IRS investigation of NAACP for ''partisan speech''

[ShibbOleth]

Just saw this in McPaper:

The Internal Revenue Service is reviewing the tax-exempt status of the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, saying criticism of President Bush at the NAACP’s national convention in July may have violated rules against partisan activity.

In a letter dated Oct. 8, the IRS said it had “received information” that NAACP Chairman Julian Bond “condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush on education, the economy and the war in Iraq” in a July 11 speech.

The IRS asked who authorized Bond’s speech and sought an accounting of all expenses for the Philadelphia convention.

Bond called the investigation a political move meant to deter the NAACP from its traditional role of registering and turning out black voters on Election Day, something he said has not been called into question over decades of such activity.

This raises quite a few questions:

[ul][li]Are all/most churches also organized as 501©(3)'s? I ask because it’s apparently pretty commonplace for churches to endorse one or the other candidate.[/li][li]How is this criticism of the president “partisan”? Wouldn’t there also need to be a call for to vote for Kerry?[/li][li]May I presume that all political donations are non-deductible? The article implies this.[/ul][/li]
I’ve put this in GD rather than GQ since it’s politically charged and the answers to these questions will inevitably end in debate (or worse, in which case take it to the Pit, please).

[Apos]

The NAACP chose to walk a very fine line, and if they get burned for doing so, they get burned. Of course, the easy solution is simply to fire Bond and disown the statements as an organization, but the reality is that NAACP is replete with such statements in the public missives.

[Early_Out]

@ShibbOleth

Are all/most churches also organized as 501(c)(3)'s? I ask because it’s apparently pretty commonplace for churches to endorse one or the other candidate.

There are a bunch of exempt organization categories, all part of 501(c). Religious organizations are generally covered by 501(c)(3), but there’s also 501(d), for “religious and apostolic associations.” I’m not sure what the difference is. In any case, if they’re actually endorsing a candidate, they’re endangering their tax-exempt status.

How is this criticism of the president “partisan”? Wouldn’t there also need to be a call for to vote for Kerry?

I’d agree with you on this one. It’s certainly a subtle distinction, but I’d be uncomfortable with a rule that effectively prevented a tax-exempt organization from criticizing the government.

May I presume that all political donations are non-deductible?

That’s correct.

[jshore]

The line is a pretty subtle one as near as I can tell so I don’t know if that NAACP speech crossed it or not. For example, environmental groups that are 501© like Environmental Defense and Union of Concerned Scientists have been very critical of many Bush Administration policies. And, in some cases, the groups have sent out e-mails urging people to vote to protect the environment in this election…although there were words stressing that they do not endorse any specific candidates. (And, the e-mail itself, they did not discuss any specific candidate’s records.)

Other environmental groups like Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters are not 501© and they can and do endorse candidates.

[Munch]

Are all/most churches also organized as 501©(3)'s? I ask because it’s apparently pretty commonplace for churches to endorse one or the other candidate.

Actually, it’s not. Rarely, if ever, will you see a church formally endorse a candidate - they’d lose their tax charter. They can and will endorse positions on various issues that lead you specifically to a certain candidate, though.

What few organizations realize (and apparently the IRS as well), is that organizations are allowed a certain percentage of their budget to be put towards lobbying costs normally associated with political activity that isn’t allowed a 501©(3). This can be direct lobbying to the government, or indirect lobbying to your constituency. However, an organization must opt into this category (it’s just a simple form that is usually submitted with the organization’s yearly filings).

I’d chalk this incident up to political haymaking, and nothing is going to come of it.

[Homebrew]

It cuts both ways.

Group Challenges Catholic Church’s Tax Exempt Status
“The Archbishop has set up a litmus test for Catholic voters based on certain issues and the IRS specifically spells out to non profit groups this us something you cannot do”, says Jim Pomeranz, an attorney for Catholics For A Free Choice.

[Loach]

Actually, it’s not. Rarely, if ever, will you see a church formally endorse a candidate - they’d lose their tax charter. They can and will endorse positions on various issues that lead you specifically to a certain candidate, though.

I’ve heard many are trying to walk a thin line without actually naming candidates but many pastors are making it clear you they think you should vote for. I have seen news reports about people spying in churches and turning them in to the IRS. I’m sure the IRS is thrilled to get all these complaints.

So no it is not commonplace for a church to make an endorsement but many are trying to get around it by using more subtle language. If they do openly endorse a candidate they can get their tax exempt status taken away. This does not stop individuals from making endorsements as long as they are speaking for themselves and not as a spokesman for the tax exempt organization.

[Munch]

@Loach

I’ve heard many are trying to walk a thin line without actually naming candidates but many pastors are making it clear you they think you should vote for. I have seen news reports about people spying in churches and turning them in to the IRS. I’m sure the IRS is thrilled to get all these complaints.

I don’t doubt that. And I hope the IRS gets inundated with calls, from both sides of the political spectrum - but not for the reason you may think. The IRS does an immensely crappy job of regulating the non-profit industry, and the more attention drawn to the subject, the more pressure to have a more efficient system in place.