501(c)(3) and political status question
In a roundabout way, which I'll explain if this blog post actually posts, I ran across an apparent political and tax anomaly. My impression was that an IRS 501(c)(3) organization had strict limits on political activity. Is there a loophole in which such an organization (it's not "faith-based") can launch vitriolic attacks on elected officials as long as there is no formal campaign in progress?
Advertisement
Given that faith based 501(c)(3)'s can launch into any vitriolic nonsense they choose to, at any time, without endangering their tax filing status, I don't understand why any other non-profit wouldn't be able to. Is there a different filing for faith based organizations that is not 501c3? And I wonder whether or not a formal campaign taking place makes any difference about whether or not a non-profit can go on the attack.
Do you have a case example?
February 7, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I understand some of the precedents, faith-based organizations have, especially in this administration, a bit more leeway based on the Establishment Clause.
The specific case I came across was Code Pink, starting from the aboutus.org website, which appears to be a data broker about nonprofits. There is an umbrella funding organization called ETINA. Andrew Beath, about whom I know nothing other than the data at ETINA and Earthways, does seem to be the person with financial responsibility, reporting to the IRS. Beath's personal foundation is http://www.earthways.org/ This organization describes its mission as "Natural Resources Conservation and Protection". It describes ETINA as one of the projects it started.
Some of the material about ETINA seems, for want of a better term, odd. A Code Pink funding solicitation asks checks to be made out to ETINA/CODE PINK. At this site, Code Pink describes itself as "a global movement of women for peace...We are a 501-C3 org and your contribution is tax deductible. Our tax exemption number is: 95-4658841."
February 7, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought 501(c)(3)'s just weren't allowed to endorse a candidate.
Moveon, Swift Boaters, etc are all 501(c)(3)'s, yet they've pretty much written the rule book on modern day attacks. Hell, swiftboating is a verb now.
February 7, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. My mistake. Moveon and Swift Boat Vets are a 527's.
I know Levi's are 501, though.
February 7, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on the Levis.
If I read the tax material correctly, 501(c)(4) are tax-deductible, can make political statements, but cannot endorse. 527 are not deductible, are nonprofit, and can endorse.
February 7, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink