Pro-life vid of day: Pro-lifer testifies about IRS harassment
by LauraLoo
As reported by Fox News, one of the most outrageous pieces of testimony from yesterday’s House hearing on the IRS scandal came from Sue Martinek of the Coalition for Life of Iowa, who detailed her extensive back-and-forth in 2008 and 2009 with an IRS agent out of the Cincinnati office after she applied for tax-exempt status. Martinek said her group was asked to make an incredible concession in order for the application to be approved:
[The agent] told me verbally that we needed to send in a letter with the entire board’s signatures, stating that… we would not picket, protest, or organize outside of Planned Parenthood. Upon receiving such a letter, she indicated that the IRS would allow our application to go through.
Below is the full testimony of Ms. Martinek:
Iowa anti-abortion group leader describes ‘harassment’ by IRS from Chris Sweigart on Vimeo.
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
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.
It’s not enough for the IRS to control our money. Now they want to control our speech and our religion as well. What business is it of theirs what the content of our prayers are, anyway?
The IRS has become far too powerful and it will only get worse. This is why there should be no IRS, no tax system as we have it now, and for that matter no federal income tax. They are all unconstitutional.
Soon no one will be able to speak against the government and no one will be able to practice their religion unless the government approves it and provides the content.
It is a tragic irony that this is just what happened in Nazi Germany, another country that exterminated it’s most helpless citizens.
“one of the most outrageous pieces of testimony” – well that’s certainly true.
What is it about which activities and functions do and don’t comply with exemption status requirements that Sue’s group doesn’t understand?
Victor, dude, you almost sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist! No one wants to know the content of your prayers. The activism, protesting and badgering conducted outside clinics being classed as ‘prayer meetings’ is spurious and is what is being questioned.
Tthe graphic on the “Fox’s Megyn Kelly…” article was such sweet sophistry by the way.
There have been no changes to the IRS laws or regulations in this area. All that is happening is that the compliance failures which have been overlooked for too long are being assessed.
There is simply no justification for claiming that speaking against the government or practising one’s religion is under threat.
Doesn’t wash Reality,
Get over it, in this country we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion. One person’s legitimate protest is another person’s outrage.
Come on, spurious? Or is it your ox that’s being gored?
The IRS had an epiphany and the “compliance failures” that have been overlooked for so long are finally being addressed? Reality, I’ve got some ocean front property in Montana to sell you.
“we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion” – totally! There are also laws which state that if tax exemptions are sought then the applicable requirements need to be met.
Yes indeed, claiming that ‘sidewalk counselling’, placard waving and impeding people from their legitimate activities is a ‘prayer meeting’ meets the definition of spurious.
“I’ve got some ocean front property in Montana to sell you.” – no thanks. I guess you’re just going to be saddled with it for some time yet ;-)
Reality,
Again, what meets any definition of a prayer meeting is a matter of perspective. What is “spurious” to you is sincere religiously motivated activity to another. Its called freedom of speech and religion. The IRS has no right demanding that you not protest a certain organization. Of course PP being a huge supporter of Obama, and he being a huge supporter of PP has nothing to do with it.
An organisation, any organisation, which claims a tax exemption on the grounds that it will be providing ‘Outcome A’ by undertaking activities ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘c’ but which then undertakes activities ‘x’, ‘b’ and ‘z’ should have its claim reviewed.
Waving placards and harassing people is not any version of prayer. It can be as much a ‘sincere religiously motivated activity’ as you like, but if it isn’t the type of activity reqired to meet exemption requirements then guess what’ll happen.
“The IRS has no right demanding that you not protest a certain organization” – that would be why they’re not. They’re just saying that if you do so then you are not doing what you stated you would be doing and are therefore not meeting your tax exemption status requirements. This is not a new law, it’s simply being ignored a little less.
If I founded an organisation and then lodged a claim for the relevant tax exemption because I said I was going to be conducting ‘vegetarian educational activities’ but then led a protest group with placards of dead chickens and obnoxious chanting outside a Chick-fil-A store then I shouldn’t be surprised if the IRS started asking questions. Nor should you.
Reality,
Didn’t you listen to the video? It was specified that her organization, which she describes as peaceful protestors, were not to picket PP. Since when do we send guarantees to the IRS what we will or will not protest? Do you know for a fact that all religious organizations, right and left, must give similar guarantees as to what they will not protest?
Concerning Chick-fil-a, the IRS couldn’t specify that you are not to protest a chick-fil-a and request a written guarantee that you wouldn’t. BTW, I have seen some of these animal rights people get pretty obnoxious. But again, a matter of perspective. One person’s legitimate protest is another person’s outrage.
You can keep trying to duck and weave if you wish Mary, it doesn’t change the facts.
If you apply for a particluar tax exemption status then you must comply with the associated requirements. That your main activities will be a,b & c, not x, b & z.
Obviously, picketing PP was not the type of prime activity her organisation claimed it would be undertaking to meet the criteria of the particular tax exemption applied for.
Perhaps they should have applied for tax exemption status under the ‘Being a Public Pest’ part of the code. You know, saying what they were really going to be doing.
“the IRS couldn’t specify that you are not to protest a chick-fil-a and request a written guarantee that you wouldn’t” – if the tax exempt status I was claiming was for ‘vegetarian educational activities’ then I expect they could. And you should probably hope they would.
They sure as heck can’t stop me protesting but they certainly can withdraw an ‘educational’ based exemption status.
“I have seen some of these animal rights people get pretty obnoxious.” – yeah yeah, and I’ve seen some anti-choice people get pretty obnoxious too.
“But again, a matter of perspective. One person’s legitimate protest is another person’s outrage.” – of course, absolutely. But that has zero to do with whether an organisation is undertaking activities not in accord with the activities they claimed they would be undertaking to qualify for a particular exemption status.
Obviously, picketing PP was not the type of prime activity her organisation claimed it would be undertaking to meet the criteria of the particular tax exemption applied for.
Reality, did you watch the video at all? If this were the case, if the prolifers were in the wrong, then why did the IRS back down? What actually happened was that this group spelled out is legal rights, and the IRS HAD to back down because they didn’t legally have a leg to stand on.
Thank you Lori Pieper,
You clarified that very well.
The IRS cannot demand a written guarantee from any organization that they will not speak out against or protest a certain organization. If that were the case, then clergy who support abortion and gay rights, as well as those that oppose, would have to assure the IRS they would remain silent on these issues or lose their tax exempt status. And if one looks at the history of our country, the clergy have a long history of speaking out on, and involving themselves in, important social issues.
Oh and Reality, if you watched the video, you’d realize picketing PP was not her organization’s prime activity. It also provided education on abortion which they may well be providing when they picket and when they don’t.
You could claim “vegetarian educational activities” if in fact your group is involved in informing and advising people on alternatives to eating meat and how meat is prepared and animals are treated. I see info like this all the time. You would also be free to protest chick-fil-a, Col Sanders, or the local meat packing plant. You could carry signs and hand out pamphlets describing the horrors you believe are taking place. Whether or not the employees or customers approve of you or like your presence is irrelevant. The IRS would have no right to demand any written guarantees that you wouldn’t. That’s the point.
“then why did the IRS back down” – well that’s simple, christian privilege. No authority is willing to deal with the acrimony and festering nonsense that would ensue if they called out any faith aligned organisation for not being totally honest in its actions. Like the large number of organisations which specifically endorsed candidates in violation of their tax status yet suffered no consequences despite complaints being lodged.
“you’d realize picketing PP was not her organization’s prime activity.” – what I realized is that she claimed it wasn’t.
“It also provided education on abortion which they may well be providing when they picket and when they don’t.” – ‘picketing’ equals ‘education’ now does it? Well, I must inform the Westboro ‘sidewalk counsellors’ of that.
“The IRS would have no right to demand any written guarantees that you wouldn’t.” – agreed. But they can seek assurances that the activities you undertake do not fall outside the criteria of the tax exemption you are claiming – otherwise you can lose that tax exemption.
If an atheist organisation sought a tax exemption on the basis that it would be raising funds for secular charities but was found to be using some of those funds to print and distribute virulent anti-religious information I assume you would strongly urge the IRS to butt out if they started asking questions, yes?
I hope this isn’t as false as the Linchpins of Liberty, who alleged the IRS asked them about students names, even though a copy of the IRS letter reflects no such question.
Reality,
Christian privelege? Puh-leeze. You’re really stretching there Reality.
I didn’t say picketing equals education, though who’s to say we can’t learn something from picketers. I, an avowed carnivore, may learn a great deal from vegetarian or PETA picketers as to the inhumane treatment of animals. In fact I have.
Do these PL people picket 24/7 or do they have offices from which they distribute information on request? Do they speak at schools and churches or on request? That is what I mean when I say they may offer educational services and not just picket.
So you are acknowledging that the IRS has no right to demand assurances as to who an organization will or will not protest? Now we’re getting somewhere. As for activities outside of the tax exempt status, there are lots of clergymen who had better zip it.
As for the atheist organization, what I would want or like doesn’t matter. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean I have to like what someone says. If the IRS can prove this organization is just a front to rip off people and no charities are helped, yes they should take action. Otherwise, anyone can refuse to contribute and select another charity. People do it all the time.
“…education on abortion which they may well be providing when they picket…”
“you are acknowledging that the IRS has no right to demand assurances as to who an organization will or will not protest?” – don’t over-egg the pudding Mary. I said “they can seek assurances that the activities you undertake do not fall outside the criteria of the tax exemption you are claiming”.
It’s good to see that you do agree that if an organisation isn’t doing what it said it would be doing to qualify for exemption the IRS is entitled to act. I rest my case.
Excuse me Reality,
Your post of 6:19PM stated: “The IRS would have no right to demand any written guarantees that you wouldn’t” – agreed.
Where did this particular organization fail to do what it said it would?
They wanted to know the content of the prayers–period.
It’s none of their business–period.
They are doing it anyway.
Plenty of justification for saying that being able to speak against the government and practice one’s religion is under threat.
And this of course is just one example. Others are not hard to find, for those who are willing to take their blinders off and see them.