Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud(bitsaboutmoney.com) |
Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud(bitsaboutmoney.com) |
No one expects the US court system or US attorneys general to act apolitically. The Obama administration extensively used the IRS to target Republicans as such. If you don’t want to be prosecuted for illegal conduct, you should not do illegal things. Alternatively, you could arrange to never lose elections so that your friends are always in power.
You may be right, but you have to remember that the SPLC was motivated purely by political motives.
FAFO.
"Political" motives are inappropriate for the federal government.
What would the maximally charitable but in contact with reality [Republican|Democrat] expect or want out of this?
I’m not sure what the law could and should be in this case, but I suspect it’s woefully underspeced to the chagrin of most parties.
Hence, bank/wire fraud.
I was personally feeling like the law is too broad and being weaponized against them until the bits about SPLC and allies trying to cut banking access to a Political Action Committee were dropped (it shouldn't matter whose). That's quite beyond the pale for any pro-democratic institution.
"Private actors" is doing quite a bit of work here.
For individuals working in their personal capacity, you're mostly correct. The rules change for certain jobs.
BUT that's not the situation here. In this case, we have the SPLC - a registered 501(c)(3) - that appears to have worked to censor political adversaries. And the law specifically bars that, making it illegal.
> 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. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Ref: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
Unless Patrick is wrong. The end of his post asks for comment from the relevant organizations so they could easily address this one.
(That's not to say SPLC couldn't have fucked up and crossed the line, just that the general description given upthread of what they were doing did not in fact describe a violation of law).
In the post, Patrick demonstrates that the SPLC cofounded and led Change the Terms (CTT) then goes on to demonstrate CTT targeted a specific political candidate's fundraising. The first is fine, the second is illegal.
Check out the section titled "July 2021: The CTT coalition attempts non-partisan interdiction of Trump PAC fundraising" for specific quotes and even a picture of a mobile billboard they funded.
That is neither "ideologies" nor "party definitions"
It should be, for what it's worth.
But the DOJ wouldn't touch those charges though as they're civil (IRS under Treasury) and the criminal charges could be fatal to the org by themselves.
Though, regardless of the criminal outcome, if the facts in the indictment are proven, I'd wager the IRS' case is proven implicitly which could also be fatal.
Again, I encourage you to read Patrick's post, specifically the section titled "July 2021: The CTT coalition attempts non-partisan interdiction of Trump PAC fundraising" where it describes their direct involvement against a single, specific candidate's PAC.
You could make the claim "well, technically he wasn't a candidate at that time" but considering the PAC was a registered FEC entity raising money for campaign rallies, that argument is weak at best and absurd in reality.