For purposes of IRC Section 501(c)(3), legislative activities and political activities are two different things, and are subject to two different sets of rules. The latter is an absolute bar. An IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization may not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. Whether an organization is engaging in prohibited political campaign activity depends upon all the facts and circumstances in each case. For example, organizations may sponsor debates or forums to educate voters. But if the forum or debate shows a preference for or against a certain candidate, it becomes a prohibited activity. The motivation of an organization is not relevant in determining whether the political campaign prohibition has been violated. Activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate, even on the basis of non-partisan criteria, violate the political campaign prohibition of IRC Section 501(c)(3). See the FY-2002 CPE topic entitled Election Year Issues for further information regarding political activities of charities.
That rule may apply to most 501(c)(3)'s, but not all. Minority churches are given a pass on this one all the time. Look at Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc around election time. How often to you see political candidates standing in front of various AME churches giving a polital speech for the congregation as well as for the TV camera's? It happens all the time. Some people actively campaign for a particular candidate in front of church congregations and know that they will not be touched. So, it really depends on your stature in this soceity (minority vs non-minority) as to whether you can get away with the engagement in this sort of activity.
Warning: If you are a White Anglo Saxon Protestant, do not even think about violating that law - - - just go straight to jail!
I have lost all faith in humanity if Rat is right on this issue...I think I am going to move to an island and set up my own Republic - my two caveats - never drink the last beer out of my cooler, and always tell the truth - life is short, but liars suffer for eteranity...
I know you have your position here, on this one I am simply going to say I respectfully disagree and there is more going on behind the scenes they you know. Have faith my friend honesty will prevail as will the law.
to the rest,
Hang on boys and girls it is gonna be a wild ride!
Lisa
__________________
The truth wins out over slick PR and personal attacks.
The Christ Church Plan for the redevelopment of 140 Green Pond Rd is just too big for the area.
In IRC 501(c)(3), lobbying is described as "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation," while political activity is described as "participat[ing] in, or interven[ing] in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." In short, IRC 501(c)(3) organizations may take sides with respect to political issues, but not political candidates. Since candidates commonly array themselves on opposite sides of issues, there are obvious difficulties at times in distinguishing between actions that support an issue but not a particular candidate.
Organizations that plan to make lobbying a very substantial part of their activities are often advised not to apply for federal tax-exempt status under IRC 501(c)(3), which prescribes strict limits to this type of activity, but rather under another classification. Although this entails losing certain advantages associated with IRC 501(c)(3) status, it also frees the organization from the significant limits on lobbying and political activity imposed on IRC 501(c)(3) organizations.
Church tax exemptions are in jeopardy if an organization engages in direct political activity either against or on behalf of a political candidate or in an attempt to directly influence the passage of particular legislation. Churches and religious organizations, just as any other tax-exempt charitable organization, are free to comment on any social, political, or moral issues. They may not, however, speak out for or against political candidates if they wish to continue being tax-exempt. Losing tax-exempt status can mean both having to pay income taxes and that donations to the group will not be tax deductible by the donors.
"Church tax exemptions are in jeopardy if an organization engages in direct political activity either against or on behalf of a political candidate or in an attempt to directly influence the passage of particular legislation."
-----------------------------------
At the risk of being redundant and as is quite evident to the casual observer living in the United States, it all depends color of the skin of the owners of the organzation in question. Just look at Jesse Jackson and his "Rainbow Colition" shakedown scam. Everybody knows that he is a con artist but nobody has even thought of touching him in the government despite the fact that his activites are widely known and well documented. So, don't anyone hold their breath if they expect the governenment to go after Ireland and company.
The Democratic Party, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and two groups associated with the civil rights activist have agreed to pay a total of $200,000 in civil fines for campaign finance violations in the 2000 elections.
At issue in the Federal Election Commission case was about $450,000 in election spending by Jackson, the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and the Citizenship Education Fund using funds from the groups. The two non-profit groups were incorporated, making their money corporate and subject to restrictions under federal campaign finance laws.
Under an agreement with the FEC, Jackson and the two groups will share in a $100,000 civil penalty, and the DNC will also pay $100,000.
The Revrund Je$$ie is collecting money directly for political purposes and to pay himself hundreds of thousands a year and using a non-profit tax exemption to cover it. Not allowed by the IRS and he should have been investigated years ago. The fine is a minor problem now that the IRS will feel free to jump right in, I hope they (IRS) have the guts to bury him under a prison.
"The Revrund Je$$ie is collecting money directly for political purposes and to pay himself hundreds of thousands a year and using a non-profit tax exemption to cover it. Not allowed by the IRS and he should have been investigated years ago. The fine is a minor problem now that the IRS will feel free to jump right in, I hope they (IRS) have the guts to bury him under a prison."
-----------------------
I suspect that Jackson merely looks at the fines as the cost of doing business and will keep on keeping on. He just laughs all the way to the bank when the government threatens him.
