My question is: What the heck is the IRS doing in telling Julian Bond not to criticize President Bush? They are in the tax business, not the censorship business. Is this the President abusing his powers?


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20041030/ts_latimes/irsinvestigatingnaacpforcriticismofpresident

My question is: What the heck is the IRS doing in telling Julian Bond not to criticize President Bush? They are in the tax business, not the censorship business. Is this the President abusing his powers?



No way!  The President would never do a thing like that!

Would he? Or maybe Dick Cheney? :-\\ Or the IRS is Klan run? ::)

No way!  The President would never do a thing like that!

I heard about this. What really gets me, they are trying to take the NAACP's tax exampt status because one member (acting as a private citizen) was exersizing his First Admendment's right, but yet, I saw on CNN that there seems to be a movement to allow churches to keep their tax-exempt status and endorse one political party/candidate or another.



Cat 

At the same time they are trying to get churches to give them a list of their parishioners so
they can do direct campaign mailings, thereby making preachers partners in their
reelection campaign.  ???

Seems like Deja vous to me.  Remember watergate, the enemies list, and the use of the IRS for political purposes?  I saw Julian Bond (who I would love to vote for) comment  on this bull.  He critisized the administration for its acrion, but did not endorse any candidate.  Well aduh, why would he critisize those not in power?

Seems like Deja vous to me.  Remember watergate, the enemies list, and the use of the IRS for political purposes?  I saw Julian Bond (who I would love to vote for) comment  on this bull.  He critisized the administration for its acrion, but did not endorse any candidate.  Well aduh, why would he critisize those not in power?


I would also love a chance to vote on Bond.  I think he could have had a chance of being our first
African American president(if you don't count Harding). 

I would also love a chance to vote on Bond.  I think he could have had a chance of being our first
African American president(if you don't count Harding). 


Harding?  Tell me more.

But back to topic.

Reports on CNN, with interviews and film, suggest that lots of pastors, especially fundamentalists, are "telling" their congregations how to vote, and it ain't for Kerry.  How come they aren't being investigated by the IRS?  Don't bother, I know.  Its part of the "faith based" initiative.

Don't forget Jefferson, Lincoln, Coolidge and Jackson ;)  all rumored to have African American blood in their family trees...


With Jefferson we all know that he fathered children with his slave Sally Hemings, there is also abundant evidence of George Washington fathering a son with one of his.  This shouldn't really be shocking, taking advantage(rape) of female slaves was a common practice in those days. Jacksons mother was known to have "intermarried" and he purportedly had a brother sold into slavery in Carolina.  There is a lot of this "forgotten knowledge" out there.  Anyway, on the eve of Hardings election a charge was made that he was part Negro, a charge he did not deny, and the older residents of his hometown in Marion, Ohio confirmed that the Hardings had always been considered Negro.  While President he had a sister who lived in DC in a "colored" rooming house.  Harding was descended from George Tyrone Harding(white) and Elizabeth Madison(a black woman).  By the way, I will mention that my great grandmother hailed from Richmond Virginia, her mother, she, and her children all had the middle name of Lee, and in the 1930 census she was mistakenly listed as white(all other as mulatto).  Hmmmmmm! ???

I certainly was aware of the raping of slaves, in fact, during the average slave's reproductive years she stood an 85% chance of delivering a white man's child.  I wasn't aware of the Harding think, thanks for the info.

Like it or not, tax-exempt status specifically means that an organization shall not campaign either for or against any SPECIFIC candidate.

This is one of the reasons why you see the Catholic Church heirarchy tend to "pussy foot" on the issue of whether or not a SPECIFIC candidate should or should not be elected.  Instead the institutional focus is on the issues.  (Cath church is not unanimous on this... some priests and bishops start to "name names" then they get a nasty phone call from higher-ups because of the whole legality issue.)

I have NO PROBLEM with a tax-exempt being prohibited from political endoirsements.  If the organization wants to get into politics, FINE.  Just don't ask me to subsidize you via tax-exempt status.  (And that goes for "conservative" orgs as well as "liberal").

Now... the main question at hand is whether or not Bond was speaking on behalf of the NAAAAP when he made the statements.  Since I did not see the speech, I have no opinion as to if or if not it violated the statutes.

There is no prohibition of freedom of speech.  But there is no constitutional right to be subsidized as a tax-exempt organization to play politics.

There is no prohibition of freedom of speech.  But there is no constitutional right to be subsidized as a tax-exempt organization to play politics.



Not yet, anyway. But I believe that that is coming.



Cat

Like it or not, tax-exempt status specifically means that an organization shall not campaign either for or against any SPECIFIC candidate.

This is one of the reasons why you see the Catholic Church heirarchy tend to "pussy foot" on the issue of whether or not a SPECIFIC candidate should or should not be elected.  Instead the institutional focus is on the issues.  (Cath church is not unanimous on this... some priests and bishops start to "name names" then they get a nasty phone call from higher-ups because of the whole legality issue.)

I have NO PROBLEM with a tax-exempt being prohibited from political endoirsements.  If the organization wants to get into politics, FINE.  Just don't ask me to subsidize you via tax-exempt status.  (And that goes for "conservative" orgs as well as "liberal").

Now... the main question at hand is whether or not Bond was speaking on behalf of the NAAAAP when he made the statements.  Since I did not see the speech, I have no opinion as to if or if not it violated the statutes.

There is no prohibition of freedom of speech.  But there is no constitutional right to be subsidized as a tax-exempt organization to play politics.


I didn't hear the whole speach, but exerpts from it.  Bond was critical of current POLICIES, but did not advocate for or against any candidate.  He neither endorsed or condemned anyone, but spoke of the problems and issues faced by the people the NAACP advocates for.  That does not violate the tax-exempt rules, but is a legitimate expression of his views.