Monday, January 19, 2004
WE HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT, RIGHT?
As many of you may know, I've been rather concerned about the most recent "campaign-finance reform" legislation that the Supreme Court recently upheld as constitutional. I believe it's a regulation on speech that goes far beyond what our founding fathers so brilliantly outlined in the US Constitution.
With the primary and caucus season in full swing, I have some chilling news for those of you who may belong to service organizations that normally would be considered tax exempt. Not only do the campaign finance reform laws regulate speech and spending by certain constituency groups...but those that violate the rules under "McCain-Feingold" may also put their tax exempt status at risk...
Witness the following. IRS Revenue Ruling 2004-6 (with added bold emphasis by yours truly):
"...Under the Internal Revenue Code, social welfare organizations, unions and trade associations generally are permitted to engage in advocacy or lobbying related to their exempt purposes. However, they may engage in only limited political campaign activity. The guidance clarifies the tax implications of advocacy that meets the definition of political campaign activity..."
According to the new rule, the criteria for identifying forbidden speech "include, but are not limited to":
a) The communication identifies a candidate for public office;
b) The timing of the communication coincides with an electoral campaign;
c) The communication targets voters in a particular election;
d) The communication identifies that candidate's position on the public policy issue that is the subject of the communication;
e) The position of the candidate on the public policy issue has been raised as distinguishing the candidate from others in the campaign, either in the communication itself or in other public communications; and
f) The communication is not part of an ongoing series of substantially similar advocacy communications by the organization on the same issue..."
So basically, if you have something to say about a candidate during an election it's best to just keep your mouth shut. Great country, isn't it? Imagine the commercial you might hear...
"There's a candidate in the election who wants to take away your right to own a gun. This person has specifically said that's what they want to do in a quote in a major newspaper story...but we can't tell you who it is, what state their running in, or even what election it's for...as a matter of fact, we can only say this once and then we have to go away until you're done voting...otherwise, we lose our tax-exempt status and we get fined by the US Government. We hope when you wake up on November 3rd, you still have a Second Amendment. If you don't, well...you can't say we didn't try to warn you."
As many of you may know, I've been rather concerned about the most recent "campaign-finance reform" legislation that the Supreme Court recently upheld as constitutional. I believe it's a regulation on speech that goes far beyond what our founding fathers so brilliantly outlined in the US Constitution.
With the primary and caucus season in full swing, I have some chilling news for those of you who may belong to service organizations that normally would be considered tax exempt. Not only do the campaign finance reform laws regulate speech and spending by certain constituency groups...but those that violate the rules under "McCain-Feingold" may also put their tax exempt status at risk...
Witness the following. IRS Revenue Ruling 2004-6 (with added bold emphasis by yours truly):
"...Under the Internal Revenue Code, social welfare organizations, unions and trade associations generally are permitted to engage in advocacy or lobbying related to their exempt purposes. However, they may engage in only limited political campaign activity. The guidance clarifies the tax implications of advocacy that meets the definition of political campaign activity..."
According to the new rule, the criteria for identifying forbidden speech "include, but are not limited to":
a) The communication identifies a candidate for public office;
b) The timing of the communication coincides with an electoral campaign;
c) The communication targets voters in a particular election;
d) The communication identifies that candidate's position on the public policy issue that is the subject of the communication;
e) The position of the candidate on the public policy issue has been raised as distinguishing the candidate from others in the campaign, either in the communication itself or in other public communications; and
f) The communication is not part of an ongoing series of substantially similar advocacy communications by the organization on the same issue..."
So basically, if you have something to say about a candidate during an election it's best to just keep your mouth shut. Great country, isn't it? Imagine the commercial you might hear...
"There's a candidate in the election who wants to take away your right to own a gun. This person has specifically said that's what they want to do in a quote in a major newspaper story...but we can't tell you who it is, what state their running in, or even what election it's for...as a matter of fact, we can only say this once and then we have to go away until you're done voting...otherwise, we lose our tax-exempt status and we get fined by the US Government. We hope when you wake up on November 3rd, you still have a Second Amendment. If you don't, well...you can't say we didn't try to warn you."
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
