Breaking news... IRS rules in favor of NAACP

NAACP press release:

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 31, 2006
Contact: John C. White (410) 580-5125

IRS DETERMINES NAACP SHOULD RETAIN TAX EXEMPT STATUS

Investigation concludes Association did not violate tax laws or commit undue political intervention

The Internal Revenue has informed the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) that it has concluded its examination of NAACP activities and determined the Association did not violate conditions of its tax exempt status.

“We have determined that you continue to qualify as an organization described in IRC section 501(c)(3),” the IRS wrote in a letter to the NAACP dated Aug. 9. IRS official Marsha A. Ramirez said that a review of video footage of the Bond speech and other information indicated “that political intervention did not occur.”

The IRS launched an examination of the NAACP on October 8, 2004 after receiving complaints from several Republican members of Congress who said their constituents believed NAACP National Board of Directors Chairman Julian Bond crossed the line of non-partisanship in a speech at the NAACP 2004 National Convention critical of Bush administration policies.

“It’s disappointing that the IRS took nearly two years to conclude what we knew from the beginning: the NAACP did not violate tax laws and continues to be politically non-partisan,” said NAACP President and CEO Bruce S. Gordon. “Tax-exempt organizations should feel free to critique and challenge governmental policies under the First Amendment without fear of IRS intervention.”

“The good news is that we are vindicated,” said Bond. “The bad news for us and other freedom loving Americans is that it was initiated for partisan purposes to threaten our right to free speech. We’ll continue to speak truth to power.”

The IRS initiated an audit of the NAACP just one month before the 2004 presidential election and nearly three months before the end of the NAACP’s tax year. The IRS refused to explain the basis of its investigation for more than a year. The NAACP learned the basis for the examination only after filing four Freedom of Information ACT requests (FOIA).

The documents included complaints filed by Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), then-Senator Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), Representatives JoAnn Davis (R-Va.) and Larry Combest (R-Texas), then-Representatives Robert Ehrlich (R-Md.) and Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.) and political donor Richard Hug. In the interest of ensuring transparency, integrity and fairness in the administration of the tax law, the NAACP will release copies of all the documents provided thus far by request.

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.

###

Nonprofit law news

The good folks over at Alliance for Justice publish a near-daily list of news items regarding nonprofit law over at their nonprofit advocacy blog. I've added their news feed in the sidebar here... click on a headline for more info on the news of the day!

FEC rejects exemption

Reject may a strong word, but they voted it down 3-3. You can listen to the hearing here. Most observers say the courts will be handling the larger issue of whether BCRA can restrict legit grassroots lobbying... they're probably right. On to the pundits and reform groups...

Bob Bauer

Campaign Legal Center

Democracy 21

grassroots lobbying exemption?

The FEC is considering a temporary exemption for specific grassroots lobbying communications as we head toward the fall elections. Many advocacy groups support this exemption, as it will allow them to rally constituents to call members of Congress on some important bills next month. Reform organizations are against the proposal, seeing it as a potential loophole in the campaign finance regulations.

Take a look at the proposed reg here. I've never been a big fan of the "support, oppose, attack" langauge... it's completely vague and difficult to figure out in the context of a lobbying campaign. Can a group be critical of a congressman's votes, or is that attacking? Still, having seen how some organizations take advantage of the gap between express advocacy and electoral impacts *cough-cough... 527s* it's easy to understand why Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 are opposed.

Middle ground? I'd like to think there is a way to craft a reg that allows legitimate lobbying to occur during the blackout windows... but to date, no one has found that magic mixture of vowels and constanants that would please both sides of this debate.

Read more from CLC and Bob Bauer...

Grand re-opening

Greetings, and welcome to the new digs! I'd like to give special thanks to Apple's iWeb for helping make this site far, far better looking than I could have ever hoped with my meager html and css skills. If you're still Mac-phobic, I strongly suggest you give Apple a second look... it's amazing what one can accomplish with their gear!

As promised, this blog will shift content a bit. I'll be using this space to chat about the law, nonprofits, advocacy, podcasting, and a variety of other topics. In the very near future, I'll be posting some other blogs and resources here as well. On top of all that, I'll post some fun things from time to time that are utterly unrelated to any of the above. I think the continuing saga of Chad Vader fits in that category...

So, thanks for hanging out here in the tim-mooney.com lounge. More to come...

A new tim-mooney.com

There will be some big changes here at tim-mooney.com within the next few days... stay tuned for the new look and new content. In the interim, I've stripped down the blog for a more austere vibe while I truck in the new carpet and drapes...

Blogging to resume at some point...

... in the meantime, the continuing saga of Chad Vader, Dayshift Manager: