IRS Complaint Filed Against NOM And Witherspoon In Regnerus Anti-Gay Study Controversy

The National Organization for Marriage ("NOM") has consistently shown that it believes it is above the laws that bind others.  A prime example if the way in which NOM ignores campaign finance disclosure laws in virtually every state where it takes its increasingly virulent anti-gay message which has expanded to include far more than "protecting the sanctity of marriage."  NOM now supports reparative therapy and has been parroting standard anti-language that even includes the lie that gays have shorter life expectancies.   Thus it would be no surprise if NOM were found to be improperly funneling - i.e., basically laundering money - through other like minded entities, including 501(c)(3) entities that are barred from political activity.  An article in the New Civil Rights Movement looks at an IRS complaint that has been file against NOM and the Witherspoon Foundation which provided the bulk of the funding for Mark Regnerus' discredited anti-gay parenting study.  Here are exceprts:

 

Regnerus’s known total of $785,000 for the study was arranged by The Witherspoon Institute and The Bradley Foundation, where Robert P. George – head of the anti-gay-rights, scientifically disreputable National Organization for Marriage (NOM) — holds positions of authority. Witherspoon president Luis Tellez is a NOM board member.

Bradley and Witherspoon are organized as 501(c)3 tax exempt entities.  One arm of NOM, by contrast, is a 501(c)4 organization. NOM apparently would not have been legally able to fund the Regnerus study and to use it subsequently as a political weapon in the 2012 elections. Likewise, Bradley and Witherspoon as 501(c)3s charities are limited in the extent of political involvement legally allowed them.

There thus is some appearance that the Regnerus study money could have been political money, laundered for NOM through Bradley and Witherspoon — (with the money perhaps laundered coming from as-yet-unidentified donors) — even though the Regnerus study was schemed up above all for NOM and Republican Party uses as a political weapon in the 2012 elections.

The appearance is that as a NOM proxy — and as a loophole in the differences between what is legally allowed to 501(c)3s and to 501(c)4s — Bradley/Witherspoon funded the Regnerus study for NOM — with laundered money — for a known minimum of $785,000.

Accordingly, a 501(c)3 tax exempt laws violations COMPLAINT has been filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), against Bradley, Witherspoon and NOM.

The COMPLAINT noted that NOM and Witherspoon formerly shared the address of 20 Nassau Street, Suite 242, Princeton, New Jersey 08542. 

The central allegation is that The Bradley Foundation (“Bradley”) and The Witherspoon Institute (“Witherspoon”), both 501(c)(3) tax exempt organizations, laundered money for political projects for — and/or of — The National Organization for Marriage, which is a 501(c)4 political advocacy organization subject to tax laws different from those pertaining for 501(c)3 organizations.

The Study could apparently not legally have been funded by NOM, and then later used by NOM as a political weapon in the 2012 elections. Furthermore, Bradley and Witherspoon apparently could not legally have funded such a study and then subsequently have promoted it as heavily as NOM is doing, in political contexts in the 2012 elections.

There is an appearance that NOM officials who also have official positions with Bradley and Witherspoon knowingly subverted the letter and spirit of tax laws applying to 501(c)3 organizations compared to 501(c)4 organizations, in order to further political goals shared by those same NOM, Bradley and Witherspoon officials and their corresponding, common organizations.

NOM is very heavily invested, and involved in the 2012 elections nationwide. NOM and/or its various state affiliates are involved in 1) the 2012 presidential campaign; 2) congressional and senatorial campaigns on both the national and state levels; 3) campaigns involving candidates for other elected offices and; 4) campaigns involving state ballot initiatives.

Most of NOM’s political campaigns rely to no small extent on demonizing homosexuals based on known falsifications of scientific records. NOM, for example, demonizes homosexuals by quoting works by Paul Cameron, who in the 1980s was expelled from multiple professional organizations because of his documented falsifications of scientific records.

In various states, NOM is in the courts fighting charges of campaign finance law violations. In California, where NOM has connections to — among other political entities — “ProtectMarriage.com” and “Yes on 8” — campaign finance law violation complaints were filed by Republican presidential candidate Fred Karger, with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission. The aforementioned NOM-linked entities admitted to 18 counts of violating campaign finance laws, and want to settle by paying $49,000 in fines. The Fair Political Practices Commission has not yet decided whether to accept a settlement.

There's more to the article.  The biggest question of all, of course is that of where NOM's money is coming from.  Until NOM is forced to reveal its funding sources, it is safe to assume that more games of breaking disclosure laws will continue.  It never ceases to amaze me how the self-proclaimed "godly Christian" crowd act more like racketeers than true followers of Christ.

Skeletons in Rmney's Tax Return Closet?

The feeding frenzy over Mitt Romney's refusal to release more tax returns continued to boil over today and CNN has an article that looks at what the hidden tax returns might reveal - none of which is good for Romney and his efforts to woo average Americans.  What's noteworthy is that several times in the article tax experts conjecture that Romney may have been guilty of violations of the tax law.  Yes, most Americans do not hold the IRS in high regard, but they have even less regard for tax cheats and law breakers.  Once again, given the political storm, I can only assume that Romney DOES have something to hide.  Hence the refusal to release more returns.  Here are highlights from the CNN article:

By announcing that he will release no further tax returns beyond his 2010 and 2011 returns, Mitt Romney appears to have exempted himself from the proud bipartisan tradition of presidential nominees displaying genuine financial candor with the electorate.

What is more, his disclosure to date is in the wrong direction: It is the release of Romney's past returns, not his current ones, that matters.

Either Romney has an unresolved father figure issue, or he has some special reason not to follow a tradition established by his father.

Given Romney's financial sophistication, it has been assumed by some that there cannot be any tax skeletons in his closet. His reluctance to disclose past returns, however, undermines that assumption. We are left with the difficult task of plausibly reconstructing his financial record based on the one full return that he has released. The result is troubling.

Romney's 2010 tax return, when combined with his FEC disclosure, reveals red flags that raise serious tax compliance questions with respect to his possible tax minimization strategies in earlier years. The release in October of his 2011 return will at best act as a distraction from these questions.  So, what are the issues?

The first is Romney's Swiss bank account.   .   .   .  .   The Swiss bank account raises tax compliance questions  .   .   .  


Second, Romney's $100 million IRA is remarkable in its size. Even under the most generous assumptions, Romney would have been restricted to annual contributions of $30,000 while he worked at Bain. How does this grow to $100 million?   .   .   .   .   One possibility is that .  .  .  .  Romney stuffed far more into his retirement plans each year than the maximum allowed by law by claiming that the stock of the Bain company deals that the retirement plan acquired had only a nominal value.

Third, the vast amounts in Romney's family trusts raise a parallel question: Did Romney report and pay gift tax on the funding of these trusts or did he claim similarly unreasonable valuations, which likewise would have exposed him to serious penalties if all the facts were known?

Fourth, the complexity of Romney's one publicly released tax return, with all its foreign accounts, trusts, corporations and partnerships, leaves even experts (including us) scratching their heads. Disclosure of multiple years' tax returns is part of the answer here, but in this case it isn't sufficient. Romney's financial affairs are so arcane, so opaque and so tied up in his continuing income from Bain Capital that more is needed, including an explanation of the $100 million IRA.

Finally, there's the puzzle of the Romneys' extraordinarily low effective tax rate.   .   .   .  .   For 2010, the Romneys enjoyed a federal tax rate of only 13.9% on their adjusted gross income of roughly $22 million, which gave them a lower federal tax burden (including payroll, income and excise taxes) than the average American wage-earning family in the $40,000 to $50,000 range.

What the American people deserve is a complete and honest presentation by Romney of how his wealth was accumulated, where it is now invested, what purpose is served by all the various offshore vehicles in which he has an interest and what his financial relationship with Bain Capital has been since his retirement from the company. These are all factors that go to the heart of his character and values.

As I said, none of the conjectures are good for Romney.  Here's what Frank Rich suggests to Romney in a piece in New York Magazine:

Is there any major Republican, from George Will to Bill Kristol to Haley Barbour, who has not called for Romney to release more returns? Surely Romney himself is asking for more than two years of returns from the veep prospects he’s vetting. What Mitt doesn’t seem to realize is that whatever embarrassments are in his tax returns, the bigger problem is that his secrecy keeps accentuating all the mysteries in his resume: the erased hard drives he left behind when leaving office as Massachusetts governor; what exactly he did as a longtime lay official in the Mormon church; and, of course, what exactly he did and didn’t do at Bain and, for that matter, when he was there and not there. If he keeps trying to wait out the tax storm, it will keep growing — hitting a new peak when he finally releases the one additional year of tax returns he has agreed to disclose, and another when his veep pick is asked to release his or her tax returns.

The truth is that Romney isn’t really good about talking about anything, trivial or substantive. The five television interviews he gave last Friday to clarify his Bain record — instigated by his own campaign — were so tongue-tied, disingenuous and laced with corporate jargon (“entities” and whatnot) that they ended up doing more harm than good.   .   .   .   .    His strategy on NBC — to duck questions about his offshore finances by hiding once more behind his “blind trust” — was easily demolished. Just 72 hours later, Jon Stewart ran the 1994 clip in which Romney, then running against Ted Kennedy, dismissed a blind trust as “an age-old ruse” that can easily be manipulated by its beneficiary.

One is left with a sense that as a child of wealth and incredible privilege, Mitt Romney thinks that he's above the rules and laws that govern everyone else.  Candidly, I hope he holds out longer and that when additional returns are released that they include the map to some real bomb shells.  I truly like Romney as a person more and more with each passing day.

NOM Spending Thousands to Unseat Iowa Justices - When Will the IRS Revke NOM's Non-Profit Status?

Other than serving as a vehicle to enrich Maggie Gallagher (at right) and Brian Brown, the sole purpose of the National Organization for Marriage ("NOM") is to elect (or defeat) political candidates and to lobby for and effect legislation. Given this reality, I keep asking myself, where the Hell is the IRS and why hasn't NOM's tax-exempt status been revoked? Yes, NOM has a PAC, but if one puts form over substance, NOM in no way should be a tax exempt entity. Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code provides in relevant part that in order to be tax exempt an entity:
*
[N]o substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
*

Excuse me, but the entire mission of NOM is to do exactly what is forbidden. WTF is going on? Has Rick Warren interceded with Obama to protect NOM. It truly makes no sense whatsoever, that NOM is not being hit as a taxable enterprise. Especially given the private inurement accruing to Ms. Gallagher and Mr. Brown. Here are highlights from HRC Backstory on NOM's latest improper efforts to influence elections and political candidates:
*
The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which has a history of trying to defeat pro-equality state candidates in Iowa, this week reported spending more than $235,000 on a television ad that targets three justices on the Iowa Supreme Court who were part of a unanimous 2009 decision ruling that the equal protection provision of the Iowa Constitution guarantees gay and lesbian couples the same right to marry as heterosexual couples.
*
NOM joined the American Family Association, referred to as “among the most vigilant and vicious and anti-gay activists operating today” by the Right-Wing Watch, in supporting the efforts of the AFA-affiliated Iowa for Freedom. Led by former Republican gubernatorial candidate Robert Vander Plaats, Iowa for Freedom has targeted three Supreme Court justices facing a judicial retention election in November.
*
Why are Christianist organizations receiving special rights and retaining tax exempt status when other groups would quickly lose their exempt status if they did a fraction of whar NOM, FRC and other professional Christian organizations do?

National Organization for Marriage Violating IRS Rules?

I've said it before and will say it again - the professional gay haters, while professing to be "godly Christians" are one very dishonest bunch who feel an entitlement to ignore the rules the rest of us have to live by. Like campaign finance laws, tax laws and IRS requirements while making very plush livings for themselves. Now, HRC is reporting that the National Association for Marriage - which appears to be violation election campaign reporting laws in Iowa. Here are some highlights:

*

On the heels of news that officials in Maine were investigating the campaign practices of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), we just learned that authorities in Iowa are questioning the group over potential violations of campaign finance laws.

*
Turns out NOM has failed to register as a PAC and disclose contributors. NOM even boasts in their fundraising letters that they offer donors anonymity. Said the Iowa board letter: “The independent expenditure process in Iowa is not a vehicle to shield political contributions.” Read the entire Iowa letter here [pdf] as well as the Maine letter [pdf].

*

Brian Brown and Maggie Gallagher may have felt pretty good after the love fest they got from the Washington Post on Friday, but the fair-minded Americans they’re trying to reach should take note. One final note… NOM’s 2007 form 990 was finally released last night thanks to Justin McLachlan. Happy reading.

*

So far the IRS form 990 exposes some potentially shady self-dealing for the benefit of Brian Brown who receive a $160,000+ payment to one of his organizations that appears to do little or nothing. Nothing like laughing all the way to the bank while disseminating lies and hatred.