Brazen Tax Exempt Pacific Action Committee Directly Violates IRS Code During Presidential Campaign!
Posted by Jeff Condon on January 7, 2012
The Earth’s climate continued to change during 2011 – a year in which unprecedented combinations of extreme weather events killed people and damaged property around the world. The scientific evidence for the accelerating human influence on climate further strengthened, as it has for decades now.
The only time that I know of where climate didn’t change was when Michael Mann invented it. Of course that lack of change is the point of the hockey shtick handle but we will beat that slow-witted monkey on the head some other time. What makes this stink to high heaven is that this PAC is not a political action committee. It is rather, one of thousands of left wing 501c money funnels which operate tax free while simultaneously pushing a pro-government control high taxation agenda.
After the last US presidential election, thinking people should not be surprised to see yet another violation of the law ignored by the liberal activists. What stinks is the lack of astonishment in the media.
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
I have read thousands of examples of violations of this rule but this is by far one of the worst in my experience:
The 2011 Winner: Climate B.S.* from all of the Republican candidates for President of the United States
Is it really necessary to be anti-science in general, and anti-climate science in particular, in order to be nominated to lead the Republican Party in the United States? Apparently, yes, at least in the minds of the Republican presidential candidates or their advisors. These candidates can be split into three groups: those ignorant or uninterested in science and its role in informing policy; those who intentionally distort science because it conflicts with deeply held political or religious ideology; and those who blow with the wind, giving their allegiance to whatever ideology seems most expedient at any given moment. There is some overlap, of course: some candidates, such as Rick Perry, have been in all three groups at various times. The third group includes candidates who have at one time or another held positions more or less consistent with scientific understanding, but who in 2011 adopted anti-scientific positions during their primary campaigns. For example, Gingrich, Romney, and Huntsman, at some point in the past all expressed at least a partial understanding about the reality and seriousness of human-caused climate change. Yet all three have now retreated from the scientific evidence to faulty but ideological safe positions demanded by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. In October, Romney caved in to conservative pressure and changed his stance on the issue. Just days ago, after pressure from anti-climate-science activists, Gingrich cut a chapter on climate science from a book of environmental essays he had agreed to produce. Ironically, that chapter was to have been written by an atmospheric scientist (Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University) who happens to be an evangelical and speaks regularly to conservative groups. She was also targeted by these activists for personal abuse – a tactic often pursued by climate deniers and contrarians. (For a few of the craziest things the top GOP candidates have said on climate change, see Joe Romm’s recent essay at Think Progress.)
Just in case you think there is some wiggle room for the political agnosticism of this activist group, the next paragraph in their “unbiased” and politically neutral article should clear it up for you:
In short, the choice among the Republican candidates on the issue of climate change is scientific ignorance, distain for science, blatant misrepresentation of facts, or naked political expediency, any one of which would make the Republican candidates strong contenders for the 2011 Climate B.S. Award. Combined? They win hands down.
Why is it acceptable for an obviously political organization to take literally millions in funding from government donors for the purpose of promoting extremist, left-wing, anti-capitalist propaganda?
The PAC group had $581,000 USD in donations in 2010 ALONE!-after tax. What percentage came from taxpayers?
Agency for International Development $13512
Bureau of Reclamation $14,670
California Public Utilities Commission $25,808
Community Water Center $8,453
Department of Water Resources $73,716
Institute for Social and Environmental Transition $30,487
United Nation Global Compact Foundation $98,145
United Nation Water Mandate $11,198
United Nation Environment Program $32,782
University of Berkeley $ 19,137
State of California Environmental Protection Agency $18,107
Water Reuse $$38,811
It is absolutely sickening to understand that 66% ( $384,466 USD. ) of the revenues of this blatantly political organization are taken at literal gunpoint from American taxpayers. The money is being DIRECTLY spent for political propaganda in a campaign year! The ‘bosses’ work for this group part time of course, lining their pockets with a couple hundred K of candy while simultaneously working other committees. After all, the board of directors must be paid.
How stupid are we!