Critical Defects
The Drug Policy Alliance has joined Gun Owners of America in expressing concern about new IRS guidelines that discourage advocacy groups from criticizing politicians who are up for re-election. The DPA is also worried about a proposed advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission that expands the definition of "campaign expenditure." It says both of these rules will create uncertainty about what kind of speech is permitted:
Even sending you an e-mail saying that your Senator just voted the wrong way on a bill could become illegal. For instance, Senator [Joe] Biden first introduced his controversial RAVE Act just a few months before the 2002 elections. Because he was up for re-election that year, it may have been illegal for the Alliance to alert you to the bill had the FEC and IRS rulings been in place then.
"Together," DPA warns, "these proposals represent one of the worst assaults on the freedom of speech and association ever proposed in the United States."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A comment and a question for all you outraged citizens. Comment: the statement that "sending you an e-mail saying that your Senator just voted the wrong way on a bill could become illegal" is just plain wrong. It could be illegal for a taxpayer-subsidized group to send such an e-mail, not for anyone to send such an e-mail. You want to send such an e-mail? Fine. Just don't expect me to help pay for it.
Question. Specifically, how would you restrict political activities by taxpayer-subsidized groups?
Curious, is "tax-exempt" equivalent to "taxpayer-subsidized"?
Yep.
Curious,
OK, I'll take the bait: how?
Answer: String them all up from the nearest lamppost?
(I'm guessing here...)
I'm sure there's a way that this administration could be even worse than it already is. I just can't imagine what it is offhand.
What's terrifying is the degree to which the public seems ready to accept anything and everything that's being done by Bush and Ashcroft (and, to be fair, many Democrats, too) to undermine our most fundamental liberties.
An old adage says that we more or less get the government we deserve. For a long time, we've always somehow managed to dodge the bullet on that one. Not anymore, I'm afraid.
Curious,
Thanks for the info, but that was not exactly what I meant. I meant to ask if "tax-exempt" and "taxpayer-subsidized" are truly synonymous? If a group is "tax-exempt", then my taxes are not lining their pockets in any way. Or are they? Whereas I would suppose a "taxpayer-subsidized" organization is free-loading off me and millions of other Americans (or would be: I live abroad and pay no US taxes - I don't earn enough).
If a group is "tax-exempt", then my taxes are not lining their pockets in any way. Or are they?
Assuming that the U.S. government has particular revenue goals, for every group that doesn't have to pay taxes, someone else has to pay more to make it up. So in a very real way, tax-exempt organizations, in effect, receive a subsidy from other taxpayers. Their cost of doing business is lowered by the amount of tax they don't have to pay.
Phil,
I see your point. And yet: I can't get as worked up over "tax-exempt" organizations as over "taxpayer-subsidized" organizations. Go figure.
So in a very real way, tax-exempt organizations, in effect, receive a subsidy from other taxpayers.
In just as real a way, 95% of banks, in effect, receive a subsidy from bank robbers.
Sheesh.
how the fuck are they justifying this?
dhex, do they even have to anymore?
The same way they always do, campaign finance reform
=)
b/c they're the gov't and they can??
i remember telling liberals that the mccain-feingold bill was bad fucking news. did they listen? Nooooooooooooo...
in all seriousness, where does one turn to from here? when both parties are filled to the brim with fucktards?
And what if I (God forbid!) praise a politician for voting the right way? Am I screwed then, too?
Let's just assume smart people will riddle these new rules with lots of loopholes, and I hope the USSC revisits this atrocity.
Granny porn mature sex stories, mature boobs sexy granny. Granny fucking mature nude, mature thumbs mature moms. Free mature gallery mature pics, mature hardcore mature video. Free mature thumbs mature porn, mature lesbians free granny porn. Mature girls nude grannies, mature blowjobs free mature pics. Amateur mature nude mature women, mature asian mature nude. Mature mom old granny women naked pictures, old mature granny galleries. sexy mature women