I'd hoped to do a follow-up this week to the previous poll that asked how much money WarOnGuns visitors donated to pro-gun groups. This time, I was going to focus on how much time you give toward protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
We'll need to save that one for another day. Events pertaining to rogue priest Father Michael "Snuffy" Pfleger justify a more timely use of that space.
Go on over to the left margin and weigh in on what you think the most effective way to deal with him should be.
I would have liked to vote for both charges and tax status revocation, but the widget let me choose only one...
ReplyDeleteYep. The question is which one do you think would be MOST appropriate.
ReplyDeleteI don't design these polls to be easy--I want people to think the questions through, maybe learn more about the subject as they do.
If threat charges are pursued, what is the liklihood they will stick, that something will come of it? Knowing Snuffy's history of thumbing his nose at the law and being acquitted through jury nullification, is it reasonable to expect--if criminal threat charges were filed--that not one juror would refuse to convict based on a reasonable doubt that "snuff out" meant to extinguish Riggio's business and not kill the man?
In the tax example, can we point to what the 501(c)(3) regs require in order to be a tax-deductible entity? And can we find unequivocal examples of St Sabina using its resources for legislative advocacy? If those charges were pursued by the IRS, do you think there is more or less likelihood of impacting Pfleger's operations than the other three poll choices?
How about the Archdiocese? We've seen the Cardinal back down numerous times on Pfleger's disobedience, and we have a statement from them that if it's a criminal matter it should be pursued by "the authorities." In other words, like Pilate, they have washed their hands of the matter. Do you think complaining to them will be the most effective way to rein Snuffy in?
And what about the fourth option? As much as we might loathe the Snuffster, does he have a right to say what he did and be free from IRS or criminal threat backlash? If that's the case, why can't we ALL issue menacing statements, or why can't we ALL form tax deductible 501 organizations to advocate for causes we believe in? Then again, because we can't, why should he be given a pass?
I hope this helps clarify why I intentionally did not allow for multiple choices.
The choice I would like to have made is to do nothing through the legal system, but to loudly keep reminding people what he said, and to shun him (if I had the opportunity). I feel that everyone has a right to say anything they want, but they do not have a right to silence the resultant comments, nor to expect me to forget what they reveal about themselves.
ReplyDeleteNo one has the right to advocate murder. Sure, he can say whatever he wants, but he has to accept responsibility for the consequences. If he publicly has called for someone's murder (actually several someones) criminal charges should be brought against him if possible.
ReplyDeleteHe is also obviously abusing his 501(c)(3) status. So I would vote for both A and B.
I want to change my vote. I had voted for the tax issue but now I hear its a non-issue.
ReplyDeleteFrom Volokh.com
Organizations to which donations are tax-deductible (so-called 501(c)(3)s) — including religious organizations — aren't allowed to expressly support or oppose the election of candidates, and are limited in their lobbying for the enactment of legislation. General public education, including advocacy, is fine, but not electioneering or (too much) lobbying; if they want to do that, they need to set up arms that collect non-tax-deductible donations (so-called 501(c)(4)s, as opposed to the 501(c)(3)s).
No, it is not a non-issue in this case--Note they do not discuss the Pfleger situation. The pastor speaking against Romney was decrying Mormonism as a qualifier for his fitness, which is different from specifically calling for legislation by bill, which goes beyond general advocacy.
ReplyDeletePer IRS Publication 557, Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization, Chapter 3. Section 501(c)(3), "Application for Recognition of Exemption":
"The organization will not, as a substantial part of its activities, attempt to influence legislation (unless it elects to come under the provisions allowing certain lobbying expenditures)..."
When we look at the section on "Lobbying Expenditures," it says:
"In general, if a substantial part of the activities of your organization consists of carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, your organization’s exemption from federal income tax will be denied."
I would argue Pfleger is devoting a substantial part of his activities doing this.
Source: Online Compendium of Federal and State Regulations for U.S. Nonprofit Organizations
ReplyDeletehttp://paperglyphs.com/nporegulation/lobbying.html
Which 501(c)(3) Organizations May Elect to Lobby Under 501(h)?
IRC 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organizations are permitted to lobby beyond an "insubstantial" degree only if they elect to qualify under IRC 501(h) by submitting IRS Form 5768, and obey the associated laws and regulations. However, not all IRC 501(c)(3) organization are permitted to make that election. The only organizations that may elect to lobby under IRC 501(h) are those described in IRC:
* Section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) (relating to educational institutions),
* Section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii) (relating to hospitals and medical research organizations),
* Section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) (relating to organizations supporting government schools),
* Section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) (relating to organizations publicly supported by charitable contributions),
* Section 509(a)(2) (relating to organizations publicly supported by admissions, sales, etc.), or
* Section 509(a)(3) (relating to organizations supporting certain types of public charities) [except that for purposes of this subparagraph, section 509(a)(3) shall be applied without regard to the last sentence of section 509(a)].
and which are not:
* (A) Described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(i) (relating to churches),
* (B) An integrated auxiliary of a church or of a convention or association of churches, or
* (C) A member of an affiliated group of organizations (within the meaning of section 4911(f)(2)) if one or more members of such group is described in subparagraph (A) or (B).
In summary, only certain classes of public charity may elect to qualify under IRC 501(h) and therefore engage in a substantial amount of lobbying activity. Religious institutions, their auxiliaries and affiliates, and private foundations do not qualify under IRC 501(h) and therefore are prohibited from more than an insubstantial amount of lobbying.
[end quoted material]
Had Pfleger merely spoken out against guns, I wouldn't be raising this issue, but would have gone after him with gun advocacy arguments.
But he devotes and has devoted considerable effort toward promoting specific legislation, and beyond that, has threatened to take his organization and followers and not just "snuff out" the gun shop owner, but also to snuff and intimidate legislators who don't vote his way--using his following as the means to back up his political demands.