NAACP - Investigated

[trumptman]

NAACP investigated (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usirs1029,0,4959347,print.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)

Saw this article about the NAACP possibly being investigated because of a speech. I started to think to myself, "That's not right" until I realized that they really have moved beyond being a civil rights organization and into the realm of fully political organization which should no longer have a tax exempt status.

Acting together (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/49/powerlines-meyerson.php)

This nice article was discussing all the leftist groups that are working together including quite a few that shouldn't be under McCain-Feingold. For example the AFL-CIO should, like MoveonPAC have a seperate PAC that solicits hard money to spend on political actions. General fund union dues are not allowed to be spent on political campaigns. The NAACP is an educational group and is not allowed to engage in political advocacy of the nature described in this article.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out after the election. My preference is to just junk all political speech laws that attempt to limit who can do what, but it looks like the advocates of those laws are going to be shooting themselves in the foot. After this election the FEC will rule on 527's and unrestricted soft money. It will likely require them to start PAC's like everyone else and a big source of Democratic money will be gone again. (They'll have to go get it from the "people" instead of from Soros for example)

Nick

[bunge]

What, three words in a speech and they lose their tax exempt status? How about all of them churches that push out the republican vote? I'd lose the NAACP if we'd lose all the churches as well.

Any organization willing to attack the NAACP for a speech by one person in the organization while ignoring the political motivation of churches should be shut down.

EDIT: As for fixing the system, I'm in favor of killing political ads on television altogether. The people collectively own the TV airwaves so limiting what's on them isn't against the Constitution. We can't limit print though.

[Aurora]

Like George said you are either with us, which means disengage your brain and follow everything this president does in goose step fashion or you are the enemy. I wonder if this president has realized that half the nation is against him ,his policies and his propaganda spin machine. This doesnt surprise me a bit for a guy who is trampling the consitution,geneva convention and anything else he doesnt like.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
What, three words in a speech and they lose their tax exempt status? How about all of them churches that push out the republican vote? I'd lose the NAACP if we'd lose all the churches as well.

Any organization willing to attack the NAACP for a speech by one person in the organization while ignoring the political motivation of churches should be shut down.

EDIT: As for fixing the system, I'm in favor of killing political ads on television altogether. The people collectively own the TV airwaves so limiting what's on them isn't against the Constitution. We can't limit print though.

You are totally correct that they shouldn't lose their tax exempt status over three words in a speech. However I do believe this year the organization has made an endorsement for president as well. The second article suggests they are coordinating their spending with groups for purely partisan purposes as well.

Do you think if they were say, paying for phone banks that another group was using to call people on behalf of Kerry that it would be cause for concern?

Nick

[Frank777]

Originally posted by bunge
What, three words in a speech and they lose their tax exempt status? How about all of them churches that push out the republican vote? I'd lose the NAACP if we'd lose all the churches as well.

Any organization willing to attack the NAACP for a speech by one person in the organization while ignoring the political motivation of churches should be shut down.

What unmitigated nonsense. Every week I turn on CNN to see Kerry, Edwards, Jackson, Sharpton and other Dems campaigning from church pulpits during Sunday morning services. I haven't seen Bush or Cheney in a church setting once for the whole campaign.

The church vote is breaking in Bush's favour because of his stands on Abortion, Gay Marriage and Stem Cells, not because he's getting illegal help from the pulpit.

If you want to chastise someone about blurring the church/state lines, look to your own team.

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
Do you think if they were say, paying for phone banks that another group was using to call people on behalf of Kerry that it would be cause for concern?

I guess it depends on what they were calling for, but in general yes. If they were calling about a specific issue, I guess that's what the NAACP does. If they were calling to endorse the president, they've crossed a legal line.

As for Frank's comment, I think you should be skeptical of what you see on TV. Just because some editors have used clips A,B and C doesn't mean they're they only ones that exist.