When I began this blog in 2001, I was appalled by President Bush's headlong rush to an illegal war (we were not in fact under attack). As time wore on and Bush began his assault on the Constitution and any people bold enough to criticize, I believed that "the republic is endangered more by actions of our own government than by those of any terrorist." With the election of a high-minded, compassionate, intelligent man like Barack Obama, my fears have ceased.
"Honor them with peace, not war"
United for Peace
Friday, October 29, 2004
Non-profit organizations are not allowed, under the Internal Revenue Service code that makes them tax-exempt, to promote or oppose any political candidate. It's not that they can't promote or oppose candidates, just that they would lose their tax-exempt status if they do.
The IRS, according to a Times story today, is going after the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for allegedly explicitly promoting (Kerry) or opposing (Bush) candidates.
The Bush Administration, meanwhile, has been encouraging Catholic clergy to push the faithful toward voting Republican in this presidential election. I have seen no indication the IRS is going after the Catholic Church's tax-exempt status, although in the past there were murmurs about it. But the two situations seem very similar.
This looks like the IRS is applying a double standard.
Today's New York Times carries the NAACP story:
On Oct. 9, the Times carried a story about a Catholic prelate who came wihthin a nano-inch of telling a group of Catholic students to vote for Bush:
For Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, the highest-ranking Roman Catholic prelate in Colorado, there is only one way for a faithful Catholic to vote in this presidential election, for President Bush and against Senator John Kerry.
This year, the Bush campaign has made intense efforts to go after traditionally Democratic voting groups, including Catholics around issues like abortion and stem-cell research; and Jews with the war in the Middle East, which appears to have support from otherwise progressive Jews.
Bush attempted to breach the African-American wall of support for the Democratic party with such programs as the so-called "faith-based and community initiatives", and the gay marriage amendment, but with far less success. Perhaps the resistance of black voters to Bush is why he snubbed the NAACP convention last summer, or more likely it's the fact that Bush has gone out and found his own "black leaders" in key states.
In an article published on alternet.org, Earl Ofari Hutchinson writes:
Maybe it's time to cut non-profits loose from their tax-exempt status and let them duke it out with corporations in the public sphere. I'm sure the Church would squirm and feel it would lose a lot of donations, since the tax write-off is viewed as an incentive to charity. I'm not sure how many people donate to the NAACP for the tax write-off.
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
Double standard at the IRS
Non-profit organizations are not allowed, under the Internal Revenue Service code that makes them tax-exempt, to promote or oppose any political candidate. It's not that they can't promote or oppose candidates, just that they would lose their tax-exempt status if they do.
The IRS, according to a Times story today, is going after the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for allegedly explicitly promoting (Kerry) or opposing (Bush) candidates.
The Bush Administration, meanwhile, has been encouraging Catholic clergy to push the faithful toward voting Republican in this presidential election. I have seen no indication the IRS is going after the Catholic Church's tax-exempt status, although in the past there were murmurs about it. But the two situations seem very similar.
This looks like the IRS is applying a double standard.
Today's New York Times carries the NAACP story:
In a letter dated Oct. 8 and released Thursday, the I.R.S. told the association it had received information that Mr. Bond conveyed "statements in opposition of George W. Bush for the office of presidency" and specifically that he had "condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush in education, the economy and the war in Iraq."
On Oct. 9, the Times carried a story about a Catholic prelate who came wihthin a nano-inch of telling a group of Catholic students to vote for Bush:
For Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, the highest-ranking Roman Catholic prelate in Colorado, there is only one way for a faithful Catholic to vote in this presidential election, for President Bush and against Senator John Kerry.
"The church says abortion is a foundational issue," the archbishop explained to a group of Catholic college students gathered in a sports bar here in this swing state on Friday night. He stopped short of telling them whom to vote for, but he reminded them of Mr. Kerry's support for abortion rights. And he pointed out the potential impact his re-election could have on Roe v. Wade.
"Supreme Court cases can be overturned, right?" he asked.
Archbishop Chaput, who has never explicitly endorsed a candidate, is part of a group of bishops intent on throwing the weight of the church into the elections.
Galvanized by battles against same-sex marriage and stem cell research and alarmed at the prospect of a President Kerry - who is Catholic but supports abortion rights - these bishops and like-minded Catholic groups are blanketing churches with guides identifying abortion, gay marriage and the stem cell debate as among a handful of "non-negotiable issues."
Bush campaign breaks new ground
This year, the Bush campaign has made intense efforts to go after traditionally Democratic voting groups, including Catholics around issues like abortion and stem-cell research; and Jews with the war in the Middle East, which appears to have support from otherwise progressive Jews.
Bush attempted to breach the African-American wall of support for the Democratic party with such programs as the so-called "faith-based and community initiatives", and the gay marriage amendment, but with far less success. Perhaps the resistance of black voters to Bush is why he snubbed the NAACP convention last summer, or more likely it's the fact that Bush has gone out and found his own "black leaders" in key states.
In an article published on alternet.org, Earl Ofari Hutchinson writes:
Bush's African-American team is a blatant effort to bypass mainstream civil rights leaders and cultivate a new brand of black leadership. It is driven by political necessity, and racial opportunism.
Maybe it's time to cut non-profits loose from their tax-exempt status and let them duke it out with corporations in the public sphere. I'm sure the Church would squirm and feel it would lose a lot of donations, since the tax write-off is viewed as an incentive to charity. I'm not sure how many people donate to the NAACP for the tax write-off.
Palema
7:08 AM
Comments:
Post a Comment
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
|
|