Enemies of Friends of Abe - How the IRS chills freedom of association.

[Ubiquitous]

These days "IRS Targets Conservative Group" is a dog-bites-man story.
But this one was man-bites-dog by virtue of its placement: on the
front page of the New York Times, a newspaper that is usually
supportive of this administration's efforts to suppress domestic
dissent. Put it down to a sudden outbreak of news judgment.

The news value to the Times may lie more in the nature of the
organization than its trouble with the IRS. "In a famously left-
leaning Hollywood, where Democratic fund-raisers fill the social
calendar, Friends of Abe stands out as a conservative group that
bucks the prevailing political winds," reads the lead paragraph.

But Friends of Abe--as in Lincoln--has sought nonprofit status under
Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Tax Code, which would allow it to
collect tax-deductible contributions. The IRS has been reviewing the
application for some two years, seeking information about meetings
where politicians spoke. A 501(c)(3) is prohibited from engaging in
campaign activity, such as hosting a fundraiser, but as the Times
notes, "tax-exempt groups are permitted to invite candidates to speak
at events."

The most troubling revelation in the Times account is that at one
point the IRS "included a demand--which was not met--for enhanced
access to the group's security-protected website, which would have
revealed member names." The Times points out that FOA "keeps a low
profile and fiercely protects its membership list, to avoid what it
presumes would result in a sort of 21st-century blacklist" and that
"tax experts said that an organization's membership list is
information that would not typically be required."

With the possible exception of academia, show business is about as
totalitarian a subculture as you will find in America. Conservatives
are a tiny minority, and they fear for their livelihoods if exposed.
A few high-profile celebrities are exceptions--the Times mentions
Gary Sinise, Jon Voight, Kelsey Grammer and Lionel Chetwynd--but for
lesser-known actors and people who work in off-camera jobs,
confidentiality is crucial.

This column obtained a letter that Jeremey Boreing, FOA's executive
director, sent members last week in response to the Times story. Its
tone demonstrates how seriously the group takes its members' privacy:

At one point, as we were pushing to get the situation
resolved, the IRS asked for access to those portions of
our website that contain the names of our members. We
refused to give them this access, and we will continue to
refuse it.

At present, that is no longer one of the demands that they
are making. . . .

We will not name names in Hollywood--not for the New York
Times and not for the IRS. If the day should come that the
IRS makes seeing the list an essential demand for our
determination, we will simply remove our request for
exemption and structure the organization in a different
manner. This office will never reveal the names of our
members, and we ask that none of our members reveal their
fellows either.

We should note that, true to his word, Boreing names no names in the
letter.

FOA members have good reason to fear being identified to the IRS.
Last year the agency was revealed to have leaked confidential donor
information about the National Organization for Marriage to the Human
Rights Campaign, an antagonist in the debate over same-sex marriage.
HRC promptly posted the purloined information online.
LifeSiteNews.com reported in October that congressional investigators
had identified the leaker, "but in an ironic twist, the Internal
Revenue Service is forbidden from disclosing whether the employee has
been prosecuted, fired, or even reprimanded."

The IRS's intrusive tactics thus have a chilling effect on people who
wish to exercise their First Amendment right of free association
without attracting public attention--or, more precisely, the
attention of vicious ideological antagonists. Even calling attention
to those tactics can compound the problem, as illustrated by FOA's
need to reassure its members in the wake of the Times story. The
gradual accretion of power by a vast administrative state, combined
with an administration intolerant of dissent, has produced a clear
and present danger to basic American freedoms.

--
"We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends"
-- Barack "Dear Ruler" Obama

[SPD]

Actual tax law applying to these groups, you fucking dimwit, is no political
activity. As in none, zero.


"Ubiquitous" <web...@polaris.net> wrote in message
news:lcas17$bhq$3...@dont-email.me...