IRS willing to look into Media Matter’s possible violation of it’s 501(c)(3) Status

Macsmind.com ^ | October 1, 2007 | Mac Ranger

[bobsunshine]

I spent a delightful conversation today with a field representitive in Exempt Organizations Division of the IRS. I related some specific evidences that Media Matters has violated it’s status as a 501(c)(3) related to it’s political activities.

The representative advised me that a formal complaint should be filed with specific references of political activity as outlined in this guidance document (pdf). I told them that I would be compiling such information for a formal complaint.

While not providing specifics I was also told that mine was not the first call of inquiry. Perhaps the ball has begun to roll.

[bobsunshine]

Glad to see MacRanger is on this.

[TexasCajun]

MacRanger, doing the job our elected representatives will not!

[bcsco]

Perhaps while they're at it they'll look into this lady: Hillary Clinton Told YearlyKos Convention She Helped Start Media Matters.

[peteram]

This might be a good place to post this question....

I know that Brent Bozell’s Media Resource Center is a true, legit media watchdog group that looks at all angles of how stories are covered. I believe (but not entirely sure) that they are privately owned and funded. OTOH, Media Matters is funded by Soros’ MoveOn.org and only takes pieces of stories out of context with the objective of ruining the person’s (in this case - Limbaugh) reputation.

My question: Can anyone point me in the right direction to get info on both of these organizations so that I have a clear rebuttal to any of my lib acquaintences & family? I know that if the subject came up in conversation, that they would try to lump the two together as both being illegitimate, polar-partisan organizations (the old moral relativity argument)

Thanks!
- Pete

[weegee]

MoveOn.org is a PAC. How much are ties with a partisan PAC (which is only permitted to accept capped contributions from American citizens) to be tolerated?

I’ve wanted to tip off a non-denominational “open” church that is hosting an antiwar rally that according to their own fliers is sponsored by the Green Party (this is a no-no).

[bobsunshine]

A good place to start for the entire story of the Soros’ organizations is a seven part series over at Flopping Aces. The links below are to each part of the series, the “Seven Sisters (organizations) of the Soros’ Shadow Party”. It is based on excerpts of key portions of a book written by David Horowitz and Richard Poe.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/07/09/the-shadow-party-the-first-sis/

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/07/10/the-shadow-party-the-second-si/

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/07/11/the-shadow-party-the-third-sis/

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/07/14/continuing-my-series-on-the/

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/07/17/the-shadow-party-the-fifth-sis/

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/07/21/the-shadow-party-the-sixth-sis/

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/07/29/the-shadow-party-the-seventh-s/

[EdReform]

BTTT

[sageb1]

This is great!

[freespirited]

I wonder what he thinks Media Matters has done to violate the tax law. Putting out lies all the time isn’t enough. It has to be engaged in political activity as defined under the law. I haven’t heard the group advocate for a specific candidate or piece of legislation.

Hopefully he knows something I don’t.

[linn37]

What if a particular candidate organised it and used it for her own purposes?

[freespirited]

Let me say first that I am not a lawyer. So take the following information with that caveat.

I don’t think there would be any prohibition on a politician being a founder of a 501(c)(3). The test is in the purpose and activities.

If Media Matters is directly promoting Hillary’s candidacy that would be a problem. They can’t endorse specific candidates.

If Media Matters simply does things that are advantageous to liberals, well, the country is full of c(3) groups like that. They are even permitted to do a fair amount of lobbying since the law was changed a few decades ago.

The IRS is not particularly interested in violations by c(3) groups. There’s no money in revoking a c(3) and forcing the organization to become a c(4), which is also a nonprofit, just one that can’t take tax-deductible contributions.

[Libloather]

Levin chatted about this on his radio show tonight...

[devolve]

[potlatch]

Lolol, you’ve got a regular MAGIC SHOW going on there!!!
Beautiful!

[devolve]

.

I squeezed them all in there!

[potlatch]

[I squeezed them all in there!]

Lol, you sure did and it looks great.

[Paladin2]

the Pelosi action figure is particularly on target.