Left’s Assault on Free Speech Unabated

"When I use a word, it means precisely what i say it means, nothing more nor less", Humpty Dumpty

George Rebane

One of RR’s major tenets describing America’s political scene has been that the Left constantly and asymmetrically continues their attempts to silence conservative and libertarian political speech.  Even with recent disclosures like the IRS’ assault on the tea parties, there is no letting up by the leadership cadres of the progressive movement.  Inhibiting expression of conservative thought is an accepted part of the work environment at all levels of government.  After all, most public employees, especially at the management levels, know what their chances are in the private sector, and what the role of ever bigger government will be in securing their futures.

An example of how deep is the reach of politically correct thought policing is the report from Santa Clara County where a county employee was reprimanded about a “brief comment” she shared with another employee about the problems plaguing Obamacare.  A third employee who overheard the conversation reported to the supervisor that s/he was “offended” by what s/he had overheard, and that was enough to start the offending employee’s remediation.  She was told that all controversial subjects including those of a political nature were not welcome in the workplace and should be discussed outside the premises.

This surprised the reprimanded employee since her workplace and the county offices in general are constantly full of pro-Obama paraphernalia, including wall posters, cups, employees’ dress, etc.  None of this was ever deemed as offensive political speech or politicking.  Apparently only when the Left is being criticized does management take exception.  The admonished employee is seeking legal recourse for restriction of her First Amendment rights.  (more here)

But these goings on in liberal dominated city halls and county admin centers is small potatoes compared to ‘The Latest IRS Power Grab’.  Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and now chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, reports on the continuing inroads that the IRS is making into the one-sided regulation of political speech through their new interpretations of the nature of 501c4 organizations.

Smith summarizes these interpretations as three new “myths” upon which the IRS bases its expanded powers.

1.    501c4s are “charities” and doing political work abuses their charitable status.
2.    501c4s must be operated “exclusively for the promotion of social welfare” not politics.
3.    Political activities shouldn’t get tax breaks.  (There are no tax breaks for 501c4 non-profits or their contributors.)

The Left now wants disclosure of 501c4 donor identities and their private information.  SCOTUS long ago ruled that “people have a right to engage in anonymous political activity”, and donor identities were never a problem when 501c4s were the prime vehicles for leftwing causes and organizations such as the unions, the NAACP, and other civil rights and environmental activist organizations.  In short, none of this was a problem when the political left dominated the use of 501c4s.

But things began to change in the 1990s, and more specifically since 2010, when conservatives began using 501c4s for public education on political matters.  Since then the Obama administration has pulled out the stops to weaken the historical donor protections built into that part of the tax code, and now seeks to make the IRS the regime’s major arbiter of political speech.

Should the IRS ascend to that role in our national life?  I and many others believe that the IRS has no business affecting political speech in America, especially as it can then serve the ideological interests of whatever administration controls the Executive and/or Congress.  The issue is highlighted again tomorrow when Obama’s nominee for Commissioner of the IRS, John Koskinen, goes in front of the Senate Finance Committee for his confirmation hearing.  We all await to hear of Koskinen’s support of the new rules for an expanded and more powerful IRS.

Comments

[Bill Tozer]

Shoot, I wish I had 5 bucks for every time I have been sent back to diversity training. Yes, the private sector is under much more scrutiny and laws than the members of Congress and their staffs and I understand the concept of hostile work environments. Sorry, Dr. Rebane, but I won't comment on the IRS as a politcal tool. Not that I have anything to hide, but audits are time consuming and the IRS is the only government department where you are guilty until proven innocent. Opps, add the EPA in as well. Heck, after looking at the ATF, DOJ and the NSA, put all the current Administration into the guilty until proven innocent category. And all this time I thought BarackObama had contempt for Merry Ole England and their laws.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/30/employees-forced-to-take-diversity-training-after-man-wears-obama-mask-to-costume-party

[rlcrabb]

They can try to limit speech, but there are way to many assholes like me who will never put up with it. Maybe you'll have to go through a background check before you can purchase pen and paper, but we'll still be out there scratching out obscenities on on the walls they put up to hem us in. Humbug!

[TheMikeyMcD]

'Free speech' earlier today.

Yaron Brook: The Virtue of Inequality

http://orderfromchaos.black-trovat.net/2013/12/09/video-yaron-brook-the-virtue-of-inequality/

[Ben Emery]

George,
Are you kidding? How about the infiltration, spying, and oppression of peace, social justice, environmental, equality, and Occupy groups? I have said it here before and I am not alone but am echoing progressives that if the IRS is targeting/ profiling groups it is 100% bullshit and needs to stop.

I will start here.

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopici03.pdf

Introduction Reg. 1. 501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(i) provides that:

[A]n organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of
social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some
way the common good and general welfare of the community.

Obviously the language of both the statute and the regulations comprehends a very broad category of organizations. As stated in the 1981 CPE text, Chapter G, "Social Welfare: What Does It Mean? How Much Private Benefit Is Permissible?"

Although the Service has been making an effort to refine
and clarify this area, IRC 501(c)(4) remains in some
degree a catch-all for presumptively beneficial non-profit
organizations that resist classification under the other
exempting provisions of the Code. Unfortunately, this
condition exists because "social welfare" is inherently an
abstruse concept that continues to defy precise definition.

· The general concept, however, can be expressed as follows:

Organizations that promote social welfare should primarily
promote the common good and general welfare of the
people of the community as a whole.

An organization that primarily benefits a private group of
citizens cannot qualify for IRC 501(c)(4) exempt status.

In Erie Endowment v. United States, 316 F.2d 151, 156 (2d Cir.
1963), the court, in defining a civic organization, summed up the
matter by stating that "the organization must be a community
movement designed to accomplish community ends."

[Bill Tozer]

Free speech rules!!

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/the-world-according-to-americans.png?w=494&h=326

[Todd Juvinall]

When I was at CABPRO we were constantly watched the morphing of speech by the left. They were "preservationists", then "environmentalists" then they finally settled on "conservationists". Of course we are the conservationists because of the on the ground practices but they decided to take the word and the lackey press was more than helpful. So whenever I see that I shake my head. Same with "global warming" and now we have the word "exploitation" of resources. As if we are causing slavery of resources for goodness sakes!

The word "gay" was co-opted and there are many more. All this to change people's perceptions on what words are exceptable to the PC world they are making. Mark Steyn was prosecuted for "bad" speech, criticizing some people or institutions up in Canada. I believe he won but the very idea of charging someone with bad or unacceptable speech (except vulgar) should be anathema here in America. I do my best to criticize the press when they use words in a PC way. Send them an email every time you read their crapola.

[Ryan Mount]

Mikey-

Thanks for that video. It's almost if he's Gordon Gecko in the flesh. I mean that in neither a negative or positive way. It is certainly disconcerting for anyone who like a centrally planned big state, and I suppose for them he is akin to Satan and dismiss him. And of course won't here 1/2 of what he says.

One thing you got to hand it to the Objectivists is that they take no prisoners and make no apologies, which seems to be inline with the philosophy.

I was very disappointed that he was cut off twice before getting to the topic of crony capitalism, which for me is the (note: definite article "the") issue of our time.

[George Rebane]

BenE 1023pm - I draw your attention to the main point of the post. The IRS 501c4 code has not changed for some decades, however its interpretation and application is now changing markedly since conservatives learned from liberals, and are now effectively using its provisions for their own 'educational' purposes. If you condone the current regime's actions, then you must make the case that the liberals' use of the code has complied with its spirit and letter, while the conservatives' use has not.

[Dai Meagher, CPA]

For what it’s worth, 501(c)(3) public charity organizations must report the names of donors that donate $5,000 or more during the year—but only if those donations are made in denominations of $1,000 or more. So ten payments of $500/year would not be reportable. The information is reportable to the IRS only and not the public.

So in my view, if the IRS were to rule that donations to 501(c)(4) entities should be disclosed, I believe it should follow the same reporting requirements for 501(c)(3).

With regard to the case that Ben cited—that case Erie Endowment v. United States the key aspects of that case that the IRS found the endowment fund was violating the excessive accumulation of wealth/income provision…and that even though the organization was a “charitable” organization...it was not a “civic” organization (a requirement for 501(c)(4) status. (Most people looking at the endowments disbursements would probably agree that the disbursements were not civic.)

RR readers might find this IRS publication useful reading: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicm95.pdf Beginning on page 2, examples of the “basis for exemption” is presented. Political education is one of those examples.

Regardless of what the IRS regulations are, our society depends upon a uniform and just enforcement. Misuse of the IRS as a political weapon should result in swift and harsh consequences—IMHO.

[Gregory]

Ryan, just in case you've not been exposed to it before... the Ayn Rand School for Tots segment of The Simpson's, complete with a Hitchcock cameo just in case you weren't sure of The Birds parody...

While Objectivists come to many conclusions I agree with, in general they seem to be the segment of Libertarians who can't carry a tune.

[Gregory]

The embed code for the clip didn't embed...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeUVPAyntCY

[Brad Croul]

I am no tax expert but PACs should probably file as 527 political organizations rather than 501 (c)(4) charities.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Political-Organizations

[Gregory]

"PACs should probably file as 527 political organizations rather than 501 (c)(4) charities" -Croul

A 501c4 isn't a "charity" under IRS rules and we're not talking about PACs.

"the organization must be a community
movement designed to accomplish community ends." -IRS

Right-conservatives' view of "community ends" are just as valid as left-liberals, and deserve to be treated the same as the left for 501c4 status.

[Paul Emery]

This is bad news for the Demonsters. It looks like the Repubs have begun cleaning House and pulling for the middle. The TP takeover of the Pubparty was a dream come true for the Dems but with the collapse of big business support it looks like the Party is over.

"WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) assailed conservative groups Thursday for opposing the latest budget deal, saying they had crossed a line and lost their credibility.

"This budget agreement takes giant steps in the right direction," Boehner said. "But when groups come out and criticize something they've never seen, you begin to wonder just how credible those actions are.........For the first time, Boehner acknowledged that these groups pushed Republicans into an unsuccessful strategy that he didn't favor. He expressed particular outrage that one of the groups later said it knew the shutdown strategy wasn't going to work.

"Are you kidding me?" Boehner shouted. "Frankly I think they're misleading their followers. I think they're pushing our members in places they don't want to be," he added. "And frankly I just think they've lost all credibility.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/boehner-conservative-groups_n_4433631.html

[Walt]

I guess I can attest to the idea of said topic.
I'm back,( for the moment....) on a barrowed box of microchips.
I must have hit an internet " land mine" in my travels.
I believed I was going to a pretty good "anti LIB" story.
Then my little buddy went into a death spin. A planted story, on a fake site. Yup,, it can happen to any of us.

My computer kid is having fits trying to remove whatever LIB generated disease it caught.

Just checking in,, and Happy Holidays to all.
With any luck I may be back in the game soon...

[Gerry Fedor]

Gee Walt, we keep telling you not to use your computer without a condom as you'll catch something that you'll regret later!

I was hoping you learned that in your HS public health class (but you needed to go thru and finish your 10th grade, so maybe not?).

Safe computing!

Feliz Navidad!