In return for its favored tax-status, a charitable nonprofit promises the federal government that it will not engage in “political campaign activity ” and if it does, IRS regulations mandate that the charitable nonprofit will lose its tax-exempt status. This prohibition against political campaign activity (defined as “supporting or opposing a candidate for public office”) is SEPARATE from lobbying or legislative activities, which charitable nonprofits ARE permitted to engage in, although knowing the rules is important, as limitations apply.
But this issue should be in a separate thread, methinks.
And remember- the whole idea behind many Non-profits is to promote a political agenda- Greenpeace, MADD, Sierra Club, Green Tech action fund, and so forth.
Is there a party that is pro-drunk driving? I have never seen drunk driving as a topic in a political ad.
I see your point that it’s technically involving policy and therefore political, but does MADD get involved in elections much? How much of their budget is spent on elections vs marketing/awareness building.
This is an analysis of one reason why the Kansas amendment proposal failed in rural, predominantly red counties in the state.
…residents received anti-amendment mailers sometimes once or twice a week, including some saying it could mean more government mandates. That phrasing was intentional on the part of opponents, who were tapping into lingering anger over early pandemic restrictions and mask mandates.
Of course. They lobby politicians to change state laws on drinking age, BAC %, and many driving laws.
Just because being against drunk driving is a generally a good thing, that doesn’t mean MADD doesn’t have a Political agenda. But that is not all MADD does.
Unfortunately, this new “mission” has nothing to do with drunk driving; it is a manifestation of MADD’s deep-seated belief that any and all drinking before driving should be prohibited — regardless of whether it’s done responsibly and legally. Instead of focusing on repeat offenders and those who are too drunk to drive, the twenty-first-century MADD endorses higher beverage taxes, needlessly low drunk driving arrest thresholds, and roadblocks designed to frighten people out of social drinking. These tactics have failed to reduce drunk driving deaths, since they target social drinkers, not product abusers.
In March 2004, MADD expanded its attack on responsible adults by calling for a “mandatory provision in every separation agreement and divorce decree that prohibits either parent from drinking and driving … with minor children in the vehicle.” Violating this provision, it argues, should result in penalties such as license suspension, jail, or even the “termination of parental rights.”
Incidentally MADD fired Candace Lightner- the"Mother" in their name. Leadership is now slightly more male than female.
The largest part of their budget (about 50%) goes to fundraising.
The main tax that would be levied against a church is property tax, I’d think. You could also claim that providing pastors/priests a place to live is taxable income. Clergy are specifically exempt under the law.
8 of the 9 counties have completed their recount. Sedgwick County (home of Wichita) announced yesterday that there was an issue with the recount and probably wouldn’t announce results until after the weekend.
I downloaded data from the Kansas SOS website and a couple of county electoral sites and compiled it in a spreadsheet. Here’s what I’ve calculated thus far:
The recount shows 13 fewer ‘Yes’ votes than the original count. The recount shows 19 fewer ‘No’ votes than the original count. So it’s a net gain of six votes in favor of the amendment.
What the recount will show, however, is that elections in this state are safe and secure. Which will make it hard for the sore losers in the future to claim voter/election fraud.
Among those who don’t, what the recount will show is “Look how corrupted our electoral process is; it’s so bad that we needed a recount! Clearly, elections can’t be trusted, so let’s abolish voting”. Which is, of course, exactly why the recount was conducted.
Or, on the Lou Dobbs Postulate of Election Fraud™, it is just further proof of how deeply entrenched the fraud is in the system, making it impossible to find the proof that everyone knows is out there.
But that’s the genius of election denier logic – the very fact that the recount is showing so little deviation from the original counting is yet more proof that fraud occurred! Are we really supposed to believe that the vote was so perfect that a recount wouldn’t catch more errors? Seems like the powers that be are covering their tracks a little TOO well. . .
That is not a Federal law, it is state by state. And, it would have to apply to all religious and other non-profit establishments.
The parsonage allowance is kinda weird. It is free from Income tax, but not social security, etc taxes. However, that follows the general tax rule of having a residence provided for you on site you need to be in. Would we tax the on-base housing for the Military? Or housing for rangers, etc in remote areas?
However, I think there needs to be a limit. Some mega-churches go too far.
Those are different because they’re government employees. But I’m pretty sure that housing provided to most non-government employees is considered a taxable benefit.
