GOP official says group's chief violated IRS rule
"Campaigning' against someone does not necessarily mean selecting or financing
opposition. It can mean speaking against that person as an individual, which is
what Ms. Williams has done. She does not surrender her individual right to
freedom of speech because of her role in the NAACP. That said, she should be
careful not to provide sound bites that can be used against the NAACP by a
quisling like James Evans.Predictably, most of the people defending
Evans offer thinly veiled, if at all veiled, defenses of racial
about time: "If they wish to participate in campaigns, more power to them.
However do it within the law and do not defraud American taxpayers who subsidize
their operations."I'm glad you agree with their right to participate
in campaigns so long as they do it within the law since that is exactly what
they have done. Now I suggest you "amatuer attorneys" drop the act and this
includes the ignoramus James Evans because it is clear that you people are
ignorant of the law or you would know that what Williams said and did was within
the legal limits of a 501(c)(4) organization,I also suspect James
Evans and the Salt Lake County Republican Party are so stupid they don't know
the difference between a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4) organization when it comes to
permissible political campaign activity (i.e., a 501(c)(4) can recruit and take
part in the nominations of candidates for public office while opposing others
while a 501(c)(3) cannot). If this complain is any indication of the
level of knowledge and experience your party representatives possess it's no
wonder our legislature is full of morons. This attack on the Utah NAACP and its
free speech is appalling.
It's the law, folks: "It's quite simple - if you're a charitable organization,
you should stay out of campaigns supporting or opposing a candidate or risk
losing your tax-free status."The Utah NAACP isn't a charitable
organization instead it's a social welfare organization and to correct the
article it's a 501(c)(4) organization and not a 501(c)(3). It's purpose is to
advocate for African Americans and this means that it can take part in
permissible political advocacy. 501(c)(4) can participate in political
campaigning so long as it is consistent with the organization's mission and and
is not the primary activity of the organization. Opposition to a single
candidate for public office who has made comments that directly impact the
organizations mission is legal for a 501(c)(4) because a) it is consisent with
its mission and b) it is not its primary activity.You state: "The
NAACP, in addition to promoting racism in our community, has now decided to
flout the law. It should bear the consequences."This isn't true and
the actions of the Utah NAACP are consistent with federal law since an 501(c)(4)
organization can take part in political campaigning of this nature if it meets
the conditions I've outlined.
MTM, "Looks pretty cut and dried to me - they violated the prohibition so they
should lose their status."It's not as cut and dry as you or Evan's
would like to make it out to be. The Utah NAACP did not donate any money to a
political candidate or assist one in any way. Opposition to statements by
government or other elected officials isn't a violation of their tax exempt
status anymore than other forms of political advocacy on the part of tax-exempt
organizations are violations of their status. Tax exempt
organizations retain a fundamental and constitutional right to take part in
political advocacy that directly affect their organization or charity and the
NAACP is no different. Tax exempt status doesn't mean that they surrender all
their constitutional rights as individuals and as a group of individuals.If a state legislator made an anti-Mormon comment and the LDS Church
came out and condemned that legislator for their comments it wouldn't be in
violation of its tax-exempt status to do so anymore than it's a violation of the
NAACP's tax-exempt status to come out and condemn Buttar's comments. It's
apparent that both you and Evans don't know the law.
While the Mormon church may have dispensed with being racist towards Blacks, the
legislator (mostly Mormons) continue to exhibit racist bigotry, and while fast
to give the Mormon church any leeway on tax exempt status it sees fit,
organization that are different, secular, or just might challenge the Mormon
Church's positions is deemed outside their view of righteousness, and the like,
and hence gets the shaft at every turn.When is the State of Utah's
politics going to get back to being the moderate lot they are so intent to claim
themselves to be. And when will the MormonChurch get its own act together and
start walking its talk of being the tolerant organization towards others of a
different view.Hmmm... probably a cold day in hell before it
Looks pretty cut and dried to me - they violated the prohibition so they should
lose their status.
There are still people who won't hire minorities they don't like, therefore
these laws are necessary. There would be businesses today who wouldn't serve
minorities food or rent to them.If true capitalism is against these
protections, then true capitalism isn't what we need or should want as a
Nice try. The LDS church doesn't take political stands and use it's forums to do
so. Go find another group to pick on.
I love James Evans. He's the only Republican in this state with any nuts. A
black guy challenging the status of the NAACP. Gotta love that.Second point, I'm glad that this issue is coming out because it will once
again remind everyone what a complete embarrassment Buttars is. I
think people were starting to forget. Thanks, James.
The NAACP is a political organization pure and simple. They should lose their
tax exempt status.Labor Unions are tax exept, nonprofit
organizations. They routinely use members dues for political purposes. Their
newsletters are filled with political propagands. People who join labor unions
are frequently compelled to do so even it they object to labor unions. Union
dues are extracted under threat of termination.Churchs are also tax
exempt organizations. Church members join freely and give freely without any
compultion at all.If churches were anywhere near as political as
unions they would lose their tax exempt status.Nonprofit, tax exempt
organizations who support Democrats get away with murder. Let a conservative
group step one toe out of line and they are history.
Why does the government feel that it needs to force us to make decisions that is
in our best interest? What would happen if nobody was forcing us to
hire "a mormon", a boy, a girl, and have one employee with a birthday for each
month of the year? Efficiency goes down! Why don't we just allow a free market
to control who is working where by allocating the best talents to the best jobs?
Forcing a company to hire diversely is just as racist as any
company that would care about race to begin with. It shouldn't matter.
The question is, Has the NAACP actually followed through on its threat? I think
not. Case closed.
He makes his money preying on the poor. They guy owns pay day loan stores across
the county. He isn't helping the community in any way, including as a
represented lawmaker. I understand the point with the NAACP, but he isn't
exactly a model citizen.
The law is the law, after all.If the LDS church, which falls under
the same law, were the target here, most of the defenders of the NAACP here
would be clamoring for the very same punishment.It's quite simple -
if you're a charitable organization, you should stay out of campaigns supporting
or opposing a candidate or risk losing your tax-free status. You can support or
go against ballot initiatives, etc. all you like under the law, but cannot
target actual candidates or parties.The NAACP, in addition to
promoting racism in our community, has now decided to flout the law. It should
bear the consequences.
Good for Evans! We seem to so blinded by our emotions that reason and rule are
left far behind. This is evidenced by the numerous comments that are posted
about Buttars, LDS church, Republicans, and other topics.
Let's look at it this way. For all of you that have serious feelings of
animosity towards the LDS church (for whatever reason): How would you feel
towards the church if the government told you you had to hire a Mormon (even if
he was less qualified) simple because he/she was a minority? Would you like to
"Bear this Burden?" How do you think you would feel about Mormons after being
FORCED to accept one into your circle of friends or at your workplace? I don't
claim to be an expert in psychology or sociology, but my bet is that you may end
up RESENTING this Mormon more by being forced by the government to accept him
than letting that relationship be cultivated and developed out of love, respect
and mutual trust. My point: the government does a poor job of legislating
morality. Also...I think if the Mormon plays the role of victim in society, he
does not make many friends. Just my two cents. Take what you learn about
treating others with respect, dignity and civility and translate that into your
PC, PC, PC What crap. Just look at the hate Mormon, Hate Republicans, Hate
Conservatives, being vomited in this comment section. Take away the Tax exempt
status of Churches, I'm absolutely positive the LDS Church would continue just
fine. I however could not say the same for many so called churches that exist
only because of their tax exempt status.Remove it for one, remove it
for all. In fact why don't we just do away with the tax code in the first place
so we level the playing field for everyone, and congress can't trade tax breaks
for contributions and votes....
Fair is Fair 8:38 a.m. Johny Fairplay | 9:19 a.mYou might want to
try and hide your double posting a little better next time by picking more
variant names.Thanks also for providing the predictable and
obligatory ignorance to the comments section by dragging the LDS Church into the
discussion. Are we to tax institutions for participating in
political discussion and for lobbying for issues that are important, while NEVER
endorsing any candidate or party?Get a grip.
Several people I know complain about political correctness. I have to remind
them that before PC, it was almost perfectly acceptable to call people
degigitory names, tell jokes with regard to their race. It happened to
minorities starting in elementary school, continuing into adulthood at jobs and
everywhere in society.PC is an appropriate response to see that this
type of thing does not continue or if it does to see to it that those who do it
are shamed and corrected.If you don't like PC, if you don't like
affirmative action, then learn to treat people as you would be treated. If you
will endure internal control, then you will have to endure external control.The days are past that the full burden of race relations are born by the
minorities. Now all people have to bear this burden. PC is part of this, yes
it does seem restrictive and burdensome, but what is the alternative?
Rules are rules?There was a time in the US military when orders were
orders. There was no exemption for illegal orders, due to the Geneva Convention
as there is now.In the 1800's an army officer recieved an order to
execute Joseph Smith on a trumped up charge. The officer refused. That officer
was disobeying the rules and the law. He chould have been put up on charges.Using rules are rules is an excuse for doing a nasty thing. True
greatness and goodness doesn't hide behind rules are rules. Utah Republicans,
Instead of going after the NAACP for doing a job you yourself should be doing,
start doing your duty in this regard and stop finding excuses for doing stupid
The NAACP wouldn't have to work against Buttars, if the GOP would do the right
thing and have him step down.Rules are rules? Instead of going
after the NAACP for doing your job, do it yourself.Lead, follow or
get out of the way.
It is hight time to challenge the tax exempt status of the most politically
interfering tax exempt group in the state. Guess who that is?
Yes, that was right after his stint as the Arch Angel.Quite the
Something in my memory says that Obama was once head of the NAACP
What a strange and sad move by James Evans. Is the GOP sure they want this guy
at the helm?
If Evans is going to challenge the tax-exempt status of an entity for political
meddling, might I suggest he start with the owners of this newspaper.
Does this mean that Evans will be contacting the IRS regarding the tax exempt
stauts of the LDS church dues to their numerous forays into politics, the most
recent being the California Supreme Court ruling?
Only in utah would the gop challenge the NAACP. Only in utah. The safe state.
what a joke.
This is one more reason to be ashamed of my political affiliation.I
wonder if the party is arrogant enough to believe that this won't hurt
Republicans across the county.
NAACP has long functioned as an adjunct to the Democratic Party and flaunted
laws governing tax exempt status.If they wish to participate in campaigns,
more power to them. However do it within the law and do not defraud American
taxpayers who subsidize their operations.(ps- if the organization really
wants to advance the race it will address out-of-wedlock birthrates and
fathers who do not provide for their children. Not as glamorous as protests and
sit-ins but infinitely more relevant to the well being of the community)
Republicans sure do play dirty.
Today is the anniversary of Brown v Board of Education. The Salt Lake chapter of
the NAACP should be leading our community in a celebration and recommitment to
those principles of equality in education. Not worried about Buttars or whether
a drug store is selling dolls of color etc....Hopefully this complaint will help
the Salt Lake chapter of the NAACP focus on its real mission -like Education:
they should ensure that that children of color 'have access to an equal and
high-quality public education by eliminating all education related racial and
ethnic disparities. Through advocacy training, policy development and guidance,
building collaborative networks, and direct action'.
Well duh. James Evans is Senator Buttars' Lap dog. Any body could have guessed
he would try to go after the NAACP for Buttars. James, Buttars is a racist man
who has you doing his dirty work for him today.