Non-profit organizations and tax-exempt status

[A18]

I say no. Of course, I would not grant them tax-exempt status in the first place, but penalizing organizations for political endorsements and activity is an obvious and, in my view, tyrannical infringement upon freedom of speech.

[MODU]

It is a tough call.  For the most part, tax-exempt organizations aren't involved in politics.  However, if an issue which that organization represents is brought up in a political debate, they have the right to chime in and state their position.  For that level of activity, I do not see why they should be penalized.  Now, if the organization begins to campaign on behalf of someone, then I would agree that they have overextended themselves.

[adam]

I say no. Of course, I would not grant them tax-exempt status in the first place, but penalizing organizations for political endorsements and activity is an obvious and, in my view, tyrannical infringement upon freedom of speech.

Agreed.

[MasterJedi]

I say no. Of course, I would not grant them tax-exempt status in the first place, but penalizing organizations for political endorsements and activity is an obvious and, in my view, tyrannical infringement upon freedom of speech.

Agreed.

Yep

[Gabu]

I say no. Of course, I would not grant them tax-exempt status in the first place, but penalizing organizations for political endorsements and activity is an obvious and, in my view, tyrannical infringement upon freedom of speech.

Whose freedom of speech?

Any individual working for a non-profit organization is more than free to voice his or her personal opinions with his or her own money.

[A18]

I say no. Of course, I would not grant them tax-exempt status in the first place, but penalizing organizations for political endorsements and activity is an obvious and, in my view, tyrannical infringement upon freedom of speech.

Whose freedom of speech?

Any individual working for a non-profit organization is more than free to voice his or her personal opinions with his or her own money.

The freedom of speech encompasses the right of collective speech.

[Nym90]

Yes, I think they should. If an organization engages in partisan activity or endorsements, they shouldn't be tax exempt.

I also don't see how revoking their tax exempt status amounts to an abridgement of freedom of speech. Just because a group has to pay taxes doesn't mean they aren't still free to express their views.

[A18]

I also don't see how revoking their tax exempt status amounts to an abridgement of freedom of speech. Just because a group has to pay taxes doesn't mean they aren't still free to express their views.

To take away a large portion of one's income unless one agrees to shut up is unquestionably an abridgment of one's freedom of speech.

It is no answer to say that the person or organization may still speak. Of course, a person, having free will and a body, can always as a physical matter do anything with it that one pleases.

What is important is that the government, by threat of coercion, is blackmailing non-profit organizations into silence.

[Nym90]

I also don't see how revoking their tax exempt status amounts to an abridgement of freedom of speech. Just because a group has to pay taxes doesn't mean they aren't still free to express their views.

To take away a large portion of one's income unless one agrees to shut up is unquestionably an abridgment of one's freedom of speech.

It is no answer to say that the person or organization may still speak. Of course, a person, having free will and a body, can always as a physical matter do anything with it that one pleases.

What is important is that the government, by threat of coercion, is blackmailing non-profit organizations into silence.

I'd argue that removal of a special privledge that most do not have doesn't equate to punishment.

Unless you are now arguing that all taxes are an abridgement of freedom of speech.

[MODU]

But the problem is, if they represent the issue of debate, do they then not have the right to chime in to counter a point without risk to losing their status?  Like I said, if they aren't endorsing someone or turning their facility over for campaign rallies, they shouldn't lose their status.

[A18]

I also don't see how revoking their tax exempt status amounts to an abridgement of freedom of speech. Just because a group has to pay taxes doesn't mean they aren't still free to express their views.

To take away a large portion of one's income unless one agrees to shut up is unquestionably an abridgment of one's freedom of speech.

It is no answer to say that the person or organization may still speak. Of course, a person, having free will and a body, can always as a physical matter do anything with it that one pleases.

What is important is that the government, by threat of coercion, is blackmailing non-profit organizations into silence.

I'd argue that removal of a special privledge that most do not have doesn't equate to punishment.

Unless you are now arguing that all taxes are an abridgement of freedom of speech.

All taxes are coercive, but if the coercion is applied without favoritism, they can not be used for effective social engineering, providing incentivizing one thing, and disincentivizing another.

Your position is absolutely astonishing. By this 'logic' of yours, a government would not curtail the freedom of speech by revoking tax-exempt status for taking certain positions on given issues.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No (R)

[Nym90]

I also don't see how revoking their tax exempt status amounts to an abridgement of freedom of speech. Just because a group has to pay taxes doesn't mean they aren't still free to express their views.

To take away a large portion of one's income unless one agrees to shut up is unquestionably an abridgment of one's freedom of speech.

It is no answer to say that the person or organization may still speak. Of course, a person, having free will and a body, can always as a physical matter do anything with it that one pleases.

What is important is that the government, by threat of coercion, is blackmailing non-profit organizations into silence.

I'd argue that removal of a special privledge that most do not have doesn't equate to punishment.

Unless you are now arguing that all taxes are an abridgement of freedom of speech.

All taxes are coercive, but if the coercion is applied without favoritism, they can not be used for effective social engineering, providing incentivizing one thing, and disincentivizing another.

Your position is absolutely astonishing. By this 'logic' of yours, a government would not curtail the freedom of speech by revoking tax-exempt status for taking certain positions on given issues.

I would have no problem with tax exempt organizations getting involved in advocacy of political positions, but not the election or defeat of specific candidates. They should be permitted to influence how people think about issues, but not to attempt to influence how they vote.

And again, I see tax exempt status as a privilege, and thus it is perfectly acceptable to set certain conditions upon the receipt of this privileged status, one of those being that such organizations should not be attempting to directly influence the makeup of the government which is granting them that privilege.

[A18]

Well, it's a bit of a stretch to speak of a 'privilege' to keep your own money, rather than having it taken from you, though it's true they are receiving special treatment.

The bottom line is that the government is using coercion to suppress speech. But even if we were talking about a subsidy, rather than a tax exemption, it would still be using taxpayer money, collected from the public at large, and using it to convince groups not to speak. You might as well argue that conditioning the receipt of welfare benefits on a promise not to criticize the president would not amount to an infringement upon freedom of speech.

[Nym90]

Well, it's a bit of a stretch to speak of a 'privilege' to keep your own money, rather than having it taken from you, though it's true they are receiving special treatment.

The bottom line is that the government is using coercion to suppress speech. But even if we were talking about a subsidy, rather than a tax exemption, it would still be using taxpayer money, collected from the public at large, and using it to convince groups not to speak. You might as well argue that conditioning the receipt of welfare benefits on a promise not to criticize the president would not amount to an infringement upon freedom of speech.

If it truly was earned soley by you with absolutely no help from anyone else or with any assistance directly or indirectly by any of the institutions of government, the "it's my money" logic would make far more sense. But that's not true of anyone's money in the United States today. I realize we have a philosophical difference on that issue, but I think that helps explain our different positions here, as well.

And I don't support suppression of the airing of views on issues, or suppression of criticism of ideas or issue positions, or in attempting to influence the policies of government indirectly, but organizations directly involving themselves in the selection of the leaders who can provide them with tax exempt status is something that infringes upon the freedom of others by staining the integrity of the political process.

I also wouldn't support suppression of indivduals who are involved in these organizations endorsing specific candidates and working for the defeat of or election of particular candidates, so long as they acting on their own behalf and not on behalf of the organization.

It's worth noting that there is the side benefit of the fact that this also helps protect these organizations as well by reducing the possibility of retribution against them by those who might get elected despite the organization attempting to defeat them. That certainly shouldn't be a real concern of government, but it is a side benefit that comes about.

[A18]

Hah, the point is not that you earned the money with 'no help' from anyone, whatever that means. The point is that it was earned through voluntary, non-coercive transactions, employing one's own faculties, with the exception of those who are enriched by government taxation.

Your second paragraph is almost comically absurd. If the tax-exempt status were granted as a reward for political speech of some sort, you would have a 'point.' It is in fact a general grant. We are all, by the way, directly involved in the selecting of leaders who make policy choices that affect us.

Your final argument is the most obviously inapt, though not by much. Here you would again justify censorship in general. For if we silence person of group X, this person or group will enjoy a great 'benefit,' for this will ensure that political leaders do not retaliate against person or group X.