Another Political attack

Discussion in 'Water Cooler' started by jjefferies, Jul 9, 2018.

  1. jjefferies

    jjefferies Podium

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,738
    Likes Received:
    161
    Sometime ago I posted a thread on models of governance of fencing clubs. One of the several models is the 501C3 which is a non-profit organization with an elected board etc. This is a long standing approach to handling the organization and taxation of fraternal organizations and is enacted in US Federal law. The following is a post from the National Council of Nonprofits. While I find it hard to imagine the Republicans trying to use fencing clubs in the manner described here, the changes addressed could adversely affect all nonprofits and therefore indirectly fencing. Just a FYI for you. Note how the changes are being introduced as part of an "Environment appropriations bill".
    House Appropriations Bill Seeks to Politicize Nonprofits
    The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to take up legislation the week of July 16 that, among other things, would effectively undermine the longstanding Johnson Amendment, the provision of federal tax law that protects charitable nonprofits, houses of worship, and foundations from demands from politicians and others for endorsements and other support
    At issue is controversial language that would effectively block the IRS from enforcing the Johnson Amendment when “churches” violate the law in even the most egregious ways, such as diverting charitable assets to influence partisan political campaigns. That language was added at Section 112 to the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill for fiscal year 2019, that begins on October 1 – just five weeks before the general election. Republican leaders reportedly plan to combine that measure with a funding bill for Interior-Environment in a “mini-bus” package. In recent speeches, Vice President Pence and outside groups have ratcheted up their rhetoric and advocacy efforts in support of repealing the Johnson Amendment. It is unclear whether an amendment to strip out the anti-Johnson Amendment rider will be permitted, but the need for nonprofit engagement is critical right now.
     
    Peach likes this.
  2. jkormann

    jkormann Podium

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    198
    I'd write my congress-critters but one doesn't pay attention to his constituents (Toomey), one is already against this (Casey), and my Rep isn't running after the ungerrymandered redistricting.
     
    Stormbringer likes this.
  3. EL ROJO

    EL ROJO Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2018
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry but that is a disingenuous statement. the "Johnson amendment" protects nothing. It is a prohibition.

    From Wikipedia:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Amendment
    So Big Corporations, Public sector Unions, News Media outlets, Banks, Lobbying Firms, and Super Pacs can and do pour hundreds of millions into political campaigns and endorse individuals & parties for political office.

    And it's all good...

    But hey, those non-profits will corrupt the system...

    LOLZ
     
  4. jkormann

    jkormann Podium

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    198
    Because they don't have money to spend on the people who make laws.

    I'd guess about 50 years ago, churches would have had a larger influence on society than today.
     
  5. Gav

    Gav is a Verified Fencing ExpertGav Moderator!!

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2000
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    517
    Ach I'm throwing this into the Water Cooler.

    ps. You see this refrain everywhere. for some reason special status given to private corporates but not to charity/public sector. It is hypocrisy.
     
  6. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    36,733
    Likes Received:
    1,321
    I only just noticed the two exclamation points after Gav's title. Does that signify that he is a really, really excited moderator, or a very emphatic moderator, or is it a sign of rank within the hierarchy of moderators, something like Moderator-General? ;)
     
  7. jjefferies

    jjefferies Podium

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,738
    Likes Received:
    161
    BullShit. In the US, not familiar with the UK, if you want to be a not for profit entity and not be taxed it's long been the agreed rule that you can't be political. And it has always been part of the foundation of American legal/political system that there is a separation of Church and State. What we are seeing is an attempt on the part of the the Republican party to allow supposed Evangelicals turn their church tithes to political support. What's next? The Federal govt collects tithes for the churches? They do that in Switzerland. But the basic premise is that the Republican party doesn't want the exposure of who they are taking money from. So they are trying to hide it by use of non-profits.
     
  8. EL ROJO

    EL ROJO Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2018
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Always"...
    Simply Not True. Another disingenuous statement.

    First, please show me where in the US constitution that the phrase "separation of Church and State" exists.

    Hint: It will take you a very long time to find it.
    Good old Thomas Jefferson wrote that phrase in a letter, no where to be found in our founding documents.

    The first deductions for charitable donations went on the books in 1917. Four years after the income tax.
    In 1954 LBJ got the Prohibition in as law (Not that he would have an agenda naturally... LOLZ.) and no one has had the political juice to reverse it since.

    Quite a few years between 1917 and 1954, you think?
    And a bit more between 1776 and 1954...

    And I don't know where you live but in my home state, Public sector unions - entirely funded by the public tax dollars that pay the salaries of teachers, firefighters, police, etc... Lobby, endorse, and form PAC's for political parties and candidates.

    Surely you are not for public organizations that are funded by your tax dollars getting involved in local, state, and national politics are you?

    I mean, what if they promote politics you are against? The horror...
     
  9. jkormann

    jkormann Podium

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    198
    I'm a government contractor. My salary is entirely funded by public tax dollars. I'm not union, but I know some in my company who are and have the same government customer. My company has a PAC that they ask me to support. The union folks get the same requests from the company's PAC and their Union PAC.

    It's a long-winded way to say, "What's your point?"

    Also, Mr. Jefferson said there should be "freedom from religion", not "of religion". It's a bit different.
     
  10. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    36,733
    Likes Received:
    1,321
  11. jkormann

    jkormann Podium

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    198
    Alright, I cede that one to you.
    Curse you, Superman!
     
  12. Gav

    Gav is a Verified Fencing ExpertGav Moderator!!

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2000
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    517
    Bullshit yourself. There's a requirement that charities should be apolitical but that doesn't stop them from being political. HINT: everything IS political.

    And in fact there's an argument about this kicking off here at the moment which I realise you have zero interest in.

    republicans shouldn't hide donation by funneling their money through charities - it's part of the argument here in the UK.
     
  13. jjefferies

    jjefferies Podium

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,738
    Likes Received:
    161
    Perhaps you'd care to explain more fully as the statement does not read well. "it's part of the argument", what argument?
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2018
  14. jjefferies

    jjefferies Podium

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,738
    Likes Received:
    161
    Ah, Rookie! Not everything that is central to our (US) govt is specified/laid out in the original Constitution. To aid in your constitutional education:
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "Separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

    The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced to a January 1, 1802, letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson wrote,

    “ "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1]
    Jefferson was echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams who had written in 1644,

    “ "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." ”
    Article Six of the United States Constitution also specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

    Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]
     
  15. Gav

    Gav is a Verified Fencing ExpertGav Moderator!!

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2000
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    517
  16. Inquartata

    Inquartata Podium

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    36,733
    Likes Received:
    1,321
    Just about everything is part of a larger power struggle. Doesn't mean that the parts cannot or should not be considered, attended to or argued about individually as things in and of themselves.
     

Share This Page