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a conservative legal group.

The coalition's claim of tax-exempt status while its application was pending eased the concerns of churches over distributing the voter guides and gave the organization the necessary imprimatur of nonpartisanship.

The coalition played down the IRS rejection, announcing yesterday that its board "authorized a sweeping reorganization . . . to accomplish a much more effective and extensive political mission." Noting that the coalition had "withdrawn" its application for tax-exempt status, the release announced formation of a for-profit corporation, Christian Coalition International, that will be free "to endorse political candidates on a state and local level [and] make financial contributions to candidates."

A second organization, Christian Coalition of America, will be created by renaming and relocating a subsidiary, Christian Coalition of Texas. This group "will become the principle vehicle for the operation of the Christian Coalition in the United States," according to the announcement. Spokesman Mike Russell said this new group will do "everything" the old Christian Coalition did.

The conversion of the subsidiary, which has tax-exempt status, into the Christian Coalition of America could provoke retaliatory action by the IRS. "It appears that the new organization will do just what the IRS said disqualified the old organization from getting 501c4 [tax-exempt] status," one tax specialist said.

Barry Lynn, a critic of partisan activity by the religious right and head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, described the coalition's maneuver as "a shell game in the sleaziest carnival."

Americans United pressed hard for the denial of tax-exempt status, and last year it released a tape of a political speech Robertson gave to Christian Coalition members calling on them to emulate "the Tammany Halls . . . and Chicago machine, and the Byrd machine. . . . This is what we've got to do. Now God has put a mandate on us because the nation is in crisis."

The disclosure of the ruling is the latest in a series of blows to Robertson. Earlier this week, he left the board of Laura Ashley Holdings PLC after gay groups accused him of being a "homophobe" and planned protests. A week ago, the Bank of Scotland scuttled a deal with Robertson Financial Services after Robertson described Scotland as a morally degenerate "dark land" where homosexuals hold disproportionate power.

Last year, Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network agreed to pay a large fine to the IRS because of CBN's involvement in Robertson's 1988 presidential campaign.

 

It's one thing to believe in the 2nd Amendment, but to lobby on the behalf of carrying precision assault rifles, semi-automatic machine guns, and rocket launchers is absolutely preposterous. Also, this is the same NRA that vehemently fought against the Brady Law (introduced by Clinton) that requires a waiting period on all handgun purchases, because God forbid we do a background check on someone who wants to buy a deadly weapon.

 

Whoops. I think the first part of my statement here may well be wrong. Tax exempt organizations apparently cannot give money to the parties themselves.

But the second part is right. The NRA itself is not tax exempt. The NRA Foundation is, and it does not participate in political activities.

 

But yet again, this shouldn't be about any group's right to exist or right to conduct their business or express their opinions in any way they see fit because the NRA, the NAACP and whoever else does have the right to do those things regardless of whether we agree with their message or not.

The issue is whether these groups are violating the law in regard to their tax exempt status.

 

Well maybe I'm wrong there. It looks like it's still being litigated or something as to if they're 501(c)(3) which are charities or 501(c)(4) which are welfare organizations.


Well wait a minute. This is from a chapter of the Christian Coalition. They say they're 501-C(4) which according to the IRS is tax-exempt.

http://www.ccco.org/WhatIsCC.html

What Is Christian Coalition?
Christian Coalition is a not-for-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to giving Christians a voice in government again. It is a non-profit organization under IRS Code 501-C(4) and thus, contributions, including membership fees, are not income-tax-deductible under IRS law. The Colorado Chapter of Christian Coalition is an official affiliate of the Christian Coalition.

http://www.irs.gov/exempt/welfare/display/0,,i1%3D3&i2%3D29&genericId%3D6898,00.html

Social Welfare Organizations

Exemption Requirements - 501(c)(4)
To be tax-exempt as an organization described in 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare. Pursuant to changes enacted as part of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, the earnings of a 501(c)(4) organization may not inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any managers agreeing to the transaction. See the FY-2002 CPE topic entitled Introduction to IRC 4958 for more information about this excise tax.

 

The Klan is *still* in effect
as are the *neo* Nazis

Rocket River

 

First, to clear up a few things.

There are MANY churches, Christian or otherwise, who openly support candidates. In African American churches, candidates speak during the services as a common practice. This dates back to when churches were the only places where blacks were allowed to discuss community and social issues. It is still held in use today because churches, particularly in African American communities, are still the gathering places for the neighborhood.

Numerous Christian conservative churches, particularly in the south, have been known to hand out voting guides marking their recommendations for candidates and issues. I remember the Lutheran pastor at a church I went to telling people that a vote for {fill in the blank} was a vote for God.

Every year, ministerial alliances (both conservative and liberal) give their backing to specific candidates in the media. It is VERY common and candidates stump hard to win the support and endorsement of such groups.

I think the key difference is that, generally speaking, the churches or church groups will support whichever candidate or party they feel best addresses the issues important to them. The NAACP does this. The NRA does this. Pretty much every group that has any interest in politics whatsoever does this.

When they feel a particular candidate supports what they feel is important, they will put their support behind him/her. This isn't exactly NEW news.

Besides, the NAACP and NRA are EASY targets. I mean, it's like they walk around with bull's eyes painted on them saying "Liberal (or Conservative)! Aim here!"

 

and they are BIG . . .VERY ACTIVE and got a bit of money and CLOUT

Rocket River

 

As an aside, I'm wondering about something. The NAACP wears its political affiliations on its sleeve. That much is obvious. It is also a given that African Americans, across the board, vote for Democratic and liberal candidates. In some instances, it is something like 90 to 95 percent per election.

Now, given that there are millions of black people making this choice, I'm wondering, do conservatives and/or Republicans think that African Americans have a legitimate beef they might consider addressing? If this were a couple of groups, that would be one thing. But, tens of millions of black people in America honestly believe that the Republican Party and the conservative ideology in America is completely incongruent with their belief systems.

Shouldn't this be a concern considering the fact that the numbers of African Americans in America are actually growing???

 

The main Christian Coalition site didn't say and those were the only articles I could find.

But it remains the same. The "everybody's doing it" arguement doesn't wash. If you break the rules, you break the rules. Otherwise, they should simply get rid of the rules.

I found this later article that explains what happened after the IRS denied the original tax-exempt application. It's still only from 1999, though:

IRS SHOULD REVIEW CHRISTIAN COALITION OF AMERICA'S TAX-EXEMPT STATUS,
SAYS AMERICANS UNITED

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has asked the Internal Revenue Service to review the tax-exempt status of the Christian Coalition, asserting that the organization may be operating in violation of federal tax law.

In a letter to the IRS yesterday, Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn charges that the Christian Coalition is engaging in the same types of partisan political activities that led the IRS to deny tax-exemption to the organization earlier this year.

"The Coalition cannot claim to be a 'social welfare' organization entitled to tax exemption," observed Lynn, "while having as its primary purpose a multi-million dollar campaign on behalf of the Republican Party. I bring this information to your attention in the hope that you will take all possible steps to prevent the abuse of the federal tax law by the Christian Coalition of America."

The Christian Coalition, founded in 1990 by TV preacher Pat Robertson, applied for tax-exemption as a "social welfare" organization under Section 501(c)(4) of federal tax law. Groups that hold this status may not devote the majority of their activities to politics.

For 10 years the group operated with provisional 501(c)(3) status while the IRS considered its application. Last June the news media reported that the IRS had denied the Christian Coalition tax exemption. In response, the organization split into two entities--Christian Coalition International, a for-profit corporation, and Christian Coalition of America, which took over the already-secured 501(c)(4) status of the Christian Coalition of Texas.

In his letter to the IRS, Lynn notes, "Christian Coalition President Robertson and his staff emphasized to the news media that the Christian Coalition would continue the same political activities that apparently led the IRS to reject the Coalition's application in the first place."

Lynn cited the following examples:

* Robertson told The Wall Street Journal on June 11 that denial of tax exemption won't cause "a single hiccup in our organization" and pledged to raise $21 million to affect the outcome of the 2000 elections.

* Coalition spokesman Mike Russell told The Washington Post June 11 that the revamped Christian Coalition will do "everything" the old Coalition did. That same day Russell also told The Philadelphia Inquirer, "If anything, the organization will come back in far more political arenas, and have influence in areas that it has not been able to engage in before."

* Coalition spokeswoman Molly Clatworthy told Religion News Service on June 10 that the group would continue to distribute voter guides.

* Robertson has announced plans to raise $21 million to ensure voter turnout for GOP candidates in 2000. The Coalition's entire budget vacillates between $17 million and $25 million, proving that the group is spending most of its time and money on partisan activities.

Lynn also noted that less than a week after the news broke about the IRS action, Robertson met with Republican leaders in Congress to discuss voter turnout and ways to elect candidates who share his views. In a subsequent interview with the Associated Press, Robertson said, "If the Christian Coalition isn't in the game, the Republicans are going to lose" in 2000.

Asserts the Lynn letter, "This is an audacious and outrageous move by Mr. Robertson. If the Coalition is continuing the very same partisan political operation that led the IRS to deny it tax exemption, the group should not be able to obtain such an exemption by organizational sleight of hand."

Lynn urged the federal tax agency to take prompt action, writing, "The Coalition's brazen attempt to remain tax exempt while devoting the bulk of its activities to partisan politics is simply unacceptable."

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization represents 60,000 members and allied houses of worship in all 50 states.


If they're breaking the rules, they need to lose their tax exempt status, too. Same with the Democratic Leadership Council or the NAACP or the NRA or Newt Gingrich or whoever else abuses their legal status. The law is the law is the law.

(I will note, however, that apparently the 501(c)(4) tax exemption does allow electioneering so the Coalition can produce their biased voter guides without affecting their status.)

Here's another article from a little later:

AMERICANS UNITED ANNOUNCES COMPLETION OF MAILING TO
CHURCHES ABOUT CHRISTIAN COALITION VOTER GUIDES

WATCHDOG GROUP SUCCEEDS IN DISTRIBUTING 285,000 LETTERS
TO RELIGIOUS LEADERS NATIONWIDE

Americans United for Separation of Church and State announced today that the group has completed a mailing to 285,000 churches nationwide encouraging religious leaders not to distribute voter guides prepared by TV preacher Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition.

AU's campaign is a first-of-its-kind national drive to educate church leaders about the dangers of distributing Coalition materials, which Americans United insists are slanted political propaganda.

The successful AU mailing comes at a time when Robertson has taken his message on tour for a series of "God and Country" rallies in states expected to be critical in the upcoming presidential race. Robertson has made appearances desperately touting church distribution of his group's voter guides in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Missouri within the last week.

Objective analysts agree that the Coalition's guides are deliberately stacked to favor Republican candidates. AU notes that federal tax law clearly prohibits houses of worship, which are tax-exempt, from distributing literature that supports one candidate over another.

"These voter guides are not objective or fair," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "Instead, they are partisan campaign propaganda."

Added Lynn, "The Coalition's guides don't belong in church sanctuaries, they belong at the local recycling center. The mailing AU has completed is designed to ensure that they end up there.

"We believe our letters to churches will throw a monkey wrench into Pat Robertson's political machine," Lynn said.

Lynn accused Robertson of trying to mislead America's religious leaders. "Robertson claims two federal courts have cleared the way for church distribution of Coalition guides," Lynn said. "A closer look at the facts proves he simply isn't telling the truth."

In the Federal Election Commission v. Christian Coalition ruling, Robertson's group won most of a case that had been filed against it by the FEC. But instead of approving distribution of the group's materials, U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green specifically noted that the Coalition's voter guides have "made clear which candidates the Coalition preferred." Thus, experts say, houses of worship may not distribute them. Also, the court ruled on matters relating to federal election law, which is notoriously weak and full of loopholes, not federal tax law, which is much stricter and applies to churches.

In addition, in Christian Coalition v. IRS, the government agreed to settle the case by conceding that the Coalition was tax exempt -- but only for the year 1990. The tax agency agreed to refund the organization $169.26 in taxes it paid for that year. This does not clear tax-exempt houses of worship to distribute the group's political materials. The Coalition falls under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, which allows the group to engage in significant electioneering. Churches, however, fall under 501(c)(3), which prohibits all partisan political activities.

Lynn noted that the Christian Coalition relies on churches as virtually the only method of distribution for its guides.

"The Christian Coalition can legally produce their partisan guides," said Lynn, "but churches, as tax-exempt institutions, can't distribute them."

Christian Coalition leaders have effectively admitted that the voter guides are partisan political materials that support particular candidates.

For example, in a September mailing to the group's supporters, Roberta Combs, executive vice-president of the Christian Coalition, described the voter guides as "the most effective tool to educate voters about candidates who deserve Christian support."

Moreover, Robertson himself acknowledged earlier this year that he intends to use the guides to help elect George W. Bush.

In a remarkable interview that aired on CNN during the primary season, before Bush had won the GOP nomination, Robertson told Wolf Blitzer that if McCain got the Republican nomination, the group "would not put out 75 million voter guides, would not urge its membership to vote for anybody in the general election.... You know, we're not under the obligation to put out any literature for anybody."

Observed AU's Lynn, "Robertson has admitted that his voter guides are put out on behalf of certain candidates. Thus, they can't be lawfully distributed by churches."

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group and leading opponent of the Religious Right. Founded in 1947, the Washington, D.C.-based organization represents 60,000 members and allied houses of worship in all 50 states.

 

Well, I would wonder whether, at least in some cases, appealing to issues important to the African-American community might well turn off some of the traditional voter base and cost the person the election, particularly in the primaries (it sure seems like, at least around here, the Republican candidate has to be awfully conservative to win the primary if challenged).

Plus, there have been some limited efforts by some candidates to appeal to minority groups only to see the voting patterns stay the same by and large. So a Republican candidate might well spend a lot of money and effort trying to attract African-American voters to his cause only to see the percentage of the vote go from 8% to 10% or something along those lines.

Attracting minority voters is a long-term process and too many politicians don't think that long-term. It appears that the Party itself has written many minority groups off completely which is a mistake I think. Even without changing the basic beliefs of the Party, the Party should make an attempt to show how their beliefs coincide with the views of many in minority groups. (I also think the Republican Party should change some of their views, but that's a different matter). It may not end up mattering (there are many leaders in political-oriented groups who are only about friends and enemies and those in the opposing party are always enemies regardless of what they do), but you'd think it would be worth trying, at least.

But hey, if the Party listened to me, they'd be doing a lot of things a lot differently (and quite possibly not winning as many elections. I can't pretend that I'm a master political theorist or that my ideas are necessarily in the mainstream a lot of the time).

 

Maybe we think we are addressing them in the correct way.

Just because a black voter thinks big government is the solution to his problem doesn't mean that I'm not addressing hig "legitimate" beef by favoring limited government.

 

But see, I, as a candidate or political party, would want to try and convince those voters that my way is right. Show them that their beef isn't really legitimate by showing how the views of my party really are congruent with their own views. Show them how the Party really is wanting what's best for the community (theirs and others) and show how what our Party wants to do would lead to those things that would make their community better. I would venture to say that many of the views the African-American community has of Republicans, in general, is not even accurate. But the Republican Party and its candidate have done little to counteract those views, at least in my opinion. And I think the Party should at least be trying to counteract those notions and show how the views of the Republican Party do go hand-in-hand with what these voters believe. That's part of leadership, in my opinion.

Again, maybe you can't convince people, but I think it would be worth trying at least moreso than is now.

 

Just to clarify my post, since "addressing" is a somewhat vague term:

The presumption Jeff is making is that if a black voter says, "I have a specific problem. I want (X) as my solution", the Democrats are addressing the black voter's concern better by saying, "OK, we'll get that for you."

I think the Republican Party goes as far as I would want it to go in saying, "I understand the problem. I agree it needs to be fixed. However, that's not how we'd fix it if you voted for us."

Jeff and a lot of other people seem to be under the assumption that reaching out to the black community is only done by agreeing with them on the solution to all of their problems. I don't see it that way. I agree on the problems, not the prescribed liberal solutions. My political goals operate independently of pandering to voters. Obviously I hope people would vote for me-- winners can effect change. Losers grow beards and get fat. But I believe strongly in my political principles. I believe I'm right. I'm not going to change those principles because 90 percent of a group disagrees with me.

We're speaking specifically about black voters here, but this could apply to any number of voting blocs.