AP IRS: Charities Overstepping Into Politics

[rodeodance]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060224/ap_on_go_ot/irs_politics;_ylt=Akz5AKKGu0TLhTNu2KZ44Xqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

IRS: Charities Overstepping Into Politics

By MARY DALRYMPLE, AP Tax Writer 4 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - IRS exams found nearly three out of four churches, charities and other civic groups suspected of having violated restraints on political activity in the 2004 election actually did so, the agency said Friday.
..........

The vast majority of charities and churches followed the law, but the examinations found a "disturbing" amount of political intervention in the 2004 elections, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson said.

"It's disturbing not because it's pervasive, but because it has the potential to really grow and have a very bad impact on the integrity of charities and churches," Everson said in an interview.

The tax agency looked only at charities, churches and other tax-exempt organizations referred to the IRS for potentially violating laws that bar them from participating in or intervening in elections, including advocating for or against any candidate.

[bluestateguy]

1. There are ways around these laws

I heard that on more than one instance in the closing weeks of 2004 campaign you'd have a fundamentalist preacher spending the better part of his sermon ranting about how George Bush was chosen by God for the presidency, were doing God's work in Iraq and George Bush is carrying out a "special mission" on behalf of God. Then he would denounce abortion, homosexuality and pornography. Then of course the preacher would say at the end of the sermon, "please remember to go and vote".

It's pretty obvious what is meant there.

[Judi Lynn]

2. It's good to see some part of the government has taken this up with them.

With any luck, they'll back off, but I wouldn't bet on it. From the article:

Among the prohibited activities, the examiners found that charities and churches had distributed printed material supporting a preferred candidate and assembled improper voter guides or candidate ratings.

Religious leaders had used the pulpit to endorse or oppose a particular candidate, and some groups had shown preferential treatment to candidates by letting them speak at functions.

Other charities and churches had made improper cash contributions to a candidate's political campaign.
(snip)

[UpInArms]

3. IRS: Charities (and Churches) Overstepping Into Politics

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=513&e=2&u=/ap/20060224/ap_on_go_ot/irs_politics

WASHINGTON - IRS exams found nearly three out of four churches, charities and other civic groups suspected of having violated restraints on political activity in the 2004 election actually did so, the agency said Friday.

<snip>

Among the prohibited activities, the examiners found that charities and churches had distributed printed material supporting a preferred candidate and assembled improper voter guides or candidate ratings.

Religious leaders had used the pulpit to endorse or oppose a particular candidate, and some groups had shown preferential treatment to candidates by letting them speak at functions.

Other charities and churches had made improper cash contributions to a candidate's political campaign.

...more...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Not my order

It is strictly forbidden for my religious order to take a political stand or side with any political group. Luckily, as individuals we can raise all the ruckus we want....:)

[earth mom]

5. Looks like it's time for these Charities/Churches to start paying taxes...

or keep their politics to themselves.

[Trillo]

6. I find this confusing: psyops doublespeak?

From the OPs excerpt, emphasis added by me.

WASHINGTON - IRS exams found nearly three out of four churches, charities and other civic groups suspected of having violated restraints on political activity in the 2004 election actually did so, the agency said Friday.
..........

The vast majority of charities and churches followed the law, but the examinations found a "disturbing" amount of political intervention in the 2004 elections, IRS Commissioner Mark Everson said.

article also appears @ http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11542858/

First we are told 3 of 4 churches, charities, and civic groups broke the law.
Then we are told the vast majority (presumably less than 1 out of 2) of churches and charities followed the law.

Upon writing it out, I see that in the second statement, "civics groups" are not mentioned. Logically, the only way the two statements can both be true is if the 3 of 4 skew from 1 of 2 is being caused by "civics groups," where that group would have a much higher rate of violation.

Why does the article then go on to state(?):

Among the 82 closed cases, the IRS found prohibited politicking and sent a written warning to 55 organizations and assessed a penalty tax against one group. Those organizations included 37 churches and 19 other organizations.

55 of 82 is closer to 2/3 instead of 3/4; 37+19=56, not 55; but most notably, 37 churches out of 55 organizations were warned, 37/55 holds the approximate 2/3 ratio, which contradicts the statement excerpted and bolded above,"vast majority of charities and churches followed the law".

This MUST BE PSYOPS, designed to deliberately confuse readers. "The telephone is not a telephone" for those that remember reading of the psychologists' torture technique of deliberately created dissonance.

[Mithras61]

7. Actually, it's simpler than that...

The first statement relates to churches/charities/civic groups that the IRS has received complaints against.

The second statement relates to chucrhes/charities/civic groups in general.

[Trillo]

8. I'm not thinking "simple" enough?

Is this, like, News for Dummies? :)

The article certainly states that there are (paraphrased) millions of tax-exempt organizations, clearly 56 or 55 is a small fraction of the whole. Yet, the disparity of words versus the stated stats versus the analysis still disturbs me ... likely because the article omitted the 'civics groups' from the second statement.

At least the headline appears correct (based upon the groups that received complaints and the stats given).

Bush's idea, or was it Ashcroft's, of the Faith Based Initiative not breaking the First Amendment appears to be another lie we were told.

[Mithras61]

9. What if we add up ALL of the numbers in the article?

Among the 82 closed cases, the IRS found prohibited politicking and sent a written warning to 55 organizations and assessed a penalty tax against one group. Those organizations included 37 churches and 19 other organizations.

In the three additional cases in which the IRS recommended revoking tax-exempt status, none of the organizations were churches. The agency did not identify the three.

The IRS found tax violations unrelated to politics in five cases. Examinations of the 18 remaining groups did not turn up any wrongdoing.


So we have 55 warnings + 1 penalty + 3 revokations = 59/82, which is about 72%, or if you include the other 5 unrelated violations cases, that's 64/82, or 78%. In both cases, that's nearly or about 3 in 4 of the groups in question.

As to the "civic groups", I suspect that they are referring to other 501(c)(3) organizations (such as issue advocacy groups).

[Trillo]

10. That explains where the 3 of 4 come from.

However, the statement about the churches and charities (no civics groups mentioned) that weren't examined (as you suggested the second paragraph of my excerpt was about): "The vast majority of charities and churches followed the law" is a guess at best. Perhaps the are 'presumed' innocent under the law, but without examination, how would anyone know that "they followed the law"?

Perhaps they simply weren't caught.

If one assumes that there's validity in the sample of cases that were examined, projection suggests they may not have followed, or likely didn't follow, the law; this is part of the dissonance I perceived in the article. But it's hard to guess about. How the cases were referred to the IRS isn't well explained, "The tax agency set up a task force in 2004 to review allegations of improper political activity." Does this mean that a legally knowledgeable church member(s) or an insider made the allegation(s)? Or a political opponent? Or something else?

Myself, I believe the whole Faith-Based Initiative for taxpayer funding of church-based charitable activities is a big mistake.

What's to prevent the churches or organizations that did have their tax-exempt status revoked from dissolving the old name and reorganizing as a new organization that is, once again, tax-exempt?

[Mithras61]

11. If I undestand the process correctly...

the FBI must receive a complaint from an affected party (usually the campaign of the opponent of the endorsed) and determine if the complaint is founded or not. If it is founded, then it is referred to the IRS for further investigation. I suspect that the majority of offending parties are probably not passed to the IRS for further investigation, which qualifies (as far as the article is concerned) as following the law. I realize that it probably means that they weren't caught or that their interference may not have risen to the level of a violation, and that they still have violated the spirit of the law.

Unfortunately, 110 cases in a population of over 1 million doesn't really fall into the "statistically valid" category, IIRC. I'm not a statistician, but I believe that the sample has to be in the 300-500 range for anything useful to be inferred from the results.

As to the faith-based initiative, as the BFEE implements it, that means giving money to the Fundies, and that's wrong. As it was "sold" to the USofA, it was not preventing faith-based organizations from participating in Federal programs. Actually, they never were forbidden to participate, they just had to follow Federal laws on things like hiring/firing and not pushing religion in their Federally funded activities.

I don't know the ins & outs of forming a 501(c)(3), so I can't say if there are any disclosures involved regarding previous names/activities or not. I would have to refer that to one of the lawyerly folks (maybe OldLeftieLawyer or The Magistrate could answer it).

[eppur_se_muova]

14. Of those suspected, 3 out of 4 were found guilty.

Of those not suspected ... who knows? ** has let them know that they can do anything if they claim it's for a spiritual cause.

[CatholicEdHead]

12. All MN Catholic Churches crossed the line two weeks ago

with a blatent postcard drive for the "anti-gay marriage ammendment".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=160x16997

[smoogatz]

13. Tax them all.

I frankly think it's absurd that churches pay no taxes whatsoever--neither on property or income. Whatever money they don't give to the poor should be taxed. Period. They should pay property taxes like everybody else.

[hullbert]

15. Yikes...

The IRS versus the Fundies....who to root for....

[brooklynite]

16. I.R.S. Finds Sharp Increase in Illegal Political Activity

The I.R.S. said yesterday that it saw a sharp increase in prohibited political activity by charities and churches in the last election cycle, a trend that it aims to reverse as the country heads into the midterm elections.

The tax agency found problems at three-quarters of the 82 organizations it examined after having received complaints about their political activities, according to a report the Internal Revenue Service released. The infractions included distributing materials that encouraged people to vote for particular candidates and giving cash to campaigns.

The agency said it was seeking to revoke the exemptions of three organizations but did not name them, pending an appeals process. Charities are generally prohibited from campaigning for candidates, although they can take stands on issues.

...snip...

Almost half the tax-exempt groups under examination are churches. Churches played a pivotal role in the 2004 elections, and the Republican Party, in particular, harnessed their influence to register, educate and deliver voters. Both parties are cultivating churches for future elections. Democratic senators have been courting the Rev. Rick Warren, who draws more than 20,000 people a week to his Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., and the North Carolina Republican Party made waves when its leader sent an e-mail request for church directories.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/national/25charity.html

[Media_Lies_Daily]

17. Gee....who would have guessed that??

[ConcernedCanuk]

18. The obvious that has been going on for decades is getting harder to hide

.
.
.

That's my opinion anyhoo

But I's just a Cynical Canuk

[mcctatas]

19. You're fucking kidding me...Who would have believed it!!!

Next thing someone will try telling us the earth revolves around the sun, or that human beings evolved from some critter called austrolapithicus afarensis (or some other crazy librul' nonsense).:sarcasm:

[Earth_First]

20. I love how they throw this in there...

"Democratic senators have been courting the Rev. Rick Warren..."

[Dem2theMax]

21. And in my local paper yesterday -

(They just can't seem to stop themselves, can they?)

Republican request draws ire in N.C.

RALEIGH, N.C. – North Carolina's state Republican Party is facing criticism over its request for church directories to use in voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts.

~snip

State Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek said his party doesn't seek membership lists.

~snip


The Republican request, sent statewide by e-mail, said research by the national party shows “people who regularly attend church usually vote Republican when they vote.”

In the 2004 presidential race, the Republican National Committee asked Catholics who backed Bush to give parish directories to the RNC as a way to identify and mobilize new voters.


A wee bit more at the link.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060223/news_1c23relbrief.html

[Up2Late]

22. No Duh!

(as we used to say in the mid-west when I was a kid.) :kick: