Is pro-abortion website RH Reality Check violating IRS nonprofit rules?
Imagine if your pastor got up in the pulpit next week and said:
Ok, I don’t think your pastor would use those words, but what if he said, “Randall Terry is running for president? Yuckity yuck.”
You’d say to yourself, “I don’t think my pastor supports Randall Terry running for president.” And even if you agreed you’d become uncomfortable, because you know pastors aren’t supposed to politic from the podium.
Or what if your pastor said, “Herman Cain’s presidential aspirations mean more than the mental health, dignity, and rights of the women who are ‘against’ him.”
You’d say to yourself, “I don’t think my pastor likes Herman Cain very much.” And again, even if you didn’t like Herman Cain either, you’d wonder what possessed your pastor to make such a negative, vague characterization about a presidential candidate, particularly in his capacity as a church official.
Last week I told you media mogul Ted Turner was defunding the pro-abortion website RH Reality Check As of January 1 it will have to raise its own support.
Surprising to me was to learn RH Reality Check plans to convert into a “fully independent 501 c3 organization” – a nonprofit, charitable, tax exempt group. This is the same IRS designation your church, the Salvation Army, and the Boy Scouts enjoy, and the benefits are huge:
- 501(c)3s pay no federal corporate income tax, nor state corporate tax, excise tax, or sales tax.
- Donors get to deduct 501(c)3 contributions from their tax returns, making them more attractive than non-c3s.
- A 501(c)3 designation makes a group eligible for private foundation grants, since they are required by law to give at least a minimum to charities.
- 501(c)3s get lower postal rates on bulk mailings.
To qualify, a nonprofit group must be “operated exclusively for charitable, religious, scientific, or educational purposes,” according to the IRS.
But there is a huge no-no: politicking. According to the IRS:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office….
[V]oter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
RH Reality Check says it provides, “News, Analysis & Commentary.” I know of no other news and opinion organization in the U.S. that is a 501(c)3. (UPDATE: Reader Lisa has found a small number of c3 news sites. The difference is the minimal amount of opinion expressed on those sites is directed at policy, certainly not at throwing ad hominems at political candidates with which one disagrees or advising a political party how to shore up votes.) It can’t be done. My partner and I explored organizing as a 501(c)3 when incorporating a few years back and realized we couldn’t do it. We couldn’t avoid having an opinion about the political process without gutting one of the very reasons for our existence.
Campaign Finance understands that a 501(c)3 designation “would essentially make it impossible for newspapers to do any political reporting. After all, an article that is critical or supportive of Congressman Barney Frank or Senator John McCain could easily be interpreted as an attempt to influence their next elections.”
Exactly. which is what RH Reality Check was doing in its December 9 tweet about Randall Terry and December 5 post about Herman Cain.
RH Reality Check and I got into a tweet tussle on this topic Saturday…
Despite its bravado, RH Reality Check must have actually checked with its “actual lawyers,” because the obviously politicized headline I was tweeting in reference to…
was changed today…
No worries. I obviously kept a screen shot. And a few more.
Another RH tweet indicated it expects to continue receiving some amount of funding from Ted Turner’s United Nations Foundation…
I did some checking and found something I wish I’d known five years ago. That is, the UNF is also a 501(c)3.
So all these years UNF has apparently been violating IRS nonprofit guidelines by funding the obviously political RH Reality Check as one of its affiliates. I don’t know if something can be done about this retroactively. Am checking.
But one thing I know: UNF funding of RH Reality Check from here on out should be in question. UNF can’t fund a politically motivated organization.
Another thing I know: RH Reality Check’s has to decide whether it wants to stop taking sides in the political process or keep its 501(c)3 status. From here on out I’m now taking my cues from Barry Lynn.
Even today RH doesn’t get it, posting an article by Amanda Marcotte giving advice to Democrats on how to retain the pro-abortion female vote.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I wish the IRS would enforce those rules across the board. I get really sick about hearing who to vote for whether openly or coyly from religious leaders who get that tax free status. Same with the other groups in question. Want to repair the govt deficit? Enforce across the board tax fraud, charities, tax free groups, corporations, etc.
I agree, everyone needs to follow the tax laws. Those articles are blatant political endorsements (is non-endorsements a word?).
Non-profit news organizations are a relatively new phenomenon, but there are dozens of them. The Pew Center has a non-comprehensive list here: http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/sites_found_study. Two national sites that are 501(c)3 but not on the Pew list are Media Matters and the National Catholic Reporter, and there are probably many more local ones.
Jack –
I’m not positive on that – I don’t believe tax status means that the organization can’t ever discuss that person. Churches do it all the time – they can’t endorse a politician, but the discussion is all over the place. I think churches are an excellent play to explore comments like Perry made – and I don’t believe the intent of a charitable organization is to put a gag on them.
I don’t know – thoughts?
Seems like a “be careful what you wish for” on this one – I think Jill wants no conversations about politics if they are tax exempt – is that the hope for churches as well?
Good point Ex, I am the first to admit that I am not remotely educated in the tax code, I know some basic guidelines but it’s not something I have spent a lot of time learning about.
If it were up to me, I think it’s a fine line and needs to be discretionary. I know I cringe at some pastors who all but tell their parishioners that God wants them to vote for Bush or something… lol. At the same time, I think it’s ridiculous to think that a church, or pro-choice organization, would never have discussions about politics, seeing as politics are pretty integral to all of our lives. I think what bugs me is the language and setup of the articles could easily be construed without reading between the lines at all that this website is dead set against Perry, or whoever they are currently upset with.
And homophobic “pro-family, anti-abortion 501 (c)(3)’s like The Family Research Council and the American Center for Law and Justice (the funds from which contribute to the Sekulow’s private plane) don’t engage in politics? The US Council of Catholic bishops is non-profit but seeks to influence the political process both in Washington and in the churches. So while you’re questioning RH Reality Check, you might check your side of the aisle.
Lisa C., interesting info, but I said “news and opinion.”
CC, 501(c)(3) orgs are absolutely permitted to participate in the political process as long as they stick to discussing ISSUES and not CANDIDATES. That goes for both sides of the aisle. The USCCB does not and has never denounced or promoted specific candidates. RH Reality Check, however, is denouncing specific candidates, which is a clear violation of the regulations.
Lisa C., interesting info, but I said “news and opinion.”
And if you look at the sites, you’ll see that that’s typically what they have.
Frankly the notion that to be ‘non-profit’ suddenly renders obsolete free speech protect is preposterous. Every year there is a protest where preachers talk politics from the pulpit in direct oposition to the IRS. It’s a pastor’s job to lead their flock, and that includes boldly getting up and saying “so and so is anti-Christian and stands strongly against what we believe in, your vote is between you and God, but you will be responsible for that vote, and to cast it for someone so against God os wrong”. It is likewise the duty of *any* organization to help inform their members with like ideals about political canidates, which are very important in today’s day and age. This stands just as true for RH as it does for the local chruch. The IRS is unconsitutional on it’s base, but this prohibition is particulalry odious. Given that the majority of people on this blog follow one non-profit or another, we should be denigrating this illegal IRS travesty, not using it to play ‘gotcha’ against our ideological enemies.
Btw, if you actually go to a church that *doesn’t* at least occassionaly talk politics, hand out voter guides, or likewise inform their congregation about important legal issues and the churches stance on them, you should think long and hard on why.
Great sleuthing Jill! Love it! Keep it up!
I respect the rules for everyone “across the board” but I am not aware of a conservative political candidate speaking at a church or being endorsed by a church? I could be wrong, if so show me.
The only “religious” people I know speaking out about politicians are people like the Reverend Jesse Jackson.
My pastor speaks on issues but not politicians by name except to say we need to pray for our country and elected officials and President Obama that God would give them wisdom as they tackle our country’s problems.
Lisa, I checked the sites and only found one offering opinion, and it was of a different sort, on policy (NJSpotlight). Can you direct me to others? But strictly speaking, you got me.
Sydney,
How about the entire Rick Perry Governor supported prayer rally with all those Dominionist Reconstructionist groups and churches, who do on a regular basis talk about candidates and politicians?
Jespren,
Where is the source info for the IRS being unconstitutional?
Duck, the Constitution.
How is a prayer rally a church speaking out in favor of a candidate? You mean the church’s were there officially supporting them?
Jespren,
How do you expect Congress to levy and collect taxes of millions of people, while still doing their jobs as lawmakers?
Sydney, I was mostly trying to describe those pastors, who I was talking about. I couldn’t remember their names. They talk about candidates all the time.
Lisa, I checked the sites and only found one offering opinion, and it was of a different sort, on policy (NJSpotlight). Can you direct me to others? But strictly speaking, you got me.
Like RH Reality Check does, sites will usually say they offer “analysis” and “commentary” rather than opinion. If a site has a blog section, it’s most likely opinion. Also like RH Reality Check, the opinion is often (though not always) from columnists rather than the editors.
Examples from the “Watchdog” sites:
http://alaska.watchdog.org/blog-commentary/
http://newhampshire.watchdog.org/blog/
http://missouri.watchdog.org/category/blog/
http://nebraska.watchdog.org/blog/
Sites from the “American Independent” family don’t seem to have commentary broken out into a separate section, but I didn’t check them all because they screw with my browser.
Examples from “Statehouse News” sites (I didn’t check them all; these links suffice to make the point)
http://marylandreporter.com/category/annapolitics/
http://www.nevadanewsbureau.com/theblog/
http://www.idahoreporter.com/category/opinion/
Others:
ProPublica’s commentary is implicit in the nature of their stories.
National Catholic Reporter links extensively to columnists, but they don’t have a separate page for them.
http://www.minnpost.com/politics/
Incidentally, it looks to me–and I could be wrong–that RH Reality Check did not say “Yuckity yuck” to a Randall Terry presidency, but rather, it retweeted the comment from someone else with the question “Is this a fact?”
Jespren –
I’m not sure if I agree with your 7:55 post.
I think denominations and churches can be too quick to proclaim stances and draw up position papers on things. I appreciate a centered approach more than a boundary approach – I think the church needs to have Christ at the center, and allow for disagreements on things that are not matters of salvation. I think religious people can be too quick to say “you’re only a Christian if you…” I think we have to be careful with those sorts of things. I can’t think of a single political candidate, quite frankly, that passes the blameless test that a church should look to. I do know of somebody that does pass that blameless test and who should be a focus.
Lisa, I checked the sites and only found one offering opinion, and it was of a different sort, on policy (NJSpotlight). Can you direct me to others? But strictly speaking, you got me.
I posted examples, but the comment probably went into the spam box because of the links.
Lisa, the commentary you cite is all policy based. Yes, RH retweeted the post, expressing agreement: “STOP. Is that a fact??!! #Leaving the USA”
Ex-Gop, individual churches has statements of belief for a reason, and very rarely is it to say ppl who don’t fully believe *this* aren’t Christian, but rather simply to say ‘this is what *we* believe’. And I think you missed a subtle point in my post. I’ve never actually heard a preacher say you *should* vote for person X. Rather, it is a negative, person Y is agressively against our beliefs, therefore it would be against our shared beliefs to vote for him. Frankly, even that is rare. Mostly I’ve seen churches give out voters guides where the canidates answers to issues that are important to the church as addressed, or discussing a specific measure. And it’s also not like a church is going to take an exit poll survery and kick out any members found to vote in a way not in line with church teachings. But giving the information to the flock is of vital importance.
Duck, I expect them to work within the bounds of the Constitution. There is a reason why Congress has the right, not a 3rd party, unelected bureaucratic organization. If Congress stuck to the limited duties outlines in the Constitution they would have *plenty* of time to levy and see to the enforcement of collection of taxes and still deal with what lawmaking/law upkeeping need be done. Right now, however, Congress is so bloated on power it has no right to that it can’t even find the time to do the jobs it’s supposed to be doing. That isn’t a reason to pass those jobs onto an agency with no voter accountability, it’s a reason to curtail Congress to it’s inumerated powers.
Also, Duck, I expect them to do the job just like their predecessors did before they started grabbing for power that wasn’t their’s to have. The federal government worked just fine without the IRS (and other such unconstitutional agencies) for quite sometime. If you want to know how such success can be again achieved, look at history, it is an awesome teacher.
I went to a church once that distributed voter guides. A new pastor came in and made sure that didn’t continue to happen. I was happy about that. The thing that I don’t understand is how some of those guides say that a certain issue is a positive or negative thing in regards to faith. Sure, some things are more cut and dry – but I look at some “values” voter guides and wonder where in the heck they are getting their value guidance from!
If a church is nurturing its believers and they read the only guide that matters, they’ll figure out the voting end of things.
I agree with my good old BFF Jack – I don’t care so much if anyone from either side of things endorses a candidate – buuuuuuuuuut let’s do it with some class.
Our church distributes voter guides.
A pastor is not allowed to endorse candidates or tell his folks whom to vote for.
Alright Jespren, I’m not going to argue with you about the validity of organizations that Congress and the President legally have the right to create and organize to allow the government to function.
Duck, I have no arguement in those organizations that Congress and the President legally have the right to create, it’s all the illegal ones that they get away with because no one’s stopping them.
Ex-gop, the only one’s I’ve ever read get their values from the only place that matters, the Bible.
Some churches are now beginning to take a stand against the IRS rules prohibiting political speech. As well they should. The number of them grew five fold in just one year. The organizers are so sure of their constitutional rights on this issue that they invite an attempt by the government to deny their tax exempt status. They contend the issue cannot be resolved once and for all until it comes to a head in a court of law.
Those pastors who do not even allow voters guides to be distributed are probably middle of the roaders and don’t want to upset anyone. There really is no legal reason that voters guides that stick to the issues and do not endorse candidates cannot be distributed.
http://www.veritasrex.com/veritas_rex/2011/10/nearly-500-pastors-participate-in-pulpit-freedom-sunday.html
Go to the Amanda Marcotte article and watch the video with the rabbits. It’s cute. Talking rabbits are adorable.
But the stuff they say is a scream. To get plan B you have to go to the pharmacy, show your ID, and hopefully escape “the stares of shame.” WHAT???? Stares of shame? I never saw that in any pharmacy I’ve been in. Nobody even pays attention to who buys what at the pharmacy. I always thought it was nobody’s business who bought what. In Washington state, they tightened the laws a couple years ago. Now you have to stand way back from the counter while waiting your turn to be served. It prevents you from seeing what drug another customer is buying, and thereby violating their confidentiality. There were no stares of shame there.
I haven’t seen it get that extreme in the state where I’m living now. But I don’t know what any of the other customers here are getting either. No stares of shame if you don’t know. I personally am too busy with my own life to care what drug someone else is buying at the pharmacy. So where are all those stares of shame coming from. Oh, I forgot, the imaginations of people like Amanda Marcotte is something extreme. Lots of hyperbole to prove their points.
I would ask the pro-choicers if they’d ever gotten any stares of shame at the pharmacy. But they’d probably make up a story about it and say it happened, whether it did or not. So instead, I’ll ask my fellow pro-lifers, have you ever given anyone a “stare of shame” at a pharmacy? I figure pro-lifers are more likely to tell the truth about it. I know I’ve never given anybody at a pharmacy a “stare of shame.” Nor have I seen anybody else do so.
Who thinks Rh Reality Check is a little too big on drama?
Uh, I know I sometimes have gotten a rude looks for buying condoms, on occasion. So if people are getting stares of shame I doubt putting the Plan B over the counter is going to do much about that…
Jerry –
I don’t think there are any legal reasons either, as long as their isn’t an endorsement.
I also don’t have an issue with pastors pushing that line…I think they key is that they stay true to Christ first and foremost. I think it is very easy to treat politics like money – to find comfort and salvation in politicians. “If only this person is elected, everything will be all right…”. That sort of thinking is problematic.
I, personally, wouldn’t go to a church that is too political.
Lisa, the commentary you cite is all policy based.
I would call that an overgeneralization, but it’s not really a constructive use of my time to do research for you. The upshot is that if you are basing your knowledge of non-profit news sites on a 2009 article and your research from “a few years back,” then you are way behind the curve. Do some googling on “non-profit news” and see what you come up with.
Yes, RH retweeted the post, expressing agreement: “STOP. Is that a fact??!! #Leaving the USA”
Ergo, the post is not analogous to a pastor saying “Yuckity yuck” about a candidate to a pulpit.
Jack,
Too true. I have seen some small minded nosy peeps in big cities, small towns, etc give rude looks when people are buying condoms, tampons, pads, various lubes, or if they happen to overhear the Pharmacist talk about sexual side effects for their meds, talk about viagra (and others), all kinds of stuff. Clearly… with our culture of nosy people and wanting to know what’s going on in everyone else’s bedroom (homophobia, gay rights, abortion, birth control access, etc) it is not a stretch at all to assert that some people get shamed when buying products related to sex.
Prolifers are nosy?
I am standing and fighting for the rights of human beings to be born!!!
Yeah. Come to a prolife blog and feel free to speak you mind every single day. You should thank Jill Stanek for allowing you to post here!
I am deleted immediately when commenting on proabort sites. You seem to enjoy the freedom of speech that I am denied. hmmm
But then I remember the only reason you really come here.
FACEBOOK FODDER!!
Where did I say prolifers are nosy? I was meaning society in general. Ever hear of ambulance chasers? And I’m not even talking about lawyers. I once knew a woman who would stop what she was doing, and turn around in her car to follow an ambulance to get the latest gossip. We’re just a nosy culture. Clearly, with issues such as who can sleep with who (gay rights vs homophobia) being such a big issue, we’re a culture who cares what goes on in the bedroom.
That being said, I never deleted your comments on my site, you deleted your own.
As I told Xalisae, I’m different. Learn to realize it. I’m not like everyone else.
And if you think I spend all freaking day dedicating my posts to this site, I may have to shrink your ego a bit. I’ve got other news to worry about.
Good grief, duck. Shrink your own ego a bit.
I am not talking about your little facebook page where I didn’t want to get into it with your “fan base.” I deleted my comments off of your page. True enough.
I am talking about proabort websites and blogs etc. I am deleted by proabort mods.
TTFN
I knew you were talking about in general. I was talking specifically about my page, which you also like to call pro-abort. I can’t control what the moderators of other sites do.
CC, some organizations like those have a c(3) and a c(4). Funds given to the c(3) must be separate and have nothing to do with politics, so you have the same structure and goal but educational dollars all must go to educational programs. If that awful website wants to keep doing what they do, then they need to have both and keep accounting on where the funds go to follow the law.
The law actually states that a preacher cannot spend more than a certain percentage (I think 15%) opining on issues and also “seems to” prohibit outright endorsement. Every year, and in some cases, every WEEK, pastors are intently trying to get the IRS to charge them with violation of this statute – to the point of notifying the IRS and inviting them to come hear the preaching.
The IRS continues to ignore politicking from the pulpit. The reason for this is – as I believe Jill is trying to point out – that there are many “nonprofit” organizations who exist to promote a political ideology and, yes, candidate(s), as well as formally stand against ideology and candidates with whom they disagree. The IRS does not have resources to wade into the fray.
Media Matters is funded by George Soros. There have been many instances over at Breitbart “Bigs” sites where MM has been called out and exposed. To no avail, actually. They are intent on destroying FOX News and the conservative viewpoint from the media.
Amy1,
If you don’t want to sound extremely partisan and uninformed, you should examples that don’t consist of the Bretibart/Media Matters feud.
^and I need to proofread better. Should use, not should examples.
test
You passed. :)
Jill…I avidly follow your site and share your beliefs. I think you’re wonderful. Usually.
But what are you doing here with this article? It’s an ad hominem attack on an organization that doesn’t pose any sort of real threat, and not only that – your attacks are not just on articles, but also about video titles and tweets. Which means you’re attacking some of the behind-the-scenes people, who were probably college interns or something, just trying to do their job and maybe messing up (although frankly, your arguments here are rather a stretch in the first place).
When did you start intentionally humiliating people? I don’t like it. These kinds of things give the pro-life movement a bad name, which it is indeed rapidly achieving. We’re losing our political ground, and why? We’re on the side of right. We don’t need to be pro-vicious to win an ideological battle like this one.
Methinks Max doth protest too much.
I think you’re on to something, they’re scared of losing their non-profit status, and he’s a plant. *hearts*
Max is correct. If you want to be “on the side of right”, you should start by behaving like it.
Duck, considering that you believe it’s acceptable to kill innocent unborn children with impunity, your moral outrage rings false.
Max, Jill’s perfectly within her rights to call out any organization she believes is violating the law, which includes IRS tax regulations for nonprofit organizations. If you don’t like her doing so, please feel free to stop reading.
JoAnna,
It may ring false to you. But there are many, many more people in the moderate middle of this debate than there are on either side. The more both sides continue to shout and fight at each other, the more the moderate middle will ignore both.
Thanks Duck.
I don’t want to stop reading Jill’s material, because I usually enjoy following her very much. I’m not a “plant,” and quite honestly “xalisae,” I didn’t protest all that much. I’m just pointing something pretty reasonable out.
I actually usually go on pro-abortion sites and say the same sorts of things. I don’t like feeling hypocritical, which I did when I saw this article. Not trying to be hostile or invite hostility. Just sayin’. :-)
Max wrote:
But what are you doing here with this article? It’s an ad hominem attack on an organization that doesn’t pose any sort of real threat, and not only that – your attacks are not just on articles, but also about video titles and tweets. Which means you’re attacking some of the behind-the-scenes people, who were probably college interns or something, just trying to do their job and maybe messing up (although frankly, your arguments here are rather a stretch in the first place).
Friend, I’m not quite sure you follow the main point, and your comment is (forgive me) rather incoherent.
First: the main point was the alleged violations of 501(c)3 rules by RH Reality Check (and perhaps by UNF), which really have nothing to do with the perceived “threat level” of that web-site; and this is a topic about which actual data can be offered (which Jill has done). As for the extent of “threat”: do you believe that only those with (for example) assault weapons, or a team of hackers, etc., are worthy of being held responsible for their actions? Your apparent approach of “they’re small potatoes, so back off” makes very little sense, save as your own personal gesture of sympathy for them (to which you are welcome… but I hope you’ll forgive me, and others, if we don’t find that very compelling).
Second: an “ad hominem” attack is a fallacious diversion in which the arguer, rather than the actual argument, is attacked; but surely you see that the “argument”, in this case, IS the IRS issue (and not the pro-abortion stance of RH Reality Check, which is a distinct issue), and that Jill is precisely on-topic? You might as well say that, since Jill’s most common complain about Cecile Richards (of Planned Parenthood) is her involvement in child-killing, Jill is therefore forbidden to mention any instances where Cecile does anything *else* reprehensible which isn’t directly related to that? Have some sense. At any rate, your accusation of “ad hominem” is certainly incorrect.
Third: does the fact that some of the culprits are “behind-the-scenes people” exempt them from all wrong-doing, do you think? I fail to see why, unless you suppose that only figure-heads of organisations can be held accountable for wrong-doing (which would be bizarre). As for that: what possible relevance would any status as “college interns, or something” (whatever “or something” might mean, to you) have to the point in question? You seem to mention it only as an appeal to the gallery, trying to evoke sympathy and leniency for the “poor, lowly under-dogs”… which is, again, bizarre. What, do you believe that there should be a minimum age for reception of criticism (say, 30 years of age), below which they should be exempt?
Finally: if you wish to claim that Jill’s arguments are a “stretch” (which is rather ironic, given your own attempts), you’ll need to prove your case, and not simply assert it, if you wish to be taken seriously. As it is, you really do (forgive me again) come across as a text-book example of a “concern troll”.
Max,
You sound like me from the other side of the aisle. :)
Max sounds like Duck pretending to be prolife.
Keep up the good work prolife friends!
I have no idea who Max is. You do realize that there are many people who disagree with you right? And just because they disagree doesn’t mean we all know each other.
Sigh. This is nuts. I give up.
So, Duck… in your book it’s okay to revoke personhood from human beings for the purposes of enslavement and/or extermination as long as it’s done democratically?
And you’d be okay with this being done to you and your family?
You’re saying that slavery and the Holocaust would have been perfectly moral and okay if only the U.S. government and the Nazi Party had revoked the personhood of blacks and Jews via the democratic process. (Never mind that slavery WAS kept legal by that process for many years, and personhood was denied by the Supreme Court for Dred Scot et al…)
You seriously believe this?
JoAnna,
According to “my book” I never said any of that was ok. But thanks for misinterpreting everything I said. :)