Should Family Research Council and Focus on the Family lose tax-exempt status?

[rjung]

From this article:

Evangelical Christian leaders, who have been working closely with senior Republican lawmakers to place conservative judges in the federal courts, have also been exploring ways to punish sitting jurists and even entire courts viewed as hostile to their cause.

An audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times features two of the nation’s most influential evangelical leaders, at a private conference with supporters, laying out strategies to rein in judges, such as stripping funding from their courts in an effort to hinder their work.

… “There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and there’s more than one way to take a black robe off the bench,” said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, according to an audiotape of a March 17 session.

…[James] Dobson, who emerged last year as one of the evangelical movement’s most important political leaders, named one potential target: the California-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court,” Dobson said. “They don’t have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn’t exist anymore, and it’s gone.”

Putting aside the sheer sliminess of this cabal (Tom DeLay is involved, so of course there’s slime) or the blatant ignorance of American Civics 101 involved (the courts are supposed to be independent, ya idjits), can an argument be made that these groups are no longer working as nonpartisan religious organizations, and should lose their tax-exempt status as a result? Does this constitute tax fraud?

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

I think it has to happen sooner or later to put the rest of these types of organizations in their place and remind them that their tax exemption is at risk for their posturing. Laws should not be based upon religion, and although they may be influenced by personal religious belief, that belief should not be the driving force behind legislation.

[Brutus]

The FRC itself is not tax-exempt.

[wonky]

Honestly, I don’t understand why such groups are tax-exempt in the first place, so I would certainly be for them losing that status.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Brutus

The FRC itself is not tax-exempt.

I’m pretty sure it is. It’s a 501 (c)(3) non-profit. Or like it says itself (in it’s FAQ explaining the difference between the FRC and FRC Action, their lobbying group"

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=FQ04J01

Because FRC and Focus on the Family are both 501(c)(3) research and education organizations, we are limited in our legal ability to lobby. That is why FRC Action and Focus on the Family Action are needed.

[Captain_Amazing]

And, thinking about this, there are two things that might argue against stripping them of 503©(3) status. First, when Dobson and Perkins were at this meeting, speaking, did they represent Focus on the Family and FRC, or not? You’d have to show that money from those organizations were used to put on the conference or get people there.

Secondly, 501©(3) organizations are allowed to have points of views on political issues. The NAACP, for example, clearly has opinions when it comes to civil rights. What they can’t do is participate in political campaigns or “carry on propaganda, or otherwise attempt, to influence legislation”. In other words, they can’t lobby. I don’t think the meeting would count as such.

[RTFirefly]

A lot of nonprofits on the left, right, and center are organized like this: a tax-exempt organization which carries out all the parts of a group’s mission that aren’t about influencing elections or legislation, and a non-tax-exempt affiliate that does the lobbying and trying to get voters to vote for the ‘correct’ candidate. IANAL, but as I understand it, money donated to the tax-exempt org can’t go to the politically active affiliate.

Problem is, it’s hard for the casual observer to tell who’s doing what, and it isn’t clear that anyone’s taking a closer look to make sure the tax-exempt organization doesn’t use its money for propagandizing, lobbying, etc.

[Mockingbird]

@rjung

From this article:

Putting aside the sheer sliminess of this cabal (Tom DeLay is involved, so of course there’s slime) or the blatant ignorance of American Civics 101 involved (the courts are supposed to be independent, ya idjits), can an argument be made that these groups are no longer working as nonpartisan religious organizations, and should lose their tax-exempt status as a result? Does this constitute tax fraud?

Yes, yes, and yes.

[Brutus]

@Captain Amazing

I’m pretty sure it is. It’s a 501 ©(3) non-profit. Or like it says itself (in it’s FAQ explaining the difference between the FRC and FRC Action, their lobbying group"

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=FQ04J01

As your cite shows, ‘FRC Action’ is tax exempt (or whatever), but FRC itself is not.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Brutus

As your cite shows, ‘FRC Action’ is tax exempt (or whatever), but FRC itself is not.

I’m pretty sure all 501(c) organizations are not for profit organizations and therefore tax exempt.

[Malodorous]

@Captain

I’m pretty sure all 501(c) organizations are not for profit organizations and therefore tax exempt

From our friends at the IRS:

@the tax man

To be tax-exempt as an organization described in IRC Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) and none of the earnings of the organization may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Bolding mine.

From the front page (lead article) of Focus on the Families Webpage

@the church men

Learn what you can do to help rein in our nation’s out-of-control courts by making plans to watch this weekend’s “Justice Sunday” simulcast, featuring Dr. Dobson and other pro-family leaders.

I suppose the answer to the debate relys (somewhat ironically) on what the courts take the deffinitions of “influencing legislation” and what constitutes “a substantial part”. From my unlearned eye, though, I’d say Focus on the Family certainly treads a pretty fine line, and probably crosses that line altogeather.