Tax Exempt Organizations and Political Activity - Should It Be Allowed?

[BoberFett]

Corporations aren't people! How many times do I have to say this?

A corporation includes many people with many different views and the corporations primary goal is to make a profit. The resources a company has comes from the work of individuals in the company, individuals with different political views, there is no opting out when a corporation wants to flex its political muscle. A corporation may benefit from a particular political issue and that may be in direct conflict to benefiting the individuals of that company. That's not right and its the same reason I say union members should be allowed to choose if they want their union dues going to political causes.

:sneaky:

 

[BoberFett]

Meh, don't even try arguing with ivwshane. Corporations bad, profits are evil, unions good, employees are saints. He has his ignorant preconceived notions and nothing will change them.

 

[Fern]

Funny when it is conservatives using 501c4 to conduct some social work related to political activities it is a bad thing.

When progressive labor unions use 501c5 status to actively promote political agendas, actively put measure on a ballot, and activity nominate/endorse/run people in elections it is a good thing.

Hrm....LOL.

Bingo!

That was really the point of this thread. But the ones who complained about (c)(4)'s have stayed away, except for the few that don't support unions in politics.

Might seem odd, but I'm generally OK with unions being able to lobby (but not contribute to campaigns directly). My primary objection is that they can take employee money and put it towards political policies whether the employees like it or not.

Fern

 

[Matt1970]

Corporations aren't people! How many times do I have to say this?

A corporation includes many people with many different views and the corporations primary goal is to make a profit. The resources a company has comes from the work of individuals in the company, individuals with different political views, there is no opting out when a corporation wants to flex its political muscle. A corporation may benefit from a particular political issue and that may be in direct conflict to benefiting the individuals of that company. That's not right and its the same reason I say union members should be allowed to choose if they want their union dues going to political causes.

I guess you don't know what an LLC is then.

 

[ivwshane]

Meh, don't even try arguing with ivwshane. Corporations bad, profits are evil, unions good, employees are saints. He has his ignorant preconceived notions and nothing will change them.

Don't bother arguing at all because you apparently lack reading comprehension. I made no such claims in my post.

Thanks for another add nothing to the discussion post, some day you will surpass your mentor, incorruptible.

 

[ivwshane]

I guess you don't know what an LLC is then.

That really doesn't change anything. Thanks

 

[ivwshane]

And the resources of the company never belong to the employees.



So protecting employees go against the interests of the employees

The employee is the fucking resource you idiot!

 

[ivwshane]

Well, I think your missing my point.

E.g., you and I can start corporation the only purpose of which is to pool our money together to run a political ad or promote a certain view.

The corp has no employees, no agenda of its own, no reason to exist other than to permit us to have a separate bank account. It uses no resources or infrastructure. It will not have any profit, it doesn't want or need any. It's an entirely different concept than the one you describe, yet they are both corporations under law.

Fern

How does that change anything? I know what the current law is, that doesn't mean I agree with it and I began this discussion as pretty much stating as such.

 

[ivwshane]

Bingo!

That was really the point of this thread. But the ones who complained about (c)(4)'s have stayed away, except for the few that don't support unions in politics.

Might seem odd, but I'm generally OK with unions being able to lobby (but not contribute to campaigns directly). My primary objection is that they can take employee money and put it towards politically policies whether the employees like it or not.

Fern

Be careful, I have the same position and I was called a corporate hating union lover. I wouldn't want you to be labled as such.

/rollseyes

 

[Fern]

How does that change anything?
-snip-

A corp as I described is a damn good reason to have it be tax exempt AND involved in political issues. That way less wealthy people can pool their money to have a louder a voice. I see no reason to only allow wealthy people to have that 'loud voice' just because they can write that big check all by themself.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

A corp as I described is a damn good reason to have it be tax exempt AND involved in political issues. That way less wealthy people can pool their money to have a louder a voice. I see no reason to only allow wealthy people to have that 'loud voice' just because they can write that big check all by themself.

Fern

I'm not following you. People, rich or poor, can already pool their resources to push their political agenda. Not allowing corporations to put money towards their political agenda doesn't change that fact.

What I find interesting is that you have a problem with unions using their money to push their political agenda if their members can't opt out of their money going towards those political policies and yet you don't make that same requirement/reasoning with corporations.

 

[Fern]

I'm not following you. People, rich or poor, can already pool their resources to push their political agenda.

My point is directed at those who claim that no tax exempt, or no corporations period, should be allowed to engage in political activity

What I find interesting is that you have a problem with unions using their money to push their political agenda if their members can't opt out of their money going towards those political policies and yet you don't make that same requirement/reasoning with corporations.

My example is a corp formed only to pool money of like minded people who are contributing soley to support a specific political policy.

You seem to be speaking of a 'regular' (for profit) corporation, a publicly held company, e.g., Apple Inc. When that SCOTUS ruling was announced I felt that those types of corporations were not going to engaged in general campaign politics, like supporting either Obama or McCain, because their shareholders, some of whom support Obama and others McCain, would object. I don't know how that has worked out but the last study I saw suggested they weren't contributing. (But if they were and I was a shareholder I'd be hella pissed off no matter which candidate they supported.)

Now privately or closely held corps is another matter. Some of those can be damned big, and if a single person or a family owns them I expect they could agree whom to support and would do so. (Note that such expenditures would NOT be deductible for income tax purposes.)

Some publicly held for-profit corporations certainly have legitimate business interests in influencing policy and I would expect them to pursue it. However, this is usually in the form of lobbying and that has nothing to do with the SCOTUS case. E.g., an oil company lobbying to open up federal lands for exploration; I don't see why a shareholder (or employee) would object to that. (Note that expenditures for lobbying are NOT deductible either.)

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

My point is directed at those who claim that no tax exempt, or no corporations period, should be allowed to engage in political activity



My example is a corp formed only to pool money of like minded people who are contributing soley to support a specific political policy.

You seem to be speaking of a 'regular' (for profit) corporation, a publicly held company, e.g., Apple Inc. When that SCOTUS ruling was announced I felt that those types of corporations were not going to engaged in general campaign politics, like supporting either Obama or McCain, because their shareholders, some of whom support Obama and others McCain, would object. I don't know how that has worked out but the last study I saw suggested they weren't contributing. (But if they were and I was a shareholder I'd be hella pissed off no matter which candidate they supported.)

Now privately or closely held corps is another matter. Some of those can be damned big, and if a single person or a family owns them I expect they could agree whom to support and would do so. (Note that such expenditures would NOT be deductible for income tax purposes.)

Some publicly held for-profit corporations certainly have legitimate business interests in influencing policy and I would expect them to pursue it. However, this is usually in the form of lobbying and that has nothing to do with the SCOTUS case. E.g., an oil company lobbying to open up federal lands for exploration; I don't see why a shareholder (or employee) would object to that. (Note that expenditures for lobbying are NOT deductible either.)

Fern

Well shit! It sounds like we are in agreement! Now what the fuck are we going to do?

 

[Fern]

Well shit! It sounds like we are in agreement! Now what the fuck are we going to do?

I'm crawling under my desk. I'm expecting a rift in the space-time continuum any minute now.

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

DERP!

I'm sorry, I don't speak moronican.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm sorry, I don't speak moronican.

You apparently don't speak English very well either.

 

[lagokc]

How would we determine a church's taxable income? Given that a large portion of churches' missions is charity, would this not be an expense?

Anything they spend can get written off as a business expense. Any money they save in profit (and the Catholic and Mormon churches have vast accounts) should be taxed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Funny when it is conservatives using 501c4 to conduct some social work related to political activities it is a bad thing.

When progressive labor unions use 501c5 status to actively promote political agendas, actively put measure on a ballot, and activity nominate/endorse/run people in elections it is a good thing.

Hrm....LOL.

Unions do so above board. Membership, officers & contributions over $5K are matters of public record. In most states, if not all, represented employees can choose to not pay for political activities, as well. That can't be said of corporate shareholders, many of whose interests are indirect, thru the mutual funds in their retirement plans.

Conservative tax-exempts operate entirely differently. Enormous funds are put in quite anonymously, tax exempt, run through what is a money laundering machine, and it comes out miraculously clean, as if it just fell from the sky like manna from heaven.

Astroturfin' the Tea Party is just a part of it.

The answer, of course, is to demand that all non-profits divulge the source of all monies above a few thousand dollars. The Horror!

 

[Patranus]

Unions do so above board. Membership, officers & contributions over $5K are matters of public record.

And the money unions extort out of people FORCED to join their ranks?

 

[Patranus]

FYI
Kaiser Permanente is a 501c3 and had $1.6 billion in net income.
Ikea is setup as a charatable organization.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Unions do so above board. Membership, officers & contributions over $5K are matters of public record. In most states, if not all, represented employees can choose to not pay for political activities, as well. That can't be said of corporate shareholders, many of whose interests are indirect, thru the mutual funds in their retirement plans.

Conservative tax-exempts operate entirely differently. Enormous funds are put in quite anonymously, tax exempt, run through what is a money laundering machine, and it comes out miraculously clean, as if it just fell from the sky like manna from heaven.

Astroturfin' the Tea Party is just a part of it.

The answer, of course, is to demand that all non-profits divulge the source of all monies above a few thousand dollars. The Horror!

Financial disclosure???? Have you gone mad. /satire

 

[Jhhnn]

And the money unions extort out of people FORCED to join their ranks?

Not that bullshit again. Shops are unionized under democratic principles, with elections supervised by the govt. Their officers are democratically elected. People are no more forced to join than they are to have a job at a particular employer.

Which has zero to do with the difference between political spending by Unions and political spending by astroturfed shadow conservative groups.

 

[Jhhnn]

FYI
Kaiser Permanente is a 501c3 and had $1.6 billion in net income.
Ikea is setup as a charatable organization.

So what?

 

[Incorruptible]

Not that bullshit again. Shops are unionized under democratic principles, with elections supervised by the govt. Their officers are democratically elected. People are no more forced to join than they are to have a job at a particular employer.

Which has zero to do with the difference between political spending by Unions and political spending by astroturfed shadow conservative groups.

Funny that you don't have a problem with liberal and progressive/jihadist groups.

 

[Bowfinger]

Funny that you don't have a problem with liberal and progressive/jihadist groups.

Yay! Somebody taught Inconsequential a new word. "Hello twits and tools. Can you say jihadist? Sure. I knew you could."