Michael Moore spoke in Seattle last night as part of his so-called Slackers Tour. The event was sponsored by Foolproof Performing Arts, which describes itself as "a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. All donations are fully tax-deductible.".
"Foolproof" does not mean the same thing as "IRS-proof". The organization appears to be in flagrant violation of federal tax regulations that prohibit non-profit organizations from engaging in political activity
If the debate or forum shows a preference for or against a certain candidate, however, it becomes a prohibited activity.I recently mailed this written complaint to the IRS Criminal Investigation unit alleging Foolproof Performing Arts' abuse of its non-profit status. I look forward to the federal tax court's ruling whether Michael Moore's Slackers Tour shows a preference for one candidate or another.
I suspect I had something to do with the decision of the Seattle city government cable television channel to (quietly) back off from broadcasting the Michael Moore speech. Astonishing as it sounds, the city government was about to go ahead and violate various city, state and federal laws to use public facilities in order to broadcast Moore's speech, which was obviously intended to help the Kerry campaign. I complained, and a few days later the city cable channel appears to have pulled Moore from the schedule.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 20, 2004 10:24 AMyou rock, man.
Posted by: jase on October 20, 2004 11:23 AMGood Job!
Posted by: Paul on October 20, 2004 12:29 PMYou're activism is much appreciated and not at all consist with the usual citizen activist confronting the city of Seattle.
These self styled citizen activists demand an expansion of government. And Seattle government, like many large cities held captive by the left, is only to happy to oblige.
Posted by: Gary B on October 20, 2004 02:08 PMGood job, Mr. Shark. I hope you'll show the same level of activism with the Churches supporting Bush.
Posted by: Simon on October 20, 2004 04:23 PMSimon
If you're upset with "Churches supporting Bush", alert the IRS.
Posted by: Gary B on October 20, 2004 06:42 PMI am sure Simon is also outraged at black churches supporting Kerry, right?
Posted by: Kevin P. on October 20, 2004 07:31 PM"Churches" are not (always or automatically) 501(c)(3)s, Simon.
It's legal for churches to back candidates, from all the evidence I can find (at least as long as the church is not a 501(c)(3)).
You may wish to remember that, as Kevin says, many churches have a decades-long tradition of supporting Democrat candidates. Do you suppose that this is actually illegal and nobody, at the campaign level, has said anything about it out of mere niceness?
Posted by: Sigivald on October 21, 2004 09:41 AMExcuse me Simon, but the Association of Washington Churches is one of the most influential liberal lobbying groups in Olympia.
They support Democrats in droves, both finanically and through their congregations.
What? You mean only certain candidates can be supported and endorsed by people and others can't? OK. Got it now.
Hypocrite.
Posted by: jimg on October 21, 2004 11:58 AMThe Association of Washington Churches is not a church.
I am not aware of any priest saying, during a religious service, that the congregation should vote for Kerry. There are, however, documented cases of priests saying that to be a good Christian, you must vote for Bush. There have been priests publically stating that it would be a sin to vote for Kerry because of his abortion stance.
Churches, in general, are tax-exempt under a different part of the IRS code, having to do with the separation of church and state. Churches are forbidden from backing a particular candidate if they want to maintain their tax-exempt status.
I'm for equal application of the law regardless of party affiliation. If you will read my first post, you will see I supported Mr Shark's activism in bringing a Democrat-supporting group to the attention of the IRS. I have no idea why so many people responded negatively to my call to hold Republican-supporting groups to the same standard. Seems top me jimg is the hypocrite.
Posted by: Simon on October 23, 2004 05:01 PM