E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Philip Andrews / Roll Call Photos/Newscom
Bruce Rastetter, CEO of Hawkeye Renewables, reportedly provided some of the seed money for the American Future Fund.
Last fall, a cadre of wealthy business executives and conservative groups tried to sell California voters on new campaign finance reforms.
Couched in lofty rhetoric about the importance of cutting off money from special interests to politicians and other regulations favored by reformers, their proposal sought to ban the practice of using payroll deductions for political expenditures — a popular method of union fundraising.
Once alerted to the true nature of Proposition 32, the unions and political left rose up against it.
An innocuously named nonprofit, the Iowa-based American Future Fund, proved to be one of the biggest backers of the initiative, sinking more than $4 million into the ballot measure that voters ultimately rejected.
As a “social welfare” organization, the American Future Fund is not required to publicly disclose its donors. But to maintain its tax-exempt status under Sec. 501(c)(4) of the U.S. tax code, influencing elections cannot be its primary purpose.
The American Future Fund’s investment in California was part of a nationwide, political advertising spree in 2012 that exceeded $29 million, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of state and federal records.
That amount included more than $19 million on efforts designed to oust President Barack Obama, as well as millions more to oppose Democratic candidates for Congress and even two state attorneys general. Now the group is funding ads opposing Obama’s nomination of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska for defense secretary.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United decision in 2010, nonprofits such as the American Future Fund have played a more prominent role in electoral contests — all while giving their supporters the ability to keep their identities hidden. During the 2010 midterm elections, politically active nonprofits outspent super PACs, which exist to fund political advertisements, by a 3-to-2 margin.
The American Future Fund ranked third among “social welfare” nonprofits in spending in the 2012 federal election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, trailing only the Karl Rove-affiliated Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity, which is backed by conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch.
There are also Democratic-aligned nonprofits, but their spending was well below that of their conservative counterparts. The top left-leaning nonprofit was the League of Conservation Voters, which reported spending about $11 million in the 2012 election opposing or supporting candidates.
The American Future Fund’s spending “raises some serious questions” and “evades any form of meaningful disclosure,” said Adam Rappaport, senior counsel with watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
Numerous officials with the American Future Fund did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
Advocating for ‘free-market ideas’
The American Future Fund’s mission is to “educate and advocate for conservative and free-market ideas,” according to its annual filing with the Internal Revenue Service.
Despite asserting that it isn’t primarily focused on elections, the nonprofit’s DNA is decidedly political.
Conservative political operative Nick Ryan, a longtime adviser to former GOP Rep. Jim Nussle of Iowa, founded it in 2007. Over the years, the group has paid Ryan’s firm, Concordia Enterprises, hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for consulting services.
In 2010, the New York Times reported that Iowa businessman Bruce Rastetter provided an unspecified amount of “seed money” for the organization. Ryan once represented four of Rastetter’s companies as a lobbyist, including Hawkeye Energy Holdings, one of the country’s largest ethanol producers.
The nonprofit’s first president was Nicole Schlinger, the former finance director of Iowa’s Republican Party. Its current president is veteran Republican state Sen. Sandra Greiner, who served for 14 years as the Iowa chairwoman of the pro-business American Legislative Exchange Council.
Ryan and Greiner did not respond to requests for comment.
In 2008, when the American Future Fund was seeking — and ultimately garnered — tax-exempt status from the IRS, it pledged to abstain from electoral politics, saying it would spend 70 percent of its time doing work to “educate the public on policy issues” and 30 percent engaging in efforts to “influence legislation through grassroots advocacy.”
When asked on its application if the group had any plans to spend money to “influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment” of anyone seeking public office, it answered “no.” It also vowed to stay out of the presidential race.
When the IRS subsequently inquired why the group’s advertisements “appear to be more partisan than nonpartisan,” the group’s attorney, Karen Blackistone, wrote that the efforts were “strictly issued-based and nonpartisan.”
The group takes a position on issues and encourages the public to contact their representative, she wrote in a 2008 response to the IRS.
“AFF’s advertisements have never commented on a candidate’s character, qualifications or fitness for office,” she stated.
Big money tied to post office box
The American Future Fund has raised more than $60 million, with spikes in contributions coming in election years.
Much of that money has come from another conservative “social welfare” nonprofit that doesn’t disclose its donors by name — the Arizona-based Center to Protect Patient Rights.
The nonprofit has no website and lists its address as a post office box in Phoenix. It was launched in 2009 by Republican operative Sean Noble, who has extensive ties to the vast political network underwritten by the Koch brothers.
Noble, a former chief of staff for former Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., did not respond to requests for comment for this story.
For three years running, Noble’s organization has reported making substantial grants to the American Future Fund for “general support,” according to IRS filings. The nonprofit contributed more than $14 million to the American Future Fund between 2009 and 2011, or 51 percent of funds the group raised over the three-year period.
The Center to Protect Patient Rights has also given millions of dollars to a network of conservative groups, including the Koch-backed nonprofit Americans for Prosperity, as was first reported by the Center for Responsive Politics.
In addition to Noble, there is another Koch connection.
In 2008, Trent Sebits, the former manager of public and government affairs for the Kochs’ Wichita-based refining giant, Koch Industries, registered with the state of Kansas to lobby on behalf of the American Future Fund and Americans for Prosperity. Sebits did not respond to a request for comment.
The American Justice Partnership, another “social welfare” nonprofit, gave $50,000 to the American Future Fund in 2011 and $2.4 million in 2010, according to IRS filings. The group supports free enterprise and is often at odds with trial lawyers.
Dan Pero, its president, said in an emailed statement that the organization supported the American Future Fund to help “promote free enterprise and improve the fairness and predictability of the legal environment.”
Like super PACs, “social welfare” nonprofits are allowed to accept unlimited donations from individuals, corporations, unions and other organizations. The only funders whose names they are required to publicly disclose are those that make contributions earmarked for political purposes.
That’s as it should be, according to attorney Dan Backer, who is not affiliated the American Future Fund but does work with other conservative groups.
“A nonprofit makes its decisions by a board or other management structure, which is distinct from its donors,” Backer said.
Increasingly political
In 2010, the American Future Fund became far more politically active, reporting $8.6 million in political expenditures as well as millions more for “media services,” “telecommunications” and “mail service/production.” It told the Federal Election Commission that it spent $9.1 million on political advertisements.
Marcus Owens, former chief of the IRS’s nonprofits division, said it is “difficult to conjure up a situation where a particular expenditure would be reportable to the FEC but would not constitute political campaign intervention under tax law.”
Nevertheless, Owens said the organization could make a “straight-faced argument” that its orientation had simply changed over time to become more overtly political.
Of the $25 million that the American Future Fund reported spending to the FEC last year, more than 90 percent fueled ads that urged voters to support or reject candidates.
The group also sought the FEC’s advice on whether mentioning the White House or “the administration” in negative ads ahead of Election Day would be seen as referring to a “clearly identified candidate for federal office.”
Such a designation would have required the group to disclose information about its donors. (The commission deadlocked, 3-3, in a vote along party lines.)
In addition to the presidential race, the American Future Fund spent money in 20 congressional elections in 2012, including California’s 26th Congressional District, where it spent $500,000 attacking Democrat Julia Brownley, who, as a state legislator, had authored legislation to bolster disclosure for political advertisements.
She won anyway, but told the Center for Public Integrity that she is “deeply concerned” about the activities of non-disclosing groups in the wake of Citizens United and hopes to “take immediate action” to strengthen federal disclosure laws.
The American Future Fund also spent more than $542,000 to aid West Virginia Republican Patrick Morrisey in his successful quest to win the race for attorney general, records indicate, and more than $620,000 in a failed effort to sink Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, a Democrat.
Complaints about the American Future Fund’s political activities have followed it since its creation.
In 2008, the Democratic Party in Minnesota contended that the group needed to register as a political committee after paying for ads that praised then-U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn. The FEC disagreed.
Two years later, in October 2010, consumer group Public Citizen and two other organizations alleged that the American Future Fund’s “huge expenditures” to aid candidates in the midterm election should have triggered requirements that the group register as a political committee and disclose its donors. That complaint is still being considered by the FEC, which often takes years to fully resolve such matters.
CREW, the watchdog organization, filed a complaint against the American Future Fund with the IRS in February 2011 that challenged whether its primary purpose was something other than influencing elections. The group has dismissed the complaint as “baseless” and contends that CREW “only targets government officials and organizations who have a differing or conservative point of view.”
Proposition 32
California’s campaign finance rules require major donors to groups that pay for political advertisements to be named in actual ads.
Thus, when a political committee called the California Future Fund for Free Markets aired ads praising Proposition 32, each advertisement included the disclaimer “with major funding by the American Future Fund.”
One ad criticized lawmakers for making “deals cut in shadows and back rooms” as dramatic music played in the background. Yet the donors to the American Future Fund itself largely remain in the shadows.
The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit independent investigative news outlet. To read more of its stories on this topic go to http://www.publicintegrity.org/politics/consider-source
More from Open Channel:
- Fiscal cliff, elections boost spending on lobbying
- Gazing into 'dark pools,' the high-tech tool that enables insider stock trading
- Dermatologists blast tanning industry campaign to play down skin cancer fears
Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
"Tax Free" is a privilege, not a right. If a non-profit promotes politics, then remove their tax exempt status like you would when removing someone's driver license for refusing to be breathalyzed.
The majority of non-profit organizations receive government funding and promote governmental policies. If they had their tax-exempt status removed, there would be very few non-profits remaining.
A very great percentage of non-profits exist solely for the purpose of promoting political agendas.
The moment once cent is spent or one position is taken or voiced on anything that is political in nature, non-profit status should be yanked - permanently.
I have long been an advocate of meaningful campaign reform. Too many "non-profits" including religious organizations hold a massive amount of sway in political campaigns. It seems terribly hypocritical for the "party of fiscal responsibility" to have so many tax exempt organizations pouring billions of dollars into their war chests, with no way to know who is actually behind these donations. Their support of efforts to ban payroll donations to a campaign was aimed at restricting political support for only progressive candidates and issues. Organizations that have tax exempt status, including churches do not have the right to actively stump for or against one candidate or another. Violators need to lose their tax exempt status and face possible criminal charges.
Nonprofit does not mean one has given away their right to free speech. There is a distinct difference between spending money which others have entrusted to be used in the service of those in need, and those who work in that organization having the right to speak their mind, despite in the business of serving their fellow man.Just because some don't like to hear it.
I guess my doctor can't mention a word on politics, nor that school teacher on lunch break on how she voted. The zoo employee can't talk politics, nor the person employed by the dance theatre. These are all places which are established nonprofits locally where I live. With more than 1.6 million nonprofit organizations in this country that is a lot of people affected.Including public and private foundations, charities, corporations and businesses,Don't forget those Chamber of Commerce either, nor Child Abduction Centers trying to pass laws.But it gets better.
Including schools, colleges,hospitals(Kaiser Permanente is the largest in the nation),clinics,parks, zoos, libraries, theaters, museums,wildlife rehabilitation, animal rescue groups,and let's not forget those who work to free the innocently convicted and rotting away in jail. I guess saying a word that is political definitely would be really bad.(being factious)Especially if a person who really did care was trying to fix the system and ran for office. Better to just be quiet.Then again, just because the organization isn't paying taxes, doesn't mean the citizens helping to run it by volunteering their time, aren't paying taxes already. Oh well, as long as we are all equally miserable, that is what matters.(still factious)
For what it matters, last year charitable giving came to more than 294.8 billion to nonprofits in 2011. According to Giving USA. 73% from individuals.I guess some folks think it's just dandy to strip the freedom of speech from someone in a nonprofit organization for whatever reason.But I don't believe it was the intention of those who wrote the Constitution to force one sector of our society to remain silent on one of the most important topics concerning our nation because another sector doesn't like what they say.If you can force one group into silence, you can force another into silence,until pretty soon, everyone is silent
Time to remove their tax exempt status and prosecute to the full extent of the law.
The same gubmint that established too big to fail, to excuse corporate corruption is now being asked to look into the non-profits these corporations established to present a fake facade to the public as well as gubmint. So the IRS agent asks, "why is the activity orange when you are not allowed to do orange", and the corporate attorney answers: "but it is not orange. It looks blue to us." And the IRS agent reports to his boss and the boss gets a call from a higher boss who has a political interest in seeing things the corporate way, and the next thing you know, no more questions from the IRS agents who now see blue on those disclosure forms. And the activity continues uninterrupted. In fact it grows. Welcome to Amerika !
The problem seems pretty simple. Just yank, cancel the tax exempt status of ALL NON-PROFITS who contributed to political campaigns. Democrats and Republicans.
The NON-Profits were organized to protect there assets from taxes and they have choosen to violate the agreement therefore they should be denied the TAX EXEMPTION. Pretty simple.
The IRS should just send a letter to each Non Profit who has a Tax exemption number and say it is null and void effective January 1 2013. They will alll appeal and sue etc but the IRS will have cancelled the exemption.
"Obama's GangBangers
The Catholic Church takes donations meant to feed all the races of the US and the world then funnels those dollars to LATINO ONLY groups. This is called HUMANITY?"
Republicans are a desparate group right now, they will do ANYTHING, as proof from the above lie. Doesn't matter it is a lie, just throw it out there, enough of his followers will believe him and act accordingly.
LOL..... Did FOX news tell you that lie?
Our political system is a total scam. We are an oligarchy.
Party of Stupid? No, make that the party of REALLY Stupid. Republicans seem to think it's ok to break the law of the land. And they want tax breaks while they do it.
Remember in 2014 Please, don't vote for the party of stupid.
Winddancer: You're missing the point here. Nobody is saying that we should restrict the free speech rights of "people in an organization". Individuals can and will always be able to voice their own opinions. An employer or private property owner can impose restrictions on what people can talk about while on the job or on their property. You could also argue that your doctor preaching his political views lacks decorum.
What people are saying is that if you receive tax-exempt status as a "social welfare" organization, you had better be spending your money on improving the social welfare! There are non-profit structures available that allow you to promote politics tax-free, so the only reason anyone would abuse the 501c4 is to conceal their donors. This practice is sneaky and cowardly and you shouldn't trust any messages that come from them! If you have something to say in America you should have the courage to put your face (or at least your name) next to your message! However, I'm fairly certain that if you boiled away the facade of inspiring sounding organization names, we'd all quickly realize that they're all being funded by the same short list of extraordinarily wealthy people and we'd get tired of them telling us what to think all the time.
I don't mind PACs being tax exempt, but I do want to know who is supplying their funds, and I do want the torrent of money flowing from the wealthy and the corporations to be more tightly restricted, so they don't drown the rest of us out so completely.
What this is really about is that these groups are threatening the union bosses who once were the only big dogs in the political game. Now there is someone on the other side fighting back. I do not think these organizations should be tax exempt, but then I do not think that the unions should be allowed to use forced payroll dues deductions to fund political activity either. The unions did a great job with their disinformation campaign to get prop 32 defeated in CA. The reality is that there is to much organizational money in politics on both sides.
The law needs to be changed so that the only people allowed to donate to political campaigns are those who are allowed to vote in that election. No more out of state money influencing elections in a state, not more big business donations to candidates, no more union interference in elections. If you do not live in a congressional district you should not be allowed to donate to candidates in that race, if you do not live in a state you can not donate to candidates for state office or to senate candidates in that state. If you can not actually vote for president, you can not donate to a candidate. No more business is a person non-sense, a business can not vote, so it should not be influencing elections. The people the work for the business and run the business get to vote and contribute as they see fit, but not by using the corporate treasury to do so. Also, no getting around this rule by establishing some organization within the state or district for the sole purpose of taking money from outsiders to spend on the election. This would put a stop to this nonsense once and for all. The other alternative would be to have all elections publicly funded. If you get enough signatures to get you name on the primary ballot you get a set amount of money to spend on the primary election campaign. If you win the primary or otherwise qualify to be on the ballot in the general election you get a set amount of money to spend on the general election campaign. No holding over money from the primary to use in the general election, no use of your own private funds to augment the set amount, and no additional donations, just the set amount. This second alternative would have the added benefit of taking politics out of the hands of the rich and well connected and make it so that an ordinary citizen stood a chance at winning. It would stop attempts to buy elections with personal wealth as both Fiorina and Whitman tried in CA (and thankfully failed).
Yes. Yank the tax exempt status of all political entities gaming the system, starting with ALEC.
Left - Right - Religious - or not - It doesn't matter.
Spend money trying to influence an election and you should lose your tax exempt status.
If all these groups directed that money toward our National debt I wonder how much in debt we would have.
JS, you just did a fine job of trashing the First Amendment. Those people all feel that it is their Right to take money under the guise of social welfare and spend it the way the Koch's want them to. The only solution to this problem is to go to the source and stop wiping your butt with Koch made toilet paper, stop burning their propane, stop eating the meat they produce, etc. We could go a long way towards fixing political discourse in this country just by marginalizing the effect of people like the Kochs who are in it solely to line their pockets a little bit more.
Obama's Gangbangers is a multiple rereg, that gets removed one day and is back with a new name the next. Please remove him again.
@Amused In The Midwest - You have clearly demonstrated that you have never read the First Amendment. Nothing I proposed in any way infringes on a person's right to speak their mind. All it does is limit who can make donations to a campaign. You are incorrectly equating money with speech, they are far from the same thing. The fact that an individual is limited in how much they can give to a campaign clearly shows that. Under your interpretation, campaign contribution restrictions would be unconstitutional since they would be a restraint on free speech. This is obviously an incorrect interpretation or the Supreme Court would have struck down contribution limitations a long time ago. Why should people who are not going to be represented by an office be allowed to give money to influence who is going to hold that office. The elected official is supposed to represent their constituents, not those with the deepest pockets regardless of where they are from. We already restrict who can give money to campaigns and how much they can give, so obviously there is no constitutional issue with what I am proposing. We do not allow foreign money to influence out elections. Non-US citizens are not allowed to make contributions to political campaigns. All I am doing is extending that premise by saying that those who do not live in the area represented are "foreign" to that area and should not be allowed to donate money. Just like foreigner can still speak out about their opinions on candidates in US elections, these people can still speak out about the candidates, they simply can not use their money to influence the election. The proposal to have elections entirely publicly funded has been made by many people with a very clear understanding of the Constitution on more than one occasion. This is not some out there idea, it is something that has had considerable support for a long time as a way to take the money out of politics. People who do not bother to read and understand the Constitution and our laws, as well as articles here, are the problem. They spout off opinions based on headlines or what other people tell them without taking the time to really learn about what they are talking about.
Obama's GangBangers banned, multiple Obama's Latinos also banned, reregs of multiple accounter RenegadeOne.
PaleBlueDot-(You missed the point)
I didn't miss the point. See my #3 comment. I was responding to the 1.3 comment and his reference to speech. It seems when nonprofit organizations, tax exemption and politics are mentioned, guarantee folks will demand these organizations lose their status if they mention a word about politics. I am absolutely against any organization which abuses the trust of donors who give money, hoping to help a cause, but their funds are misdirected for a different agenda. Those who commit corruption and fraud need to be held accountable. But demanding organizations lose their status because someone expressed their opinion, is taking away their 1st Amendment rights. Which this guy, like so many others calls for. And it wasn't even the point of the article.But I was anticipating a bunch of other people saying the same thing.Which is why I addressed it right off the top.
In reference to your other comment-
( I'm fairly certain that if you boiled away the facade of inspiring sounding organization names, we'd all quickly realize that they're all being funded by the same short list of extraordinarily wealthy people)
The link below should be of interest for those who believe the same thing. Because it is an eye opener to who is reaching out in this category of organizations. It lists all of the 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations in the United States, which only number 79. It contains three that cover guns(NRA is one), Defense of Democracies which lobbied to pass a bill so Big Brother could listen in on us citizens without warrants. It passed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:501(c)(4)_nonprofit_organizations
Oh and political parties. No Republicans , GOP, or Conservative Right focused organizations listed. But there is the Democratic Leadership Council, The Democrats For Life of America, and New Democrat Network or NDN. Which was founded in 1996 by Simon Rosenberg. Who was the political strategist for both Michael Kukakis and Bill Clinton's presidential campaigns. He also ran for the Democratic National Committed Chair in 2005. The information on the DFLA organization is fascinating for its impact on the party changing the election results.
So, my guess is, based on checking almost all the list, it isn't the rich who are running most of these. But a diverse group of people. From a wide range of backgrounds, including those in high positions of power, foundations,civic and grassroots. When you click this link, you can also assess the whole list of 1.6 plus million nonprofits. The site does warn you it is a huge database
Long ago my Daddy taught me to "follow the money". He said that if people poured money into anything political that it was highly unlikely that it was just because they passionately believed in the politics but much more likely that they stood to gain financially if a person got elected. There is an underground in this country of the very wealthy and very powerful who are determined to protect their 1% status at any cost. Doing that through some of these so called "non-profits" allows them to keep a low profile. It reminds me of all those folks running around wearing white hoods and dressed in sheets. They believe that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is reserved for a few white, male elite. I'm not sure how the rest of us are supposed to find justice or equity in this system but for the moment what we do have are our numbers and the right to vote. I suggest that all voters need to do more homework to make sure they know what they are supporting when they vote for a candidate or a ballot measure. Take note of who is listed as contributing campaign funds because that's who will benefit if this person is elected. Like my Daddy said "follow the money".
By the way Windancersong-1494878 you made a good comment above and got a number of votes of approval but notice as you speak of being forced into silence that your first comment was "collapsed by the community". I have some serious questions about Newsvine's motives in allowing this kind of censorship from the community because more often than not the comments that are collapsed are among the most intelligent. Anyone else ever wonder about this?
good post Max. We are an oligarchy
Folks, when you get tired of special interest groups buying your elected representatives loyalty, and of the negative political ads, you can do something about it. The state level is the only level where voters can enact laws by way of petition propositions, and that is where we begin to clean up the cesspool of corruption that infests American politics.
Voters of each state must petition for two laws. One is to require public elected officials to sign a good faith contract with constituents of a state not to accept campaign donations from any source other than constituents of the particular state, and/ or district one is elected to represent. The other is a petition to enact a law requiring all political ads which feature an image, statement or partial statement of an individual to be accompanied with a signed consent of the particular individual, or individuals featured in the particular ad.
Political ads should be about what a candidate plans to do if elected, not why an opponent would be a worse choice.............At the state level is where the people's power is.
duplicate...
duplicate...
All this outrage - as intended by the article.
Any of you folks incensed by the Planned Parenthood (non-profit) donations to Barry's re-election?
I thought not . . .
No because the other guy wanted to eliminate them for no real good reason except to appease a bunch of whacked out radicals.
In their case they supported their survival.
Once again, NBC reaches new depths of dishonesty and hypocrisy.
They publish this screed railing against Conservative nonprofit groups holding political stances on issues (but NOT advocating for specific candidates) when it was written by a person representing the George Soros-funded NONPROFIT group The Center for Public Integrity
This "article" also cites Public Citizen and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW); both of which are also Soros-funded nonprofits.
NBC also routinely runs propaganda pieces from and cites "studies" and "analysis" from such groups as The Center for American Progress, Media Matters for America, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), The Center For Investigative Journalism, and The Investigative News Network (INN); ALL of which are blatantly political, Soros-funded "nonprofits".
Trade unions are successfully fighting against economic equality and fighting in favor of crooked politicians.
That in itself is not news at all, but simply status quo.
While there are thousands of non-profit organizations pushing a political agenda, this one organization is trying to push back, and the news industry is in favor of it being stopped and shut down.
More conservative propaganda?
The vast majority of non-profits serve community purposes with little to no political interest.
It is no surprise that conservatives have perverted the purpose of the non-profit exemption to serve their efforts to steal elections they could not otherwise win. Republican/Tea politics is a vast criminal enterprise committed to turning America int a right wing tyranny, promoting only interests of the uber-wealthy who want still more wealth without responsibility. The fact that they also attract the KKK, anti-American militias, neo-nazis, religious zealots, and bigots only highlights their extremism and ignorance.
Keep spending your money on lies. The vast majority of Americans get it and you will continue to fail.
The corrupt entity that this article is based on was created to defeat Unions. But it was itself defeated by Californian voters. Go after the criminal elites, not the working people.
The mega-Religion Business misuses the tax-exempt status more than any organization.
Raise revenue to lower the deficit by eliminating this tax break. These ridiculous tax breaks are draining our economy and are adding to the corruption of our political process. Given the immense amount of money these so-called social welfare organizations provide to influence and buy elections under this ruse requires a swift smackdown in their wallet.
Just skap -
I agree totally. Planned Parenthood should have their tax-exempt status pulled immediately.
Please tell me "Organize for Action," the 501 (c) (4) tax-exempt Frankenstein, isn't a "political entity"!!! The game is this: Villanize your opponent for trying to do EXACTLY what you're trying to get away with.
It all depends on whose ox gets gored. The Demmunists are well on their way to propagandizing, cell phoning, and contraceptioning their way to PERMANENT ONE PARTY RULE, and it AIN'T the Party of Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison.
Here's Axelrod's winning strategy, plain and simple: "The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can count on the support of Paul." --Irish Playwright, Fabian Socialist and co-founder of the London School of Economics. [www_lpboulder_com]
It is clear, that just as politicians have found ways to get around campaign contribution limitations, and other rules, so too have others like this nonprofit group.Which would seem to have been created solely for the purpose of political activities based on its history according to the article.The ability to bend the laws, or out right break them, to serve the agenda of any person with the right connections and enough money, will always continue. While there are, to be certain, countless other nonprofit groups which have been set up for charitable groups, including overseas,that do good works.Including religious, educational,social-economical,medical-dental, and other types.
Power and money go hand in hand with corruption.The more power and money, the more corruption. We can always count on men to use any means at their disposal to affect who ends up in positions of power, and influence how they act in those positions.
Amen
Isn't "social welfare" socialism?
no
Anita, expound on the difference please!!
If you have to ask, you can't understand. It would take longer than this whole blog to explain it to you.
The party of stupid rides again.
Think of it as caring for the welfare of the society as a whole. Instead of, "I got mine, how are you doing?"
Tctate-(Isn't "social welfare" socialism?)
Read my answer below the commenters
CME mgmt-(Anita, expound on the difference please!!)
i'm not Anita, but hope you don't mind my answer!
IMHO-2730490(If you have to ask, you can't understand.)
Ignorance can only be overcome by asking questions.Blessed is he who is willing to learn.Foolish is he who is content to stay in the dark when light is within reach.
Socialism is a political term applied to an economic system in which property,production and distribution
is held in common and not individually, and relationships aregoverned by a political hierarchy.
People are given what they need only. Directly laboring and benefiting from their labors. Exchanging surplus for what they need from others. Folks in positions of authority make decisions in the name of the collective group.
Regardless of the picture painted of socialism by its proponents, it ultimately removes group decision making in favor of the choices of one all-important individual.
Social welfare is how people, communities, institutions, and states in a society take action to provide certain minimum standards and certain opportunities to those who are poor.
Generally about helping folks facing contingencies, using some government funds society has helped pay for. Yet working with volunteer groups like churches, schools and charities.
Yet another chapter in the GOP Book of Dirty Tricks. How to win an election without really having the votes of Americans. Take their right to vote away, require two ID cards, take key voting days and times away and make them stand in line for many hours, let them know if they aren't White and Christian, they don't belong. And now, change the Electoral College so each state isn't winner take all, as we have done throughout American history, and give each district's vote to their party of choice. All are simply a means of winning without winning. They will shoot themselves in the foot with the College though, because most Americans would rather see their votes really count and go straight voter count across the nation. I agree. Come on GOP. Take your best shot. One vote for every American and we'll prove to you once and for all, you suck!
The electoral college system should be done away with. Presidential elections are the only elections still decided this way. Originally Senators were also elected like this.
Conservative don't like the idea that Obama won the electoral vote by a lot, completely ignoring that he won the popular vote. They had no problem with Bush taking the 2000 election by Electoral math despite having lost the popular vote. Even the House of Representatives, with a Republican majority, actually represents fewer Republican votes nationally than Democratic votes. House members should be elected by districts regardless of the overall national vote total and Senators should be elected by statewide vote totals. Its time for the President and Vice-President to be elected by national vote totals as well. That way the national election will not be determined by gerry mandered redistricting by either party.
Even back in the Nixon administration, there was talk of redoing the electorial votes, so that if a state was 2/3 one candidate and 1/3 another, that the electorial college would also be 2/3 to 1/3. I would like that, as it would be more in line with the popular vote.
I believe in free speech. Whether or not that speech should be allowed to be anonymous, is the question.
But nobody should face a tax penalty for speaking freely.
And nobody should get a tax break for breaking the law.
This is further proof the Rethuglican party will do whatever they have to, to win! The TP/GOP are losers, and they will be for some time to come!!!
Yea. My Name123 aka Scott Walker. Lets get rid of those unions and lower everybody's standard of living . Except the wealthy of course.
Isn't Wisconsin's economy doing well, DG?
DG sounds like your at the community soup kitchen crying in your soup, because you were not successful in life to bad
Let's see. Only 13% of workers in America are union. That means oh... 87% of America's workers are non-union. Doesn't seem to me that unions have that much power. Seems that the corporations, and rich white males are calling the shots.
Now the party of stupid (Republicans) have been found breaking the law and still want a tax break to do it.
Is Wisconsin doing as well as California? California is leading the nation in job creation and is looking at a budget surplus in 2014.
California to Post $851 Million Budget Surplus, Brown Says - Bloomberg
Maybe it's only 12% now since the unions closed the Twinke plant
mik- Is this why the millionaires are planning to move out of California, watch his projection drop as they start moving away from California
Where are they going to go? There is thousands of miles of water to the west. There is nothing but desert and mountains to the east. Their income is here, so they will stay here.
There is plenty of evidence that Unions work for every worker in America. They just do so well for management.
Daily Kos: Declining union membership contributes to rising income inequality, study finds
Wisconsin is near the bottom for job creation - #43 I believe. Wisconsin's deficit has always been a point of contention as to whether there actually was a deficit. facing the state. And Scott Walker's promise of 250,000 new jobs is at 37,000 after two years. And that's after he changed the rules on how jobs were reported.
P.S. - Walker stole from federal funds provided to homeowners for mortgage relief to cover his own shortfall.
Yeah and give it to the "job creators" who will now let you work if you are lucky for minimum wage, without health benefits, pensions or 401Ks...................yeah, back to the "good old days" when people were happier working for the man.
You mean Oregon?
Oh I love it . One side of the story told here and everyone goes out and believes everything they hear wiht out checking this out . You would be surprised to find out that the Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans ..
Yes, you are correct....and that makes the problem twice as big as the article reports. Either side reports to the aristocracy that is now dominating our laws and government. It is only a matter of time before burning down the castle becomes the best option.
Rich, I guess you did not read the article. It states that there are non-profits funding liberal causes, but the majority are being done on the right.
I have seen people "time share" their home to undocumented familes who come up from Mexico to get their State benefits recertified every 6 months. I have seen where they "rent" their US citizen child's medical card to undocumented children. Been to a hospital emergency room lately? They all go there like a clinic get medical help and of course don't pay. We had one politician here in Arizona who was on the right track about immigration and he was ousted from office. I hate all of this and being in a border State I am in the thick of it. However, if someone asked "what would I do if I lived in their country?" my answer would be to get to the US any way I can. I have also known a woman who was illegal and here in the US since 2 yrs old. She married a US Citizen and set about to become legal. It didn't take long--however it cost her a bit over 5 thousand dollars. Immigration fined her for being here illegally a few thousand to start--then the cost of fingerprinting--and you had to use theirs at triple the cost of say the police station--she spent another thousand for an advocate to help muddle through the endless paperwork, etc. the cost of the cards and on and on. Most illegals are told to go back to their country and wait the few years it takes to get their first card I551 I think. What a mess that system is as well.
There should be no such thing as a non-profit exemption from paying taxes. All individuals, businesses and social organizations (including churches) should have to file tax returns and they should only be allowed to exempt those expenses considered appropriate by law. True non-profits should be deducting expenses like employee wages, maintenance of necessary structures such as buildings and service transportation, funds spent for the welfare of the people actually being served, capital improvements etc. They should not be deducting political contributions, lobbying costs, executive pay packages in excess of wages, etc. Dividends from investments should be taxed unless they fall under the above and similar categories.
“There is...an artificial aristocracy
founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents.... The artificial
aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provisions should be
made to prevent its ascendancy.”
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to John Adams 1813
If the first thing u do coming into to the US is enter illegally u r a criminal and should not have the right to stay. There should be an easier, and faster way to enter legally. but children under 18 should be investigated thoroughly and be allowed to stay legally(they had no say as to where their parent did), but their parent should be deported period. We also need to change the constitution to prevent those entering illegal just to get their children citizenship, from becoming citizens.
You ever wonder how the Sioux, Commanche, Apaches felt about immigration? I wonder if THEY thought the Europeans should just be deported.....or called them mudering lying thieves for attacking their families who were already here WITH THE MEXICANS, loooooooong before we showed up?!!!!!
Who is kidding who? Influencing elections IS THE PRIMARY PURPOSE of most of these non profits.The FEC has been neutered by Republicans and the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling.
DG, you don't know what you're talking about.
The first time that the Supreme Court espoused the principle of corporate and union "personhood" was in the case of Dartmouth College v Woodward in1819.
There have been numerous SCOTUS cases expounding on this principle over the last (almost) 200 years.
The most pertinent to the Citizens United case was the 1886 case of Santa Clara v Southern Pacific in which the SCOTUS ruled that equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also applied to corporations (and unions), and the United States v UNITED AUTO WORKERS in 1957 which struck down a prohibition on corporate and UNION political expenditures.
The Citizens United v Federal Election Commission ruling DID NOT give corporations and unions the right to make unlimited political donations. All it did was to rule that, according to the Constitution and SCOTUS precedent, corporate and union contributions ("political speak") could not be LIMITED any more than that of individuals.
The Congress can pass any limits they wish to on unions' and corporations' political contributions, but the same limits must be placed on individual citizens.
Any time an organization or politician opposes transparency and disclosure you know there is something they don't want people to know about them. For example Mitt Romneys tax returns.
And Obama's school records and the record of his surrender of his law license.
The election laws are this way for one reason, control the vote, buy electionsand buy laws that favor their own personal Corporations!!! These laws were altered to help these rich trolls and needs to be changed . NO MORE CORPORATE DONATIONS, NO NON PROFIT DONATIONS, LIMITS ON PERSONAL DONATIONS, TOTAL DISCLOSURE!!!!! FREEDOM!!!!!
These rabid conservatives need to operate in the shadows -- their message doesn't do well in the light of day.
The party of stupid keeps going, and going and going.
I worked for a nonprofit at the national headquarters for 13 years. We did an annual 21 hour TV show on Labor Day. I hope someone here knows which nonprofit I'm referring to. During an election year, we had notices in all dressing rooms that political comments of any kind during a performance were not permitted. This was also clearly spelled out in any contracts we signed with talent. Legitimate nonprofits do not make contributions to political groups, or they risk losing their nonprofit status.
What ever this is nothing new our elections laws have as much backbone as or immigration laws.
Our Government is awash with self interested(Special Interest) ineffective people whom can't work together to govern for the people.
Thought the slant of the article was interesting. Apparently there are zero big political spending non-profits on the other side of the political spectrum. Of course there are and the article might have made a valid point about whether taxpayers really want non-profits in the campaigning and lobbying business if it hadn't been so blatantly politically biased.
Non profits are a tax payer rip off...all organizations should pay their fair share of taxes...especially churches...
No different than the NAACP and the Rainbow Coaltion. They all stay or they all go, unless you're a cheater.
Ummm... Anyone heard of Media Matters? This article is a joke. Talk about them all or don't talk about any of them. And by the way, there is no such thing as a 'non-profit'.
Media Matters does not donate money to influence elections.
You are right!!! They only use their non-profit status to influence elections, openly back liberal candidates, and demonize any individual or organization with opposing views. They are the true heart of America....
We need to take away all lobbyist and the large amount of tax exempt political donations and stop the buying of our government. It's scary to think money from lobbyist and these political donations are corruptijng the politicians to vote against common sense. Just think some of your congressmen and senators are just pawns in the lying, cheating and distruction of our democracy. Corruption at it's best.
Citizens United would be proud. Here you get a tax break and for contributing to a political campaign. Nice.
Party of Stupid never sleeps, never goes on vacation, never blinks.
Remember in 2014 Please don't vote for stupid
IMHO.... says 'Bahhhh.... Bahhhh.... Bahhhh' Translation - I am a sheeple.
Basically, if it is a Conservative organization, it is a "special interest" group. If it is a liberal organization, then it is a "citizen's advocacy group". That is what the Left wants to portray.
"Community organizer" = good.
"Lobbyist" = bad.
The Left has found that a campaign of Orwellian Newspeak REALLY WORKS. The people are morons and fall for it every time.
Living in Iowa and knowing some of these names personally, I decided I'd rather ne a bit poorer than follow them and burn in hell.
Rastetter isn;t above using his position to play with little girls, but you keep defending him loser.
motoricker -
It is surprising how few recognize that when you control the vocabulary, you control the dialogue - and, therefore, the mind.
It is a PC world.
"Undocumented worker" anyone? How about "Penalty?" rather than "tax?"