| Type | Activities |
|---|---|
| 501(c)3 | Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations |
| 501(c)4 | Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees |
| 527 | Political organizations |
Well, it's obvious, right? A group calling itself a Tea Party, is a political organization, no?
Nope, not so obvious: 501(c)4 groups are allowed to use a minority (I.E. less than 50%) of its time towards political activities, while keeping its donor list secret, but a 527 is allowed to donated directly to candidates though it must reveal its donors. Now, read the description of the following two "Tea Party" groups, on the sort of activities they do:
The Baton Rouge Tea Party's activities:
"...[are] to educate the public about government spending and loss of constitutional rights."And The Woodlands Texas Tea Party Patriots PAC:
"Our mission is to organize, educate and inform citizens regarding public policy and to support the election of local state and national candidates who share our core values."Can you tell which one filed as a 527, and which one filed as a 501(c)4?
If you said that the Baton Rouge Tea Party was a 501(c)4, and the Woodlands Texas Tea Party Patriots PAC was a 527, you'd be wrong.
So, the one claiming to be a social welfare organization said that part of its purpose was to support the election of candidates who shared their view. The group that filed as a political group said that it was trying to educate the public about political issues, but not specifically supporting candidates. For what it's worth, one group could be in violation of IRS and FEC rules.
Now, following Citizens United (2010), there was a flood of 501(c)4 groups, trying to take advantage of unlimited, anonymous donations. As Open Secrets notes, expenditures tripled for the 2012 election cycle from 501(c)4 organizations. Let's say you were working at the IRS, and suddenly saw a flood of "Democratic Party" applications for 501(c)4 designations: What's going on in you mind? If you were fair, you'd say that Democrats were trying to sneak in under the guise of a non-profit organization that could hide its donor list. If you were not impartial, you'd say that just because a group called itself "Democratic Party", does not mean that it should be flagged for additional scrutiny.
Well, politicians and the mainstream media have decided to craft their arguments as narrowly as possible to ignore the context of political parties, the differences between 527s and 501(c)4s, and neglect the issue of shadow money fueling campaigns. If you really think this is about unfair political targeting, you were fooled. This is about creating new laws to fully legalize shadow money.
You see, they won't tell you how last year, a Democratic group was targeted and had its 501(c)4 status revoked. To these partisans, they think it's a Democratic-led conspiracy to target conservatives.
Cue politicians who feign outrage (or are simply dumb), such as Marco Rubio:
"Those involved with this deeply offensive use of government power have committed a violation of the public trust that has already had a profoundly chilling effect on free speech. Such behavior cannot be excused with a simple apology."Well no, it hasn't chilled free speech at all. It was a question of whether or not an organization that is inherently political, should be allowed to hide its donors. In a post-Citizens United world of unlimited donations, someone merely needed to direct their donations to an already established 501(c)4 group like Crossroads GPS, if they didn't want to be named in an FEC filing -- it's that simple.
But politicians and the mainstream media have decided that it's acceptable to conflate the facts and only tell you half the story. It's irresponsible.
Feel free to perform your own searches on this issue using the IRS, FEC and Opensecrets websites.
No comments:
Post a Comment