Washington Post Column: Franklin Graham vs. the IRS (Why he deserved it)

Washington Post ^ | 05/18/2013 | Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

[SeekAndFind]

It sometimes seems that everyone ever audited by the IRS – or even asked questions about a return – is claiming ideological harassment. Franklin Graham has decided that he too is a victim of IRS overreach. I think he’s a victim of something else: His lust for the media spotlight and his disgust with President Obama.

The son of famous evangelist Billy Graham has written a letter to Obama carping because ministries founded by this father, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse (a group that has received millions in tax dollars), had been asked questions about political activity by the tax agency.

An IRS policy that subjected Tea Party and other conservative groups to heightened scrutiny and extra paperwork when they applied for tax exemption has been much in the news. Few are defending that policy. Indeed, for many of us who have worked in Washington for a long time, it brought back memories of the bad old days when some political leaders tried to use the IRS to harass groups on the political left.

Is this what happened to Graham? Was he too singled out for his views?

In a word, no.

First, Graham’s ministries already have tax-exempt status. The problem is that the BGEA appears to be abusing it by engaging in improper partisan politicking.

Religious and non-religious nonprofits that enjoy the benefit of tax exemption are prohibited from intervening in elections by endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. Groups holding 501(c)(3) status can speak out on issues, but telling people who to vote for or against is unequivocally disallowed. It is statutory “zero tolerance” policy for electioneering.

Yet Graham himself acknowledges that the BGEA advised its followers to support only “candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel.”

[elcid1970]

Barry Lynn is a smirking pr!ck who needs the s*** beat out of him.

[Wuli]

“Religious and non-religious nonprofits that enjoy the benefit of tax exemption are prohibited from intervening in elections by endorsing or opposing candidates for public o
office.”

Regardless of the individual section of the IRS code that applies, is or is not a government union a “not-for-profit” and “tax exempt” outfit?

What is this question pertinent?

The union that represents many federal government employees, inlcuding many IRS employees, actively endorsed Obama, and as a reward, the head of that union was appointed in 2010 to a federal position that is part of a federal body that overseas federal government raises.

Why is it that some “tax exempt” outfits can actively endorse candidates and some cannot? What happened to “equal” protection of the law.

[sauropod]

I really wonder about what is in Barry Lynn’s heart. I’ve been watching this clown for many years.

[x]

I think he’s a victim of something else: His lust for the media spotlight and his disgust with President Obama.

Yet Lynn is grabbing for the spotlight here himself.

People who live by the pen shouldn't throw stones.

Or maybe ... glass houses are mightier than the sword?

[flaglady47]

“Yet black churches (aka Democrat campaign headquarters) are tax exempt....and I’ll bet they’ve never been harrassed, paralyzed or punished for political activity in any way by the SS-IRS....nor will they ever be in the future.”

No truer words were ever spoken. Audits are for Obama’s political enemies or those that oppose his policies. Nothing more, nothing less. All others get a pass, unless they cross Obama in the future. Then they too will be “on the list”.