Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: roamer_1; WildcatClan
In the referred post to you I had speculatively answered this comment from you:

I don't think Dobson can endorse a candidate as such and it may have something to do with a tax-exempt status.

I had replied with this:

I have heard that elsewhere, and it may be true- I know that Dobson makes no bones about whom he rejects (Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson so far, I believe) which is what would be expected IMO. One could further expect a rejection of Paul. Huck is probably safe as a minister, though he is unpalatable to me... but other than that Dobson is pointing to a candidate or two by the attrition of the others.

Since then I have received an official missive from Focus on the Family in the form of a reply by email (I had written them) regarding this whole deal. in the course of that reply the following excerpt confirms your statement:

We should point out that Focus on the Family is prohibited by IRS guidelines from endorsing candidates. Focus on the Family Action, a 501(c)(4) organization, is allowed greater latitude in that area, but we’ve generally refrained from so doing.

It’s worth mentioning, as well, that if Dr. Dobson were to endorse a presidential candidate, he would do so as a private individual and not in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of Focus or Focus Action. To this point, Dr. Dobson has not backed anyone for the 2008 election.

This statement does seem to encapsulate their official position regarding endorsement, and lends credence to my suggestion that they seem to be pointing toward candidates they cannot officially endorse by way of their attrition of other candidates.

As an aside, I do not understand why they run a 501c and refrain from using it to the extent possible but that seems to be their choice. Perhaps it allows them the ability to contribute but they do not wish to "get dirty" as the 501c's of our opposition do so well.

266 posted on 10/08/2007 4:59:27 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Vote for FrudyMcRomson -Turn red states purple in 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies ]


To: roamer_1
As an aside, I do not understand why they run a 501c and refrain from using it to the extent possible but that seems to be their choice. Perhaps it allows them the ability to contribute but they do not wish to "get dirty" as the 501c's of our opposition do so well.

Unions, or most of them always endorse a candidate and I think they enjoy the same exemptions although that is only an educated guess by me. The Unions are less than forthcoming about their designations and status and there are so many I felt I was on a 'Wild goose chase". I agree with you completely on Focus on the Family and other groups not executing their abilities to the extent possible, but perhaps it cuts down on the infighting or like you said they don't want to get drawn into the mud. Thanks for the information, Roamer.

267 posted on 10/08/2007 8:22:00 PM PDT by WildcatClan (Duncan Hunter '08 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson