Frameshop: Donohue Smear of Edwards May Violate 501(c)(3) Laws

DONOHUE MAY HAVE BROKEN LAW PROHIBITING INTERVENTION IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS

According to United States law governing the behavior of 501(c)(3) organizations, it seems highly likely that William Donohue--President of the Catholic League, a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization--may have broken the law by attempting to intervene in a political campaign.

The IRS document Organizational Test – IRC 501(c)(3) (link opens PDF file) states explicitly that an organization with this tax exempt status cannot intervene in a political campaign.

Despite the legal restrictions on his organization, Donohue appears to be using the Catholic League to campaign against John Edwards bid for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President, in particular the IRS strict prohibition for 501(c)(3)'s on "issue advocacy" as a form of political  intervention.

Beyond Donahue's appearances on broadcast media, during which he has spoken out against the John Edwards campaign, The Catholic League which Donahue used its 501(c)(3) non-profit status website to publish the following Press Release that included this explicit attempt to intervene in a political campaign:

Catholic League president Bill Donohue is demanding that presidential hopeful John Edwards fire two recently hired anti-Catholics who have joined his team: Amanda Marcotte as Blogmaster and Melissa McEwan as the Netroots Coordinator.

The IRS information page "Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations" describes a variety of types of "political campaign intervention" that violate an organization's 501(c)(3) status.

The most relevant to Donohue's attempt to intervene in the 2008 Presidential campaign appears to be this section on "Issue Advocacy":

Under federal tax law, section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office.  However, section 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention.  Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate.  A statement can identify a candidate not only by stating the candidate’s name but also by other means such as showing a picture of the candidate, referring to political party affiliations, or other distinctive features of a candidate’s platform or biography.   All the facts and circumstances need to be considered to determine if the advocacy is political campaign intervention.

Now, there is no question that Donohue was attempting to intervene in the Edwards campaign using the resources of The Catholic League.  That is very clear.  The only question is whether the attempt to smear Amanda Marcotte  and Melissa McEwan as "anti-Catholic" can be seen as an attempt to advocate against John Edwards.

In other words, by using The Catholic League to attack two members of Edwards' staff as "anti-Catholic," was Bill Donohue effectively telling Americans not to vote for John Edwards in the 2008 Democratic primaries and the 2008 Presidential elections?

The simple answer seems to be "yes."  Donohue did violate the restrictions of the 501(c)(3), the only way he could have not violated the law would have been (A) to not have demanded changes in the Edwards campaign staff, (B) to have criticized the individuals in the Edwards campaign, but not link that criticism to the campaign, and (C) to not have used the resources of The Catholic League (e.g., to make this campaign Bill Donahue's personal opnions separate from the 501(c)(3) organization he is paid $300,000 per year to head).

Bill Donohue,  of course, has every right according to the U.S. Constitution to use speech as a tactic for intervening in and attempting to influence a political campaign.  He does not, however, have the right to use his tax exempt organization to assist him in that task.

To do so is not only wrong, it is illegal.

©  2007 Jeffrey Feldman, Frameshop

Comments

[illyia]

Jeffrey. There is a very serious debate going on dKos regards impeachment. As this is an extremely important subject, the approach needs some framework. You are the guy.

Major Danby wrote a piece, re Digby's exposure of Cheney's rejection of oversight by either executive or legislative branches, and found impeachment cause. Naturally, democrats are heading in all sorts of directions; some relevant, some not so much.

A good, working, public-policy oriented frame must be developed in order to communicate Major Danby's ideas. Perhaps his efforts could be captured in a way that is less confusing to the sixty-second mind.

Please do look up his post (currently overwhelming the site) and give this issue some thought. While I do understand that your efforts are on the concept of framing - this, here, is a "real life" project... something to "hang your hat on".

Besides. You know what you are talking about.

Thanks,
illyia

[illyia]

For easy location I have posted the link.

[lespool]

With an overwhelming need to monopolize God, Christian fundamentalists are once ‎again attempting to destroy democracy --- with a homosexually obsessed deity no less. At ‎the expense of taxpayers, religions have become tax-exempt havens for politically ‎inclined politicians with political agendas that have nothing to do with one's faith or our ‎personal, unique beliefs in god. Of course, religions are free to espouse political opinions ‎and rally around politicians like everyone else. --- But just like everyone else they are no ‎longer non-profit organizations that are exempt from paying taxes. ‎

I might also mention that the IRS forbids non-profits the right to discriminate against ‎anyone on the basis on sex, race, creed … so on and so forth. --- And yet while the ‎Catholic Church protects pedophile priests they blatantly discriminate against women, ‎refusing to ordain her into priesthood. The IRS can stop these faith-based shams from ‎ministering their evil prejudice by demanding that religions either evolve and fully comply with the ‎regulations required of non-profits or lose their tax-exempt status. --- And that includes ‎religions daring to revere a god that discriminates against homosexuals.‎

[The Flying Fascist]

Good research. Now if the IRS would do something about it...

[Dennis D]

Its clear Mr Donahue was attacking specific Anti Catholic Statements made by Specific Edwards Bloggers. Clearly in defense of his religion. Not in attack of John Edwards. Clearly the statements made my Amanda Marcotte in her blog were offensive. Its Mr Donahues JOB to defend the church.

[Dennis D]

Secular Liberal Jews Attacking Christians. Priceless scum you are.

[Bryan J. Scrafford]

Even though it does appear as though Donohue broke the law, I highly doubt that anything will actually be done about it. The main reason I say this is that the ultra-right wing agenda that is being pushed by the organization is obviously liked by the core of the Republican Party. I therefore doubt that they will let anything happen.

I also don't see the Edwards campaign as pursuing this anymore because it could very easily cause them to receive even more criticism. Therefore, as illegal as Donohue's actions might have been, I highly doubt this will be pursued vigorously -- at least now until the story isn't receiving as much media attention.

[Spartakus]

Dennis, here are a couple of Bill Donohue gems:

"Just imagine if a white guy is performing oral sex on a statue of Martin Luther King with an erection. Do you need to see it to know it's ugly?"

"The gay community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done."

Is that what you call defending the Church? For my money, Bill Donohue has made a name for himself (a career, even) from spouting nonsense that is more offensive by orders of magnitude than anything Amanda Marcotte may have written.

[j swift]

Mr. Donohue's "job" at least as he appears to see it is to be a hypocritical demogogue. He is not protecting anything except his politics. His politics informs his Christianity not the other way around.

So does anyone know if a complaint has been filed with the IRS yet?

[Karen Schell]

"Its clear Mr Donahue was attacking specific Anti Catholic Statements made by Specific Edwards Bloggers. Clearly in defense of his religion. Not in attack of John Edwards. Clearly the statements made my Amanda Marcotte in her blog were offensive. Its Mr Donahues JOB to defend the church."

Spot on. He, the organization and the Catholic Church itself was/is under constant and crude attack by bigots under Edwards employ. Marcotte should thank her lucky stars that her vicious attacks on Catholics are not covered by hate crime/hate speech laws.

Marcotte writes like an emotionally disturbed jr. highschool girl; not possessing even the basic skill of being able to put together one sentence without "F-this, F-that, F-everything".

It's hard to feel sad for the situation she decided to make for herself. But it is sad that Marcotte is totally unable to realize the fact that she herself wrote the things that got her canned.

Like many, if not most, on the left, Marcotte is unwilling to take any responsibility for her own words and actions. The problem is when her Peter Pan world meets the real world - where actions & words have consequences.

Hopefully someday Marcotte may grow up, take personal responsibility for her words and actions. Otherwise a life long gig of asking people "Do you want fries with that?" is pretty much all she can expect from life.

KS

[JF]

Sorry, Karen. What's "clear" is that Bill Donohue is an embarrassment to American Catholics--which I learned from reading the pages of the well-respected magazine America: The National Catholic Weekly. Among other things, Dononhue once led a "civil" rights campaign against an onion soup ad.

Take a look at this post:

http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/frameshop/2007/02/frameshop_donoh.html

[JF]

Dennis D:

I doubt Republicans want to become the party that obsesses over "the Jewish Problem," but if you want to learn how to argue that case better, I suggest reading the The International Jew, which is where Donohue draws most of his arguments.

If, by contrast, you're actually interested in the history of anti-Catholicism in America, the experts on that subject point to American Protestants as the source of that dynamic.

[Jill]

The Administration and the Justice Department might not want to address the tax issues, but can't we as citizens file reports? If enough of us do it, don't they HAVE to investigate?

Wait, never mind. This is the Bush Years. I already know the answer. :(

[Mark S.]

He, the organization and the Catholic Church itself was/is under constant and crude attack by bigots under Edwards employ.

Had you even heard of the two bloggers in question before a week ago? Somehow, the Catholic Church was holding up despite these "constant and crude attacks."

Marcotte should thank her lucky stars that her vicious attacks on Catholics are not covered by hate crime/hate speech laws.

Not in this country.

[pseudonymous in nc]

Karen Schell is a vintage troll. Ignore her.

Its Mr Donahues JOB to defend the church.

Hmm. For which he pays himself a cool $300k per year: a dollar for every one of his claimed membership roll, and over ten percent of its annual revenues. Never mind that it's a fraction of a percent of the total number of Catholics in the US, most of whom shield their eyes from him in embarrassment.

In fact, it's the job of quite different people to 'defend the church'. They're called 'priests', 'bishops' and 'archbishops'. (They're quite easy to spot in a crowd.) Anyone called them up to see if they're a-okay with Donohue's more recent rants?

[C.]

Someone should investigate what Donahue does with his $300K! Does he keep one or more mistresses and go on Asian sex tours? Men with that much hatred for women's reproductive health are invariably perps of one kind or another.

[Regular Joe]

My God, you are out of your mind. What the IRSspeak means is that a 501(c)(3) cannot openly take positions as to a candidate for office. In this situation the question is simple: did the Catholic League tell people TO VOTE FOR/NOT TO VOTE FOR John Edwards?

The answer is clearly NO. In fact Mr. Donohoe said kind words about Edwards, he only criticized his flame-throwers.

I know the nonprofit world reasonably well and am quite confident that Donohoe broke no law or regulation. My advice is to get over this thing.

[JF]

That's a very bold dismissal. Well done.

But I'm not going to "get over" an organization that incites its followers into making death threats against those who disagree with them. I appreciate your interpretation of the regulations--but not your attitude towards a man who endangered the lives of two young women. Progressives have ignored these threats far too long. But no more.

[John Morris]

I just found your sight. Finally found otherpeople who also see the trainwreck coming.

[JF]

Welcome to Frameshop, John!

[goofticket]

The moron's who defend the white racist Dohahue for protecting his faith, fail to realize or accept the bloogers' writings had nothing to do with Edwards. The actual blogs were their own, personal blogs they already had going for years before joing Edwards.

Nothing was ever posted on Edward's website, as Donahue claimed.

But the facts are to wasily missed for the supporters of Donahue. Catholic? We that roo is just a wrod he uses. No official endorsment , nor any legal link to the actual church.

Do a google on thie William Donahue's statements and see what hate speech is all about.
This SOB is a real jew hater. Hitler could only have had a guy like this in his ranks.
His devotees, like Joe Lieberman, who penned an article supporting Donahue's view is alsp all over the internet.
A jew supporting a jew hater!
There is logic with the fringe militant religious right.

[sarah]

Please tell me why so many Jewish folks are such left wingers? I dont get it
Dont they know that left wingers are the most vicious and decietful people for the most part?
Sure they might try to look good by destroying so called right wingers but left wingers are the facists. They want to destroy anyone who disagrees with them. They are going to destroy this country and folks just follow along blindly