Next time a progressive taxation supporter lays out the case for higher taxes, citing better roads and schools and maintaining public parks, etc. as justification—point him or her to this post at Sweetness and Light.
Then, as s/he sputters outs a strained response, politely interrupt and ask for $50 so you can buy a McDonald’s Value Meal for each of the 15 Christianist buddies you’ll be driving down to the local Planned Parenthood in order to threaten vaguely pregnant looking women with promises of eternal damnation and blown-up pictures of dead fetuses. For Jesus!
Trust me. You’ll love the way they screw up their little faces and pout. Like little progressive Koala bears who’ve just been told they are going to have to share their Eucalyptus branches. So cute!
(h/t Dan Collins)
<alphie>Gettin’ your money’s worth out of those tax dollars over in Iraq?</alphie>
Just figured I’d get it out of the way.
Can you say “Aid and comfort to the avowed enemies of the United States”?
“In December 2004 CodePink, Global Exchange, and Families for Peace
raised and delivered $600,000 in medical supplies and cash to the
“insurgents” who were fighting American troops in Fallujah, Iraq.”
I knew you could!
501(c)(3)s are tax-exempt, not tax-supported.
So money that should be paid in taxes (since, by the letter of the law their activities are not tax exempt) instead goes to fund their chosen activites.
I’d call that a subsidy.
Hell, if I was a leftist I’d call any reduction in taxation a subsidy, not just the unfairly applied ones.
To borrow a phrase from noted metallurgist Rosie O’Donnell: “tax expenditures. Google it.”
Cordially…
TAX THE CHURCHES! FREE CODE PINK!
Most of the activities in the linked post are tax exempt under 501(c)(3). The linked post overall does a poor job of explaining how the organizations are violating 501(c)(3).
Also, the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between subsidies and exemptions in a similar context.
But I’m with you. Let’s just do away with tax exemptions. Tax Media Matters, tax churches, tax the Boy Scouts, tax ‘em all.
That may be true. But it’s always worth illustrating what exactly it is these groups do (there always seems to be someone who is unaware of their agenda when they throw a rally) while enjoying their tax exempt status.
Those two dudes at Code Pink can really rake…Cindy Sheehan and Medea Benjamin, yeh, those are the dudes…didn’t they play double A ball somewhere?
TW:mean46, as in “mean 46 mph fastball..”
Contributions to them are tax exempt, which means that dollars which would otherwise be taxed are not and go to support them. Thus, dollars come out of the tax revenue stream and support the 501(c)3.
A typically expansive view of how tax exemptions operate. Just not accurate.
Exemptions are not pro-rated based upon ‘how much’ activity is exempt. When a filing organization crosses the line the exemption is (or in the case of progressivist groups should be) lost.
Or would you support tax exemption for NRA-ILA too?
Yes. But again, there is at least a theoretical distinction between an exemption and a subsidy, discussed in the case linked above. Perhaps it’s academic, but if “your tax dollars” are said to be supporting Code Pink, then they’re also supporting all kinds of churches, and you’re in dangerous first amendment territory.
I think most people agree that taxes are necessary and would even, reluctantly, be willing to pay them, if only we knew they were actually being spent wisely and carefully in proper and constitutionally proper areas.
That’s probably not been true since the US was first created, sadly.
Almost. An organization can do political work and still be tax exempt, but contributions to it are not tax deductible. That’s a 501(c)4, and trying to fund one of those is a whole ‘nother matter. Tax deductibility is a major selling point in soliciting donations.
Political work in that context is generally lobbying, and any expenditure which is intended to influence legislators/legislation is considered lobbying.
Code Pink should not be a 501(c)3. I can see Media Matters getting away with it, but not Code Pink.
You would be if the First Amendment mentioned freedom of moonbattery, or freedom of sedition. Not to mention that churches do actual charity, like feeding, clothing and housing poor people.
Code Pink is not a charity, unless you count feeding, clothing and arming terrorists.
tw: lines96
Be careful where you try to draw them.
501(c)(3) don’t pay taxes. If that means they are taxpayer supported, then so are tax cuts.
And there is a freedom of sedition in the first amendment. You’re going to have a hard time convicting someone for pure political speech.
Nope.
Not even if you paid me.
On the other hand, misusing their 501(c)(3) status…
How are they misusing it though?
*sigh* And I’m printing my picket signs as Kinko’s…
Lobbying.
Code Stink provided cash to the “insurgents” in Fallujah. That’s not “pure political speech”.
Let’s throw this one to the I-Man.
I used my tax-exempt funds to buy groceries, a yoga membership, gasoline, some magazines, beer, tequila, a zoo membership for the family, some underwear and socks, and utilities. I am ready to answer questions before the Congressional committees regarding my egregious use of the tax code.
In this case, I have to say the law is stupid. That people can and do find all sorts of idiotic ways to exploit the tax code is as surprising as finding maggots in old roadkill.
Solicitation and conspiracy are still crimes, emandine, whether the actors are talking about knocking off a bank or overthrowing the government.
Thanks for playing, though.
“Lobbying.”
That page doesn’t really make a good case for it. They correctly describe lobbying: “An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.”
But they don’t really make the case that code pink does that. “Tell congress to get out of Iraq,” for example, doesn’t really support specific legislation. It’s plain old “educate the public. Then again, there is what code pink the organization says, and what members of code pink say.
“Code Stink provided cash to the “insurgents†in Fallujah.”
Well it looks like you’re also not going to convict someone with “scare quotes,” either. Why aren’t they in jail for this? Is the bush admin lax on prosecuting the war on terror?
Hear! Hear!
Cuz we all know that, like, Imus is a political prisoner!
Did you miss that part? What do you think they’re doing when they’re picketing Pelosi’s house telling her to cut funding? What do you think they’re doing here? What do you think they’re doing when they’re rallying calls for impeachment?
Ummm…they’re calling for legislation that does a specific thing. There doesn’t need to be a pre-existing bill for you to lobby for specific legislation. ‘Cuz you’d be lobbying the people who write the bills, and trying to get them to write one for your issue.
News flash: Congress is not the public, it’s the Legislature.
Good question. Have they prosecuted the leaks of classified national security information, including investigative and surveillance tactics?
Pablo, protests and calls for legislation that “does a specific thing” isn’t lobbying under 501(c)(3).
Yes.
protests, no. But calling for legislation most certainly is when you’re doing it in the “Halls of Congress”.
And if at your protest, you’re encouraging people to walk the “Halls of Congress” with their message, then it’s lobbying. It’s really simple. If you’re expending funds with the intent to influence the legislature, you’re lobbying. 501(c)3’s are for charitable work. If you want to lobby, you form a 501(c)4, and you surrender the notion of taking tax deductible donations.
tw: point37
Don’t make me whip out 38.
Is the bush admin lax on prosecuting the war on terror?
In the sense of the war at home; that is public relations, selling the war and the efforts, publicizing the heroes and pushing media coverage of their deeds, and prosecuting traitors… no, he’s not. This is his failure in the war on terror, and we’re all paying the price for his dereliction.
It’s not enough, in a democracy, to simply send the soldiers and give them what they need, you have to fight at home as well. That’s the president’s job to sell and support his policies and convince the people. President Bush failed us here.