Durbin, Franken, Schumer use intimidation tactics
If anything’s clear about the Democratic Party, it’s that they won’t hesitate in intimidating their political opponents. Recently, Sen. Dick Durbin tried bullying some conservative organizations:
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois thinks the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups hasn’t gone far enough, and he wants to help. He’s doing some bullying of his own.
Mr. Durbin wrote to hundreds of corporate and foundation supporters of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a nonprofit organization that advances conservative policies in the state legislatures, demanding they tell him where they stand on Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law. “Although ALEC does not maintain a public list of corporate members or donors,” he wrote, “other public documents indicate that your company funded ALEC at some point during the period between ALEC’s adoption of model ‘stand your ground’ legislation in 2005 and the present day.…I am seeking clarification whether organizations that have funded ALEC’s operations in the past currently support ALEC and the model ‘stand your ground’ legislation.”
That’s off-limits and Sen. Durbin knows it:
Mr. Durbin’s bullying recalls the bullying of the NAACP during the civil rights struggles in the South. In 1956, the state of Alabama tried to force disclosure of the group’s members, knowing that many of them would feel threatened if their names became public knowledge. The Supreme Court intervened. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice John Marshall Harlan declared that “this Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations .” He agreed that making the names public would expose them to “economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of physical hostility.” Similar economic reprisal is what the senator suggests, and not so subtly, with his letter.
Sen. Durbin isn’t the only Democrat to threaten and intimidate conservative organizations. Check out this letter from Democratic senators Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall and Jeanne Shaheen. At the top of the letterhead is this threatening line:
Senators Seek To End Tax Code Abuse By Political Groups Masquerading As ‘Social Welfare Organizations’
This letter was sent to the IRS. Here’s one of these Democrats’ ‘suggestions’:
First, we urge the IRS to adopt a bright line test in applying its “primary purpose” regulation that is consistent with the Code’s 501(c)(4) exclusivity language. The IRS currently only requires that the purpose of these non-profits be “primarily” related to social welfare activities, without defining what “primarily” means. This standard should be spelled out more fully by the IRS. Some have suggested 51 percent as an appropriate threshold for establishing that a nonprofit is adhering to its mission, but even this number would seem to allow for more political election activity than should be permitted under the law. In the absence of clarity in the administration of section 501(c)(4), organizations are tempted to abuse its vagueness, or worse, to organize under section 501(c)(4) so that they may avail themselves of its advantages even though they are not legitimate social welfare organizations. If the IRS does not adopt a bright line test, or if it adopts one that is inconsistent with the Code’s exclusivity language, then we plan to pursue legislation codifying such a test.
This letter from these senators gives the IRS the political cover they need to harass conservative organizations’ (c)(4) applications.
Second, such organizations should be further obligated to document in their 990 IRS form the exact percentage of their undertakings dedicated to “social welfare.” Organizations should be required to “show their math” to demonstrate that political election activities and other statutorily limited or prohibited activities do not violate the “primary purpose” regulation.
The IRS 990 form isn’t a public document. It’s confidential for the reasons stated in the NAACP vs. Alabama Supreme Court decision.
These Democrats’ actions proves that they won’t hesitate in intimidating legitimate organizations. They’re proof of the Democrats’ culture of corruption. Over the last 4 years, 292 conservative organizations have applied for exempt status. It isn’t that these applications have been rejected. It’s that they’ve been held so that these organizations can’t even appeal the rulings.
Despite this activity, Acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel, an Obama appointee, testified that the IRS hasn’t engaged in political warfare. At this point, with this amount of evidence, why should anyone believe them?
Comments welcome at Let Freedom Ring.