Conservative groups in the US really were targeted by the IRS

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**djones520**

Frazzled wrote:
I think you'll find most people don't value orbelieve in free speech, just speech they agree with. College campuses and many workplaces are an excellent example of that.

It's sad how true that is.

**Grey Templar**

Frazzled wrote:
I think you'll find most people don't value orbelieve in free speech, just speech they agree with. College campuses and many workplaces are an excellent example of that.

Very true.

**Newabortion**

Frazzled wrote:
Same grounds any free speech is permitted as a benefit to society.

+1

Don't let Azazel The Cat read that though, he is liable to question for motive for wanting free speech.

**azazel the cat**

whembly wrote:What does a stereotypical tea party really advocate?

I have no idea. They claim to be all about minimizing government intervention whilst endorsing massive government intervention.

Frazzled wrote:
Same grounds any free speech is permitted as a benefit to society.

Sorry, Fraz, but I'm afraid that does not follow. Uness, of course, you are saying that (here it comes...) any speech is considered a benefit to society, (wait for it...) even neo-nazi rhetoric? (bam! Godwin'd!)

The idea of Free speech is to the benefit of society, but that does not mean the message contained within the speech is. It pains me that you are unable to make the distinction.

You cannot simply claim that "free speech is good, and this group is saying a thing, so they are helping society, so they should be tax free". That doesn't work. The group has to demonstrate that their specific actions are to the benefit of society. This was my question to Whemly: how is a protest of planned parenthood to the benefit of society?

Newabortion wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Same grounds any free speech is permitted as a benefit to society.

+1

Don't let Azazel The Cat read that though, he is liable to question for motive for wanting free speech.

I don't think you know me very well, sir. Would you care to explain your assumption, beyond that you simply heard two people say something and then reverting to unthinking herd behaviour? (oh, look, I did manage to answer Whembly's question, after all!

)

EDIT: and I'll just leave this here. I'm not advocating that what the IRS is doing is okay. But I do find the current outrage to be more than coincidental.

**Newabortion**

azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:What does a stereotypical tea party really advocate?

I have no idea. They claim to be all about minimizing government intervention whilst endorsing massive government intervention.

Frazzled wrote:
Same grounds any free speech is permitted as a benefit to society.

Sorry, Fraz, but I'm afraid that does not follow. Uness, of course, you are saying that (here it comes...) any speech is considered a benefit to society, (wait for it...) even neo-nazi rhetoric? (bam! Godwin'd!)

The idea of Free speech is to the benefit of society, but that does not mean the message contained within the speech is. It pains me that you are unable to make the distinction.

Wow dude, I'm tempted to say your ignorant. Neo-nazi speech spam is what free speech is all about. Anytime someone exercises their rights it benefits society.
Dang that ignorance from you is pissing me off, (OMFG HERE IS IS!) Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you can shut them up, society learns to control itself by letting everyone (even neo nazis) speak their mind and opinions. Its called tolerance. They have just as much right to exercise their rights as you do, its only your opinion that their opinion is bad.

Edit: To clear things up about political parties, The "Tea party" isn't a political party, its an organisation that is made up of several conservative groups. The two main groups are Republicans and Libertarians. I'll let you look what those two groups stand for for yourself. I'm not a Republican for the very fact that they want less government but want government to tell people what to do based on what they think is morally right. I'm Pro-life, but who am I to tell someone they can't kill their own baby. I'm a libertarian for that very reason, I don't like how libertarians are isolationists but im starting to think it might be a good idea based on how much the world hates us.

**Frazzled**

Spoiler:

Wow I did not actually expect you to come back and literally be the poster boy for what the previous posters and I were saying. Speech is speech. Absent extremely minor limits put in place historically to prevent riots, its not defined as good speech or bad speech, just speech, who's overall usage is a benefit to society (AND PROTECTED VIGOROUSLY UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT). The moment you start saying some speech is not good speech, you might as well just turn in the democracy keys right there, because you'll be a dictatorship in a generation or two.

**azazel the cat**

Newabortion wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
whembly wrote:What does a stereotypical tea party really advocate?

I have no idea. They claim to be all about minimizing government intervention whilst endorsing massive government intervention.

Frazzled wrote:
Same grounds any free speech is permitted as a benefit to society.

Sorry, Fraz, but I'm afraid that does not follow. Uness, of course, you are saying that (here it comes...) any speech is considered a benefit to society, (wait for it...) even neo-nazi rhetoric? (bam! Godwin'd!)

The idea of Free speech is to the benefit of society, but that does not mean the message contained within the speech is. It pains me that you are unable to make the distinction.

Wow dude, I'm tempted to say your ignorant. Neo-nazi speech spam is what free speech is all about. Anytime someone exercises their rights it benefits society.
Dang that ignorance from you is pissing me off, (OMFG HERE IS IS!) Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you can shut them up, society learns to control itself by letting everyone (even neo nazis) speak their mind and opinions. Its called tolerance. They have just as much right to exercise their rights as you do, its only your opinion that their opinion is bad.

Yup. That's right. Free speech is of benefit to society. But it is not of benefit to society every time that right is exercised. I laid that right out there for you, plain as day, and you just completely missed it. So I will repeat:

Having the right to free speech is of benefit to society, but that does not mean that everything said is: having the ability to shout hate is an example of a right that is beneficial to society, but that does not imply the hate itself is beneficial.

If you cannot make the distinction, then I honestly pity you.

@Frazzled: the same goes with you. It is of great benefit to society that a person has the liberty to scream "kill all dem n****** ". However, that does not mean that society benefits from the message of "kill all dem n****** ".

**Frazzled**

I pity Canada. God help them if you get into power. You have no conception of freedom of speech do you boy.

The rright of free speech is a benefit. To utilize that right all speech must generally be permitted, not just GoodSpeech.

**Newabortion**

Lol no joke this guy is ----- ( I can't say because i'll be banned because we don't have free speech here on dakkadakka.)

Wow man does he even read his own posts?

**azazel the cat**

You guys honestly don't understand the disctinction between the right to speech being beneficial, yet the message of the speech itself being detrimental, do you?

EDIT: What's the John Adams line? "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? That's the same principle. It's possible that a person's right to say something asinine is for the good of society, because it is a right that should not be infringed (barring likely the same circumstances Frazzled alluded to), yet that does not mean the asinine thing that is said, in itself and of its own merits, is beneficial on its face.

**Frazzled**

That was Voltaire actually.

**Dreadclaw69**

"The voice of opponents
no less than that of friends
has a right to be heard"
- C.P. Scott 1921

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is it in society's interests that a government body responsible for taxes takes an active role in preventing a legitimate group from expressing their opinions, their political views, or their religious beliefs?

**streamdragon**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
"The voice of opponents
no less than that of friends
has a right to be heard"
- C.P. Scott 1921

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is it in society's interests that a government body responsible for taxes takes an active role in preventing a legitimate group from expressing their opinions, their political views, or their religious beliefs?

Only insofar as the group requesting tax exemption for a specific set of characteristics for said group. If they aren't staying within the legally defined lines, they should not be given tax exempt status.

NOTE: I'm not saying any of these organizations did or did not meet said guidelines, only that this would be the only reason a tax body should care about the political or religious views of a certain group.

Then again, I think tax exempt status should be done away with wholesale, so my thoughts are probably moot.

**Dreadclaw69**

Thank you for at least acknowledging your bias.

As yet it has not been revealed whether the organisation would have been eligible. But the fact remains that granting tax exempt status on the basis of discontinuing an activity is on the face of it very untoward. The IRS should have granted or refused, they should not have attached conditions as they did.

In addition it may be arguable that the IRS broke policy under Number 2 below, which is the list of questions that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration identified as being unnecassary

**Newabortion**

streamdragon wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
"The voice of opponents
no less than that of friends
has a right to be heard"
- C.P. Scott 1921

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is it in society's interests that a government body responsible for taxes takes an active role in preventing a legitimate group from expressing their opinions, their political views, or their religious beliefs?

Only insofar as the group requesting tax exemption for a specific set of characteristics for said group. If they aren't staying within the legally defined lines, they should not be given tax exempt status.

NOTE: I'm not saying any of these organizations did or did not meet said guidelines, only that this would be the only reason a tax body should care about the political or religious views of a certain group.

Then again, I think tax exempt status should be done away with wholesale, so my thoughts are probably moot.

Why not just do away with taxes?

**CptJake**

streamdragon wrote:

NOTE: I'm not saying any of these organizations did or did not meet said guidelines, only that this would be the only reason a tax body should care about the political or religious views of a certain group.

I disagree, WHAT the view is should make zero difference, adherence to the law/tax code in how they voice those views should be what matters.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

"Social welfare" is ambiguous as hell. So, that determination is left to the decision makers within the IRS. This should be made crystal clear.

I agree with you...

Grey Templar wrote:
And they can conveniently block organizations they don't agree with due to that ambiguity. When the definition should probably be made by a third party to prevent bias.

...and you. This is horrifying.

Also, that third party is Congress.

**streamdragon**

Newabortion wrote:Why not just do away with taxes?

Because nominally, a government requires some sort of income to operate. Especially given the rise in costs of social services, doing away with taxes wholesale would basically force social services out to private groups. And frankly, with the mess that is privatized health care and for-profit prisons, I don't see that as a good thing. Perhaps because I've worked in antitrust regulations and corporate fraud litigation for so long.

I also have little trust in non-profit organizations; most are simply businesses masquerading as some sort of benevolent organization. Susan G Kommen springs to mind, with their group spending more time on their lawyer squad 'protecting their brand name' than on actually worrying about cancer. When you sue a small town dog sled race because "Mush for the Cure" sounds too much like "Race for the Cure", you lose a lot of standing in my eyes.

CptJake wrote:
streamdragon wrote:

NOTE: I'm not saying any of these organizations did or did not meet said guidelines, only that this would be the only reason a tax body should care about the political or religious views of a certain group.

I disagree, WHAT the view is should make zero difference, adherence to the law/tax code in how they voice those views should be what matters.

Rereading my sentence, I'm honestly surprised it made sense to anyone. Basically I was saying that the only reason the IRS should care about political leanings, is making sure that the group's activities fall within the legal guidelines of what a non-profit is allowed to do. Once they step outside those guidelines, however, they should have their tax-exempt status immediately revoked.

**dogma**

CptJake wrote:

I disagree, WHAT the view is should make zero difference, adherence to the law/tax code in how they voice those views should be what matters.

Presently 501(c)(3)s cannot take political action of any kind*. 501(c)(4)s are allowed to do this, but it cannot be their sole activity**. However the suits following the IRS admission will almost certainly change both of those classifications due to the establishment of the corporate right to free speech in FEC v. Citizens United.

*But, of course they do it all the time.
**Which is why the IRS would scrutinize groups that clearly define themselves in a political sense.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

In addition it may be arguable that the IRS broke policy under Number 2 below, which is the list of questions that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration identified as being unnecassary.

An investigation after the fact does not necessarily indicate a breach of policy.

**Rented Tritium**

As usual, this is going to wind up halfway between both party lines.

It's going to end up being a policy breach. It will turn out that the IRS was using the names as a shortcut for actually checking things for red flags and as a result were disproportionally harassing right wing groups in pursuit of doing their actual legitimate job.

It's a middle of the road screwup. It's wrong and some people are going to resign in the end, but it's not watergate plus iran contra times ten.

**whembly**

Another splash of mud in the IRS' name:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/conservative-activist-green-name-gets-irs-stamp-approval-193457897.html

In May 2011, Drew Ryun, a conservative activist and former Republican National Committee staffer, began filling out the Internal Revenue Service application to achieve nonprofit status for a new conservative watchdog group.

He submitted the paperwork to the IRS in July 2011 for a research site called Media Trackers, which calls itself a “non-partisan investigative watchdog dedicated to promoting accountability in the media and government.” Although the site has investigated Republicans like Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Gov. Rick Scott, the site’s organizers are unapologetically conservative.

“One thing we don’t hide is: ‘Yeah, we’re conservative—free-market, free-enterprise, full-spectrum conservative,’” Ryun told Mother Jones magazine last year.

Eight months passed without word from the agency about the group’s application, Ryun said. In February 2012, Ryun’s attorney contacted the IRS to ask if it needed more information to secure its nonprofit status as a 501(c)3 organization. According to Ryun, the IRS told him that the application was being processed by the agency’s office in Cincinnati, Ohio—the same one currently facing scrutiny for targeting conservative groups—and to check back in two months.

As directed, Ryun followed up with the IRS in April 2012, and was told that Media Trackers’ application was still under review.

When September 2012 arrived with still no word from the IRS, Ryun determined that Media Trackers would likely never obtain standalone nonprofit status, and he tried a new approach: He applied for permanent nonprofit status for a separate group called Greenhouse Solutions, a pre-existing organization that was reaching the end of its determination period.

The IRS approved Greenhouse Solutions’ request for permanent nonprofit status in three weeks.

Can we say here... BUSTED!

**streamdragon**

Not really? A new request will always take longer than a request (seemingly) from an existing group. Unless Im reading that article wrong, the guy has exactly 0a proof that anything untpward happened, other than that his application took a long time to process.

**djones520**

streamdragon wrote:
Not really? A new request will always take longer than a request (seemingly) from an existing group. Unless Im reading that article wrong, the guy has exactly 0a proof that anything untpward happened, other than that his application took a long time to process.

14 months they waited, checking repeatedly, and kept being told to wait.

Yeah... nothing bad going down there. It's all just how the system works.

Load of horsewad.

**azazel the cat**

@Frazzled: dammit, you're right, that was Voltaire. What was John Adams' super-catchy quote, then? And can I take it by your disengagement that you now understand the very important semantic difference I was speaking of?

Dreadclaw69 wrote:Is it in society's interests that a government body responsible for taxes takes an active role in preventing a legitimate group from expressing their opinions, their political views, or their religious beliefs?

Absolutely not -in fact it is to the detriment of society if a government body were to attempt such. However, the group still has to pay taxes.

Newabortion wrote:Why not just do away with taxes?

Because then you'd also have to do away with roads and fire departments. And most people like roads and fire departments.

Rented Tritium wrote:As usual, this is going to wind up halfway between both party lines.

It's going to end up being a policy breach. It will turn out that the IRS was using the names as a shortcut for actually checking things for red flags and as a result were disproportionally harassing right wing groups in pursuit of doing their actual legitimate job.

It's a middle of the road screwup. It's wrong and some people are going to resign in the end, but it's not watergate plus iran contra times ten.

Hey! The time for tempered reasoning and cooler heads was several pages back! Get this not-nonsense out of here, pick a side, a colour and a bat with nails in it and start screaming like everyone else.

**streamdragon**

djones520 wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
Not really? A new request will always take longer than a request (seemingly) from an existing group. Unless Im reading that article wrong, the guy has exactly 0a proof that anything untpward happened, other than that his application took a long time to process.

14 months they waited, checking repeatedly, and kept being told to wait.

Yeah... nothing bad going down there. It's all just how the system works.

Load of horsewad.

I presume you know how long the norm is then? I don't, so I can't really say either way.

What the article insinuates is that a conservative group's application took ages while a liberal sounding organization's did not. It glosses over the fact that the liberal org already had an existing tax exempt status. Essentially, he compares a new application to what on the surface would look like a renewal. Completely different beasts, but we are supposed to be outraged nonetheless. Hardly "busted!!1!zomgwtfbbq" material.

Show me any evidence that the (most likely but again I dont know exacts and suspect you don't either) excessively long waiting period was because "zomg conservatives" and I will readily agree it was nonesense. But dont compare a granny smith to a red delicious and wonder why one isnt green enough.

**Dreadclaw69**

azazel the cat wrote:

Absolutely not -in fact it is to the detriment of society if a government body were to attempt such. However, the group still has to pay taxes.

Unless it is an exempt group. Status that was being denied to it until it refrained from exercising the rights listed. If it was protesting against Planned Parenthood then it may still be exempt
501(c)(3)

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

501(c)(4)

To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare. . .To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements). . .The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.

The goal of Coalition For Life (the group in question) - "The Coalition for Life is a community based Christian pro-life organization made up of over 60 churches and thousands of individuals who are working to end abortion in the Brazos Valley, peacefully and prayerfully." - http://www.coalitionforlife.com/index.cfm?load=page&page=2

**azazel the cat**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:

Absolutely not -in fact it is to the detriment of society if a government body were to attempt such. However, the group still has to pay taxes.

Unless it is an exempt group. Status that was being denied to it until it refrained from exercising the rights listed. If it was protesting against Planned Parenthood then it may still be exempt
501(c)(3)

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

501(c)(4)

To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare. . .To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements). . .The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity.

The goal of Coalition For Life (the group in question) - "The Coalition for Life is a community based Christian pro-life organization made up of over 60 churches and thousands of individuals who are working to end abortion in the Brazos Valley, peacefully and prayerfully." - http://www.coalitionforlife.com/index.cfm?load=page&page=2

First off- thank you for the concise differentiation between the two groupings in the tax code; this is actually something I was not privy to and can now sound off more than ideologically or based off of the articles.

Second- according to this, if the Coalition for Life was applying for 501(c)(4) status, then they should have been denied. However, I agree with you that under 501(c)(3) they likely have a case based on your highlighted segment.

(Although one might wonder what calculus is used when they seek the advancement of religion, whilst simultaneously inhibit the advancement of education, science, human and civil rights and indirectly increase the burdens of government, community deterioration and juvenile delinquency

)

**Dreadclaw69**

Now lets compare that with Media Matters which is exempt under 501(c)(3) - see I here http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Media-Matters-For-America-2010-tax-return.pdf

501(c)(3)

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. . .Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Looking back at the PDF linked to I'd like you to note Part III Question 1;
"Briefly describe the organization's mission: DEDICATED TO COMPREHENSIVELY MONITORING, ANALYZING, AND CORRECTING CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION IN THE U.S. MEDIA."
That is hardly non-partisan yet they received tax exempt status

Automatically Appended Next Post:

azazel the cat wrote:
(Although one might wonder what calculus is used when they seek the advancement of religion, whilst simultaneously inhibit the advancement of education, science, human and civil rights and indirectly increase the burdens of government, community deterioration and juvenile delinquency )

I would assume that is immaterial. They only have to show that they fall under one heading of the activities permitted, their relationship to/effect on the others is immaterial when applying for tax exempt status

**dogma**

whembly wrote:
Another splash of mud in the IRS' name:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/conservative-activist-green-name-gets-irs-stamp-approval-193457897.html

In May 2011, Drew Ryun, a conservative activist and former Republican National Committee staffer, began filling out the Internal Revenue Service application to achieve nonprofit status for a new conservative watchdog group.

He submitted the paperwork to the IRS in July 2011 for a research site called Media Trackers, which calls itself a “non-partisan investigative watchdog dedicated to promoting accountability in the media and government.” Although the site has investigated Republicans like Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Gov. Rick Scott, the site’s organizers are unapologetically conservative.

“One thing we don’t hide is: ‘Yeah, we’re conservative—free-market, free-enterprise, full-spectrum conservative,’” Ryun told Mother Jones magazine last year.

Eight months passed without word from the agency about the group’s application, Ryun said. In February 2012, Ryun’s attorney contacted the IRS to ask if it needed more information to secure its nonprofit status as a 501(c)3 organization. According to Ryun, the IRS told him that the application was being processed by the agency’s office in Cincinnati, Ohio—the same one currently facing scrutiny for targeting conservative groups—and to check back in two months.

As directed, Ryun followed up with the IRS in April 2012, and was told that Media Trackers’ application was still under review.

When September 2012 arrived with still no word from the IRS, Ryun determined that Media Trackers would likely never obtain standalone nonprofit status, and he tried a new approach: He applied for permanent nonprofit status for a separate group called Greenhouse Solutions, a pre-existing organization that was reaching the end of its determination period.

The IRS approved Greenhouse Solutions’ request for permanent nonprofit status in three weeks.

Can we say here... BUSTED!

No.

There is a difference between applying for nonprofit status and filing as a nonprofit. And the article itself even alludes to this fact:

Having a previous file with the IRS could very well have been the reason Greenhouse's application was approved so quickly.

**azazel the cat**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:Now lets compare that with Media Matters which is exempt under 501(c)(3) - see I here http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Media-Matters-For-America-2010-tax-return.pdf

501(c)(3)

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. . .Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

Looking back at the PDF linked to I'd like you to note Part III Question 1;
"Briefly describe the organization's mission: DEDICATED TO COMPREHENSIVELY MONITORING, ANALYZING, AND CORRECTING CONSERVATIVE MISINFORMATION IN THE U.S. MEDIA."
That is hardly non-partisan yet they received tax exempt status

Sounds like education to me. Irrespective of what side of the aisle the perpetrators sit on, misinformation in the media should always be corrected. (and by "corrected" I mean validated/invalidated via peer-reviewed, published scientific studies with proper methodology)

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
(Although one might wonder what calculus is used when they seek the advancement of religion, whilst simultaneously inhibit the advancement of education, science, human and civil rights and indirectly increase the burdens of government, community deterioration and juvenile delinquency )

I would assume that is immaterial. They only have to show that they fall under one heading of the activities permitted, their relationship to/effect on the others is immaterial when applying for tax exempt status

Yeah, probably.