Tag Archives: charitable donations

When Your Policies Don’t Really Reflect What You Claim Are Your Values

Posted on by

On Friday, The Blaze posted an article about the Fox News Corporation’s policy on matching charitable donations from its employees. As a person, you are entitled to give to any organization you choose, and as a corporation, you are entitled to match the donations of your staff to any organization they choose. However, it does seem odd when the organizations you are willing to match donations to are totally opposed to what you say you believe.

The Blaze reports:

Insiders have revealed to Blaze Media that Fox will subsidize some of the very activist groups that despise and seek the ruin of the network’s viewers, evidencing a “complete disregard and hatred” for its core audience.

“Fox Giving” is an app in the company portal that facilitates charitable donations via the Canadian-based donation management platform Benevity. Fox will apparently match donations up to $1,000 to various organizations that satisfy the company’s criteria.

While on its face, this appears to be little more than an attempt at corporate beneficence, the company is willing to match donations to the Satanic Temple, the Trevor Project, Planned Parenthood (and local Planned Parenthood branches), and the Southern Poverty Law Center – radical leftist groups antipathetic to conservatives and the values they hold most dear.

I guess I am not an equal opportunity person, because I would not want to work for a corporation that matched donations to the Satanic Temple.

The article also details some recent changes at Fox News:

The former Fox producer who spoke to Blaze Media indicated the liberal musculature behind the network’s conservative face has been growing stronger in recent months.

“It became clear certain things weren’t going to be tolerated on air any more after Tucker was gone. We were told: Lay off Dylan Mulvaney,” said the former producer. “Once I realized we couldn’t say certain things on air any more, I started to dig more into the reality of the corporate views.”

That Fox might simultaneously ape conservative talking points while bankrolling leftist initiatives struck the former producer as an affront to the network’s audience.

“It shows complete disregard and hatred for Fox’s core audience, which is a huge part of the country. They watch believing Fox is speaking for them, when in reality it’s a company participating in certain things that don’t match their audience’s values. [The disdain] is driven more by executives, lawyers, and HR than people realize, especially post-Dominion,” said the former producer, referencing the company’s $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Services earlier this year.

These are expensive choices for Fox News–they are rapidly loosing their audience to NewsMax and One America News.

California Charities Do Not Have To Reveal Their Donors

Posted on by

CNBC is reporting today that the Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that California charities do not have to reveal a list of their donors.

The article reports:

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a California rule requiring nonprofits to disclose the names and addresses of their largest donors, delivering a victory to a pair of conservative groups that had challenged the requirement as unconstitutional.

The 6-3 decision, which divided the nine justices along ideological lines, reversed a 2018 appeals court ruling siding with California’s attorney general.

The rule had forced nonprofits to give the state their so-called Schedule B forms, which include the personal information of all donors nationwide who had contributed more than $5,000 in a given tax year. The state had argued that it needed that information to help it police misconduct by charities.

“We do not doubt that California has an important interest in preventing wrongdoing by charitable organizations,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion.

But “there is a dramatic mismatch” between “the interest that the Attorney General seeks to promote and the disclosure regime that he has implemented in service of that end,” Roberts wrote.

The conservative chief justice noted that about 60,000 charities renew their registration each year, and that virtually all of them were required to provide a Schedule B form.

“This information includes donors’ names and the total contributions they have made to the charity, as well as their addresses. Given the amount and sensitivity of this information harvested by the State, one would expect Schedule B collection to form an integral part of California’s fraud detection efforts. It does not,” Roberts wrote.

As much as I believe in transparency in donations, the Supreme Court was right to protect the names of the donors. A number of years ago, donors who supported a ballot referendum were harassed because of their donations. Unfortunately, that is not an unusual event. Americans need to be free to give to the charities of their choice without being harassed for their donations.

The Internal Revenue Service Backs Down

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal posted an article yesterday about a proposed change to charitable donation reporting to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS had proposed a change to the law that would have given charities the ‘option’ of filing detailed reports on everyone who donates more than $250 to the charity. The detailed reports were going to be ‘voluntary’ (at least until the IRS was able to put them into law). The information reported would have included Social Security numbers. The Wall Street Journal is now reporting that the IRS has withdrawn the proposal.

The article reports:

Amazingly enough, in this case the IRS appears to have listened to concerns from the taxpayers who pay their salaries. On Thursday the IRS said it is withdrawing its proposal after receiving “a substantial number of public comments.” Many of the comments “questioned the need for donee reporting, and many comments expressed significant concerns about donee organizations collecting and maintaining taxpayer identification numbers for purposes of the specific-use information return,” said the IRS. The legitimate anger of average citizens was amplified by stalwart IRS watchdogs like Rep.Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) on Capitol Hill.

One year after Republicans took control of the Congress, and one year before President Obama leaves the White House, the pendulum is beginning to swing against IRS abuse of taxpayers. Coming on the heels of other reforms in the year-end tax and spending bills—including a ban on new IRS rules limiting political activity—Thursday’s news is reason to cheer.

Now if we could just get rid of the IRS, we would have something.

The infoplease website reminds us:

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.

It is interesting to me that the American government was able to fulfill its Constitutional duties prior to 1913 without the billions of dollars they now collect and spend. What are they doing now that has changed that? Do we need to go back to a government that follows the instructions and limitations of our Constitution? I think that would be a really good idea.

 

The Internal Revenue Service Has Become A Political Organization

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece this morning about changes that the Treasury Department is proposing to current Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules. The proposed rule gives 501(c)(3) charities the ‘option’ of filling out reports on every donor who contributes more than $250 to the organization. This ‘option’ would include name, address, and Social Security number. As of now the rule will be voluntary, but based on past experience (particularly with the IRS) voluntary will soon morph into required.

The article reports:

Under current law, nonprofits must report only donors who give more than $5,000 a year, and then only names and addresses. Donors who give less than $5,000 to (c)(3) charities, and who want to claim a tax deduction, must obtain a “receipt” from the charity—to furnish to the IRS if they are audited or examined. This process has been in place for years, and even Treasury and the IRS acknowledge in their new rule that it “works effectively, with the minimal burden on donors and donees.”

So why change it? The IRS is claiming this will aid in more “timely reporting” of tax-deductible donations, and no doubt the agency’s auditors would love more information to harass taxpayers.

Unfortunately, the IRS has used donation information to harass taxpayers before. After a list of supporters was made public a business that donated money to the Proposition 8 proposal in California was target by opponents of the proposal. I reported another example of IRS abuse in February of 2014 (rightwinggranny.com).

The Wall Street Journal reports another example of IRS abuse:

Frank VanderSloot, a Mitt Romney donor, was audited by the IRS and Labor Department after the Obama campaign singled him out for criticism. Catherine Engelbrecht, the head of the 501(c)(3) True the Vote, was publicly attacked by Democrats and then hit with personal and business audits from the IRS, OSHA and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The National Council of Nonprofits, which opposes the proposed rule, notes that the IRS routinely warns taxpayers not to give out their Social Security numbers unless “absolutely necessary.” Donors will be suspicious of charities that now ask for them.

Many taxpayers will also lack confidence that nonprofits, which are often small operations staffed by volunteers, can safeguard their information. The proposed regulation is an invitation to fraud and identity theft by creating an opportunity for scam artists to claim to be charities and solicit Social Security numbers.

It may be time to go to a tax system that does not involve the IRS. Unfortunately the IRS has shown itself to be an agency that cannot be trusted to be above politics. I realize that a lot of the politicization has been under the Obama Administration, but there are no guarantees that any future administrations will not use the agency in the same way.