Posted on 01/15/2004 6:37:31 AM PST by yoe
The ink is barely dry on the Supreme Court's devastating decision in McConnell v. FEC -- the so-called campaign finance case that GOA was involved in. That decision severely restricted broadcast communications, thus making it more difficult for GOA to hold legislators accountable on Second Amendment issues.
Now, the IRS is already leaping forward to expand the Court's ruling to include GOA newsletters, e-mail alerts, and other Second Amendment communications.
Put out for comment on December 23, 2003 -- when, presumably, no one would notice -- proposed IRS Revenue Ruling 2004-6 creates a broad new set of ambiguous standards which groups like GOA must follow in order to avoid losing all or part of their tax-exempt status.
Under the proposed Revenue Ruling, the IRS would create a vague "balancing test" to determine whether GOA communications would be "permitted" by the government.
If the communication occurred close to an election, mentioned an officeholder who was running for reelection, and was targeted to put pressure on congressmen through constituents in each representative's district, all of these factors would push toward outlawing the communication.
Although the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection law was repressive enough, the proposed Revenue Ruling would go far beyond this anti-gun statute:
* Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would not be restricted to broadcast ads. Rather, it would apply to newspaper ads, e-mail alerts, newsletters, and other communications by organizations such as GOA.
* Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would not automatically exempt communications which occurred more than 60 days prior to an election -- or which fell below a certain monetary threshold.
* Unlike McCain-Feingold, the proposed Revenue Ruling would contain no fixed standards for compliance. Rather every GOA newsletter or alert would have to be published with the realization that the government, after the fact, could apply its vague criteria to determine that is was "impermissible."
For example, when GOA learned that an anti-gun rider had been placed on a Defense authorization bill in September 2000, GOA alerted its members to this provision which would have allowed the Dept. of Defense to confiscate and destroy any military surplus item that had ever been sold by the government.
M1 Carbines, 1903 Springfields, Colt SAAs, uniforms, ammo, scopes -- and much more. All these privately-owned items could have been confiscated and destroyed by the feds.
GOA generated a groundswell of nationwide opposition against the confiscation attempt. But we especially targeted our focus on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The message evidently got through, as the Committee Chairman's office called GOA to discuss this problem after he received hoards of calls, postcards and e-mails from our members. The provision was removed, and Second Amendment rights were preserved.
But had this IRS regulation been in effect in 2000, the agency (which then was under Clinton's control) could have RETROACTIVELY punished GOA, stating that our activity would have been impermissible if just one of the targeted Senators had been facing reelection!
This new regulation would allow lawmakers to load up gun bills prior to an election, secure in the knowledge that GOA won't be able to let you guys know about them in time.
GOA has formally lodged a protest with the IRS regarding this expansion and abuse of power. To read the GOA comments, go to (link)
It is imperative that this rule be defeated!
ACTION: Contact your congressmen. Ask them to write the IRS and demand that it withdraw proposed Revenue Ruling 2004-6. You can contact your Representative and Senators by visiting the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at (link) to send them a pre-written e-mail message.
Take Action
Your Representative and Senators must submit their comments to the IRS by January 26.
Looks like we need a thread on the Fair Tax!
Who's got an article? Post em if you got em!
Too bad we don't have a conservative president.
Stevens was nominated by Ford.
As an Administrative Agency, they have the right to adopt reasonable regulations. But before we even consider whether or not this trial baloon is reasonable, we ought to be inquiring where in the chain of command, responsibility for this stops. Is this one more example of the Administration, which ultimately is responsible for the IRS, as for every other department in the Executive Branch, showing its indifference to important Conservative core values--or an Administrative Agency off on a tangent?
Just what is really going on here?
We are going to lose America very rapidly, if we do not find an effective way to rally our forces, with sufficient demonstration of our strength, to put the fear of God and principle back into the knaves in Washington.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Oh that's right the NRA is a traitorous organization according to the GOA, nevermind.
Again JMO, but Clinton would have had an executive order. This is a proposal that will probably be shot down. The leftist organizations(pro-abortion groups for example are probably against this also).
One arguement is that this about legislation and not elections. Leftist groups(mostly anti-abortion) are probably against it also.
People didn't care. They just wanted the mudslinging TV ads off before Friends came on.
Sorry to hear that. They really are a uality organization.
Oh that's right the NRA is a traitorous organization according to the GOA, nevermind.
The whole NRA/GOA squabble really pisses me off, and both sides are equally culpable. There is plenty of room for both organizations in fighting for the 2nd.
That "liberal Democratic bitch boy" could have ZOTted your a$$ out of here with the stroke of a key. How 'bout showing some appreciation to the guy allowing you to post on his servers. I highly doubt you contribute financially to maintaining them.
It isn't set in stone. It's a proposal.
That's whats so weird about this. This proposal has been out there for almost a month. Granted it happened on Dec. 23rd, and if you take into account that the GOA took the week between Christmas and New Years off, that still leaves nine days to put out this e-mail. And nothing from the NRA. There could be thousands of these proposals every year that don't getmentioned and is it the law that every administrative agency has to put out proposals when a law is signed and put out for comment.
Also the GOA could have made a better point that this affects all groups interested in politics and could have called other groups for thier opinion and put it in their e-mail and not make it look like this proposal specifically tragets them.
They have other allies against this proposal and yet they don't mention them. I have no idea who actually votes for this proposal, not that have I seen the whole thing, either. Also I don't know if there is any Congressional oversight in this matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.