JD Vance Catch-all

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 957
  • Views: 32K
  • Politics 
Icky Mettle said:
But see here:


"In contrast to the "pure issue message" scenario set forth in the 1995 ABA Comments, an IRC 501(c)(3) organization may avail itself of the opportunity to intervene in a political campaign in a rather surreptitious manner. The concern is that an IRC 501(c)(3) organization may support or oppose a particular candidate in a political campaign without specifically naming the candidate by using code words to substitute for the candidate's name in its messages, such as "conservative," "liberal," "pro-life," "pro-choice," "anti-choice," "Republican," "Democrat," etc., coupled with a discussion of the candidacy or the election. When this occurs, it is quite evident what is happening -- an intervention is taking place...

Basically, a finding of campaign intervention in an issue advertisement requires more than just a positive or negative correspondence between an organization's position and a candidate's position. What is required is that there must be some reasonably overt indication in the communication to the reader, viewer, or listener that the organization supports or opposes a particular candidate (or slate of candidates) in an election; rather than being a message restricted to an issue."

Does advertising "vote pro-life" indicate to the reader that the church supports or opposes a slate of candidates?

There is a distinction between taking a position on a public policy issue, such as taking the position that abortion is wrong, and telling people to vote for a slate of candidates that take the same position on that public policy issue.

The phrase “vote pro-life” certainly does express support for “pro-life” candidates and opposition toward pro-choice candidates, and encourages the reader to vote for those “pro-life” candidates over the pro-choice candidates.

I do agree that these types of messages have been going on for a long time and that there won’t be any effort to do anything about it.
Click to expand...
Barring any identification of "pro-life' candidates, that is not participation or intervention in a political campaign (or campaigns) because it does nothing to make the connection to specific races or candidates.

Also, there is the issue of whether such position advocacy is only a campaign-time stance or does the organization do such position advocacy regularly. From Footnote 10 at the bottom of the page which you quoted above...

"Another factor may be whether the organization has used similar language in communications outside of a campaign or only airs such communications during campaigns. The specific facts and circumstances of each case will determine whether an intervention in a political campaign has taken place."

The Catholic Church is demonstrably pro-life at all times. Because of they do not limit their pro-life advocacy to only campaign season, they are clearly performing issue advocacy rather than participation/intervention in a campaign.

To consider this campaign participation or intervention rather than issue advocacy would essentially bar non-profits (including churches) from saying or doing anything that could impact an election in any way. It would bar someone like Greenpeace from saying something as simple as "Vote For The Planet" or "Vote Against Climate Change". The message being given is about an issue and is consistent with their messaging outside of campaign season, so they are in the clear. To have any other understanding of this rule would prevent non-profits from being able to address any issue that has any political impact during "campaign season", which is now almost certainly more than half the time.
 
SnoopRob said:
Barring any identification of "pro-life' candidates, that is not participation or intervention in a political campaign (or campaigns) because it does nothing to make the connection to specific races or candidates.

Also, there is the issue of whether such position advocacy is only a campaign-time stance or does the organization do such position advocacy regularly. From Footnote 10 at the bottom of the page which you quoted above...

"Another factor may be whether the organization has used similar language in communications outside of a campaign or only airs such communications during campaigns. The specific facts and circumstances of each case will determine whether an intervention in a political campaign has taken place."

The Catholic Church is demonstrably pro-life at all times. Because of they do not limit their pro-life advocacy to only campaign season, they are clearly performing issue advocacy rather than participation/intervention in a campaign.

To consider this campaign participation or intervention rather than issue advocacy would essentially bar non-profits (including churches) from saying or doing anything that could impact an election in any way. It would bar someone like Greenpeace from saying something as simple as "Vote For The Planet" or "Vote Against Climate Change". The message being given is about an issue and is consistent with their messaging outside of campaign season, so they are in the clear. To have any other understanding of this rule would prevent non-profits from being able to address any issue that has any political impact during "campaign season", which is now almost certainly more than half the time.
Click to expand...
Last reply from me here.

“Issue advocacy crosses the line into prohibited partisan activities if it:
  • Not only communicates an organization’s views on the issues, but tells the audience how to vote based on those issues (or references voting or an election).”

Elections and 501(c)(3) Organizations : WeConservePA Library

Federal tax rules prohibit section 501(c)(3) organizations from participating or intervening in a political campaign in support of or in opposition to a...
library.weconservepa.org library.weconservepa.org

The church can share its position on abortion, by saying/printing things that say “abortion is wrong” or “end abortion,” etc., but it crosses the line when it tells people how to vote on that issue in an upcoming election, particularly when it does so by putting up a sign shortly before an election where abortion is significant issue. The church is endorsing “pro-life” candidates. Telling people to vote pro-life is telling them to vote for those candidates. It is also implicitly endorsing the Republican Party.

As for your examples, first, Greenpeace
Is actually a 501(c)(4) organization, and they are allowed to do a lot more with regard political activity. But let’s look at those examples with a 501(c)(3) organization. “Vote for the Planet” is very broad a fairly vague. There probably wouldn’t be much issue with that due to its vagueness. “Vote Against Climate Change” has the potential to raise some red flags. That said, it’s not quite like the abortion issue where the two major parties’ platforms take polar opposite positions, with one being “pro-life” and the other being pro-choice, and pretty much all of the candidates within each of those parties take the positions consistent with their party’s platform. While addressing climate change is an important issue for Dems and much less of one for Pubs, it’s not so much that the parties take polar opposite positions. The Pubs aren’t necessarily pro-climate change.

I’ll also add that Alliance for Justice has a guide discussing how 501(c)(3) organizations should engage in political activity without running afoul of the rules. With regard to voter registration campaigns, it advises against 501(c)(3)s saying things like:
“Vote to protect the environment.”
Or
“Let’s get out the pro-life (or pro-choice) vote.”
 
Last edited:
lawtig02 said:
This should definitely be a separate thread and I suggest we defer it until after the election, but I could not disagree more. Or, to be more precise, we at least have to be much more specific what is meant by "decline." We have some profound challenges, no doubt. But I can say with no hesitation I'd rather be an American right now than at any other time in the history of the country. And I'm a straight, white, college-educated male, so my relative privilege would have been significantly greater in prior eras.
Click to expand...

We spend more on the military than the next 5-6 nations combined. Our GDP differential with Japan and Europe has never been larger

If by decline, you mean increased wealth inequality and the danger of Billionaire Bros setting up a Trumplandi Plutocracy, then agreed. The 2017 tax bill continued the wealth transfer from the middle and working class to the donor class.


 
finesse said:
There are two possibilities that would make that correct. They are not all his or those are not the only kids he has. I think we should believe him and point this out.
Click to expand...
In that scenario then it's likely the former. Like some other Religious Right worthies, he strikes me as the type who (like Jerry Falwell, Jr.) likes to watch.
 
Icky Mettle said:
Last reply from me here.

“Issue advocacy crosses the line into prohibited partisan activities if it:
  • Not only communicates an organization’s views on the issues, but tells the audience how to vote based on those issues (or references voting or an election).”

Elections and 501(c)(3) Organizations : WeConservePA Library

Federal tax rules prohibit section 501(c)(3) organizations from participating or intervening in a political campaign in support of or in opposition to a...
library.weconservepa.org library.weconservepa.org

The church can share its position on abortion, by saying/printing things that say “abortion is wrong” or “end abortion,” etc., but it crosses the line when it tells people how to vote on that issue in an upcoming election, particularly when it does so by putting up a sign shortly before an election where abortion is significant issue. The church is endorsing “pro-life” candidates. Telling people to vote pro-life is telling them to vote for those candidates. It is also implicitly endorsing the Republican Party.

As for your examples, first, Greenpeace
Is actually a 501(c)(4) organization, and they are allowed to do a lot more with regard political activity. But let’s look at those examples with a 501(c)(3) organization. “Vote for the Planet” is very broad a fairly vague. There probably wouldn’t be much issue with that due to its vagueness. “Vote Against Climate Change” has the potential to raise some red flags. That said, it’s not quite like the abortion issue where the two major parties’ platforms take polar opposite positions, with one being “pro-life” and the other being pro-choice, and pretty much all of the candidates within each of those parties take the positions consistent with their party’s platform. While addressing climate change is an important issue for Dems and much less of one for Pubs, it’s not so much that the parties take polar opposite positions. The Pubs aren’t necessarily pro-climate change.

I’ll also add that Alliance for Justice has a guide discussing how 501(c)(3) organizations should engage in political activity without running afoul of the rules. With regard to voter registration campaigns, it advises against 501(c)(3)s saying things like:
“Vote to protect the environment.”
Or
“Let’s get out the pro-life (or pro-choice) vote.”
Click to expand...
You're now pushing interpretations of the IRS rules because the IRS rules don't go as far as you need them to. If you can't show that what the Catholic Church did was outside the rules using IRS documents, there's no reason to look elsewhere when those aren't law or guidance-making bodies.

As far as Greenpeace, I used them as an example, but you could find other 501(c)(3)s who do the same thing. And saying that "Vote Against Climate Change" isn't as indirectly partisan as "Vote Pro-Life" is just silly. One party is actively using government to fight climate change just as actively as one party is using it to end abortion rights. It's just as partisan. Pubs aren't "pro-climate change", but are certainly against almost any and all efforts to fight climate change.

As you said, you're done with this discussion, which is fine. But there is nothing that the Catholic Church did here which violates the IRS's rules & guidance on the ways that 501(c)(3)s can perform issue advocacy during a campaign period.
 
SnoopRob said:
You can disagree as much as you like, but these kinds of activities have been going on for a long time and there has never been any real effort to place a message as simple as "Vote Pro-Life" as a prohibited activity.

From your second link...

Can an organization state its position on public policy issues that candidates for
public office are divided on?

• An organization may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office as long as the message does not in any way favor or oppose a candidate. Be aware that the message does not need to identify the candidate by name to be prohibited political activity. A message that shows a picture of a candidate, refers to a candidate’s political party affiliations, or other distinctive features of a candidate’s platform or biography may result in prohibited political activity.

Nothing in the phrase "Vote Pro-Life" favors or opposes a candidate, it states a public policy position on an issue that divides candidates. As long as nothing about particular candidates or their stances are mentioned, then "Vote Pro-Life" is perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...
In today's political climate including the reproductive rights arguments, you don't see "vote pro-life" as supporting a specific presidential candidate?

Also, these restrictions come from being non-profit, correct? They could simply stop being a non-profit organization and they would be ok to back a specific candidate, correct?

That might settle several issues.
 
Duke Mu said:
Almost all the MAGA "pro-lifers" are pro-death penalty.
Click to expand...
Well, considering that their positions seem to indicate that they are only pro-life up until birth (which as we know is more about controlling women), it makes perfect sense that they are pro-death penalty.
 
UNCatTech said:
In today's political climate including the reproductive rights arguments, you don't see "vote pro-life" as supporting a specific presidential candidate?

Also, these restrictions come from being non-profit, correct? They could simply stop being a non-profit organization and they would be ok to back a specific candidate, correct?

That might settle several issues.
Click to expand...
Nonprofits are allowed, within the purview of their mission, to take on issue advocacy and to advocate for things that will address their concerns around those issues.

They are not allowed to "electioneer" or act in specific ways to participate in a campaign for a specific candidate or specific slate of candidates.

The details are very important as to what they are allowed to do and when and many nonprofits move right up to the line, so it is hard to say what is allowable unless you're discussing a particular situation.

However, to your question: "Vote pro-life" obviously divides between candidates at the presidential level. But it very well may not be illegal despite that depending on the details of the situation as long as there is no effort on behalf of the nonprofit to say which candidates are pro-life or not.
 
Icky Mettle said:
Last reply from me here.

“Issue advocacy crosses the line into prohibited partisan activities if it:
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what the IRS says and to be honest, I'm not sure why the IRS continues to publish these regs.

The Supreme Court has weighed in and said that non-profits have a constitutional right to engage in issue advocacy, which is what "vote pro-life" is considered. This is basically Citizens United and Wisconsin Right To Life.

www.fec.gov

Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC - FEC.gov

Summary of Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC
www.fec.gov www.fec.gov
 
Full transcript of his Joe Rogan Interview

Full Transcript — JD Vance and Joe Rogan (#2221) | TurboScribe

JD Vance and Joe Rogan interview (#2221). Full transcript. Read or listen: "What is it like running for Vice President of the United States? How crazy is this experience?..."
turboscribe.ai turboscribe.ai

Vance discussing the East Palestine Train Derailment: "We couldn't get Biden-Harris. We couldn't even get some of my colleagues in the United States Senate to give a shit."

From the white house:
www.whitehouse.gov

FACT SHEET: One Year After Train Derailment, Biden-Harris Administration Continues to Support People in East Palestine, Ohio and Nearby Communities and Hold Norfolk Southern Accountable | The White House

President Biden to visit East Palestine, Ohio in February One year ago, on February 3, 2023, a Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous chemicals
www.whitehouse.gov www.whitehouse.gov

Vance: I've had Covid 5 times, but was sickest by far after I took a Covid Vaccine. "the fact that we're not even allowed to talk about the fact"

Vance: "I mean, obviously, like, there are corporations that we're more pro certain businesses, and we tend to be more anti certain businesses. Can anybody really in 2024 say that Apple, which employs thousands of slaves in Shenzhen, is Apple's interest is America's interest? Like, I just don't. That's ridiculous."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top