![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mmcirvinApparently the IRS is going after the NAACP on the grounds that a speech by Julian Bond that criticized administration policy constituted anti-Bush campaign activity, forbidden by the group's 501(c)(3) status.
I thought I was going to catch the IRS pulling a big tasty double standard here, but I haven't (though I agree with Bond that springing this now seems awfully Nixonian). As it happens, lots of really overtly Republican organizations are 501(c)s, including the NRA, and lots of little groups that are basically stealth versions of 527s. However, that article is frustratingly nonspecific: it turns out that most of these aren't 501(c)(3) groups, which seem to have the most restrictive limits on political activity of all the various flavors of 501(c). The NRA is a 501(c)(4), though their kids' gun safety campaign is a 501(c)(3). Maybe the NAACP ought to be classified under a different subsection.
I thought I was going to catch the IRS pulling a big tasty double standard here, but I haven't (though I agree with Bond that springing this now seems awfully Nixonian). As it happens, lots of really overtly Republican organizations are 501(c)s, including the NRA, and lots of little groups that are basically stealth versions of 527s. However, that article is frustratingly nonspecific: it turns out that most of these aren't 501(c)(3) groups, which seem to have the most restrictive limits on political activity of all the various flavors of 501(c). The NRA is a 501(c)(4), though their kids' gun safety campaign is a 501(c)(3). Maybe the NAACP ought to be classified under a different subsection.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-31 08:04 am (UTC)I've added you to the journals I read daily. Also
Crazy(but trying to be of good cheer)Soph
no subject
Date: 2004-10-31 01:18 pm (UTC)