Is Media Matters guilty of cheating on taxes?

Post Reply New Topic

To throw that back in your face, look at the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution, the fact Media Matters has tax exempt status, is like saying they are being endorsed by the Federal Government to try to deprive a news agency of their 1st Amendment rights.

Except laws are being explicitly violated.

They also said they would resort to sabotage, which would be illegal.

The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/03 ... z1clkhTaBn

— is working to chip away at Fox and its parent company, News Corp. They include its bread-and-butter distribution of embarrassing clips and attempts to rebut Fox points, as well as a series of under-the-radar tactics.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/03 ... z1clizpybg

The group will “focus on [News Corp. CEO Rupert] Murdoch and trying to disrupt his commercial interests — whether that be here or looking at what’s going on in London right now,” Brock said,

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/03 ... z1clim2sWF

So seriously, drop the partisan act where you are trying to protect Media Matters.

we're basically having our government endorsing a left wing partisan agency, by the simple fact they don't have to pay taxes.

Heed your own advice, Fox News is not tax-exempt, MSNBC is not tax-exempt, CNN is not tax-exempt; Media Matters is tax exempt.

Since they apply that to all churches, mosques, etc. you don't have a case.

That is not the case with Media Matters, because Media Research Center has not declared war on the mainstream media, nor have they planned to sabotage MSNBC or CNN.

You are not a judge, you aren't remotely objective on this, so drop the act. In fact you act more like a Defense Attorney than a Judge.

Not in the slightest.

No they aren't.

That would depend on what the sabotage entailed.

So far you haven't identified anything that would be illegal.

I am not protecting Media Matters.

That claim is ludicrous.

Doesn't matter.

Actually, you're the one without a case. The case was closed.

What is not the case?

Be careful, or I'll hold you in contempt again.

In summary, repeating a lie, over and over again, even a million times, does not eventually make the lie true, outside of your own mind.

Through constant repetition, you may eventually cause your society to accept the lie as a part of its conventional wisdom. But, it is still a lie, none-the-less.

Just cause you say something pandabear, doesn't make it true. Real lawyers (which you probably don't even have a law license) have filed a complaint, I think they know more than you do on the topic.

The fact you choose to deny something is happening, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Actually, I have and so did you. Trying to actively wreck a business or individual because you don't like their political views, as a tax-exempt agency that is supposedly an "educational non-profit" is violating their 501c exemption, the fact you refuse to acknowledge that fact is irrelevant.

You've been acting like Media Matters paid attorney at the moment.

Let me get this straight, I provided a source where the head of Media Matters in an interview is saying that they are launching a campaign of sabotage of Fox News and News Corp, and you're telling me that they are doing nothing wrong.

Sorry, but in declaring war on Fox News and going out on their partisan witchhunt, they have violated the terms of their 501c status. The fact you choose to ignore it, while you are going after Fox News for leaning to the right when they are a for profit agency, shows a blatent hypocrisy.

Yes it does, the fact you are choosing to ignore facts, doesn't make facts go away.

You can't be Media Matters Defense Attorney and a Judge at the same time, so you've proven you are neither.

Media Research Center only goes after what has already been said, they react to what media outlets do, they aren't pro-active about the situation. The fact Media Matters is actively trying to disrupt Fox News and News Corp with an intent to silence free speech that they (Media Matters) does not agree with is what this situation is about.

Again you have a problem with Fox News simply leaning to the right, and act like Fox News needs to be silenced, shunned, etc. Yet you have no problem with Media Matters trying to actively wreck Fox News, and you have the gall to tell me that I'm trying to violate someone's 1st Amendment rights... Thank you for proving my point.

Again you are not a judge, your behavior is not amusing, it is annoying.

Really, you've lost this, it doesn't matter whether or not people here see through your charade, the facts are the facts.

There are quacks in the legal profession, as in any other profession.

That does not constitute a violation of an organization's 501(c)(3) exemption.

Thanks for the great compliment, but I'm actually not.

None of these actions violated 501(c)(3) status.

I am paying full attention to the facts.

The WrongPlanet Forum Rules do not forbid me from being both a defense attorney and a judge at the same time, even if I was.

What is your point?

And how would you characterize your own behavior?

Re-read my decision. Actually, you were the one who lost your case. I didn't have a case. I was merely the judge.

Which I know you are not in the legal profession, you are not a judge, and you are really ticking me off with your behavior.

Except the is an attempt to advance a partisan agenda of stifling free speech, so it actually is a violation.

That wasn't a compliment when it is directed towards someone that's claiming to be a Judge, if you were really a judge, you would know that.

Actually, it does:

The organization is arguably engaged in a Campaign to shut up the biggest critic of Democrats and help Democrats get elected.

We've also seen, that they are engaging in excessive lobbying.

You actually aren't, if I can pull your own statements, earlier in the thread and use them against you.

You just admitted you haven't been remotely objective.

That you are being hypocritical.

Someone whom is rather annoyed with someone else's behavior.

You are not a judge, again I'm telling you to knock it off.

Yup, I am well aware that Fox News, Fox Business often tries to present both sides of the debate.

Question is did you?

On Tuesday (6/21/11), Republican activist C. Boyden Gray published an article in the Washington Times alleging that Fox News nemesis Media Matters is improperly receiving tax-exempt status. I don’t pretend to know the in’s and out’s of tax-exempt statuses. But I do know that Gray, who received something of a demotion on Fox after Media Matters revealed his conflict of interest in acting as a Supreme Court analyst on Fox, is not exactly a disinterested party. I also know that Bill O’Reilly’s subsequent attempt to suggest that President Obama is in cahoots with some kind of attempt to defraud taxpayers was completely unfounded and a transparent effort to up the ante against an organization that he also has a vested interest in taking down. On top of all that, Gray’s appearance on The O’Reilly Factor last night (6/23/11) was nothing less than a thinly-veiled effort to get a viewer to file a complaint against Media Matters with the IRS.

SourceWatch (quoting from a 1997 article in The New Republic) says about Gray, “So many different money trails lead to, by and through Gray it is bewildering." Just about every one of those trails, if not every single one, is connected to a Republican and/or conservative cause.

It’s entirely possible that Gray just came up with his concern about Media Matters’ tax-exempt status on his own, as an interested citizen. But even if that were the case, he’s not likely to be impartial toward them. In 2005, in the wake of Sandra Day O’Connor’s resignation from the Supreme Court, Media Matters objected to Gray working as a “Supreme Court analyst” on Fox News because at the same time Gray was also involved with a group created to help then-President George W. Bush get his judicial nominees confirmed. On July 1, 2005, Media Matters’ David Brock wrote to Fox demanding that Gray be removed from his position. Four days later, Media Matters noted that Gray had been “demoted” to “contributor” status.

But somehow, the producers of the “we report, you decide” network’s O’Reilly Factor didn’t feel the need to relay that history to their viewers. Instead, host Bill O’Reilly introduced Gray as “former White House Counsel under President Bush the elder.”

O’Reilly kind of tipped his hand early in the interview when he described Media Matters as “the vicious, and I mean vicious far-left website… in business to hurt the Fox News Channel and other perceived conservative concerns.” He later upped the ante to say Media Matters was on a “crusade against conservative Americans.”

If O’Reilly is so sure that Fox News is truly fair and balanced, you’d think he and the rest of the crew there would be falling over themselves to discredit Media Matters – and folks like us – by proving their fairness and lack of bias. So it’s pretty telling that instead of doing that they’re trying to get at the organization through the IRS. “So the IRS, I guess, is the agency that should revoke their status immediately, correct?” O’Reilly "asked."

Gray agreed and added suggestively, “Someone should file an application or letter with them to question this – I don’t think it should be Fox – but someone should and I suspect after these stories that are being run, that probably will (happen) and then we’ll see what the IRS does.”

O’Reilly did note “to be fair – and we always want to be that” (even though a graphic of George Soros with the description “far left billionaire” had just appeared on the screen) that Media Matters was originally granted its tax-exempt status during the George W. Bush administration.

Gray defended that decision partly by saying it had been made at the “tail end” of the Bush administration. That’s totally wrong because Media Matters began shortly before our blog did – in May, 2004, more than four years before the “tail end” of the Bush years.

But that didn’t stop O’Reilly from suggesting that somehow Obama is complicit in defrauding the taxpayers. “Do you think it is that the Obama administration is actively knows about this and wants this to happen?”

Gray said, “It should know and after this broadcast it will know about it.”

And in case you hadn’t already guessed, Gray added, “That’s the point, I think, of writing about it and speaking about it.”

O’Reilly repeated the “suggestion” that “What has to happen now is that some American or a group has to file an objection with the IRS,” but he went on to complain that it would “take years.”

Not so, according to Gray. If that does turn out to be the case, he recommended going into court “to force a little action in that way.”

By the way, Gray's article was also showcased on Fox Nation.

If Media Matters plays hanky panky they will loose their non-profit status which will crimp their style.

ruveyn

I'm sure that Media Matters is very careful, and that their lawyers have looked over the requirements quite carefully. As long as they are not participating in political campaigns, and not lobbying excessively, and not doing anything illegal, they should be fine, no matter how many people contact the IRS through Fox News.

No, I'm just expecting the IRS won't prosecute nor will the corrupt Eric Holder.

The IRS will prosecute, if there is evidence of a violation. So far, there is no evidence.

This would be outside the jurisdiction of the corrupt Eric Holder. Even Fox News viewers should know that.

Just like those New Black Panthers are sitting in jail from what they did back in 2008. Oh that's right they aren't because the Obama Justice Department dismissed the charges after they had been already convicted.

The Black Panthers were not on trial in this thread. Media Matters was.

I'm pointing out the blatent track record of Obama's DoJ ignoring the law, and letting people get away with committing crimes if it benefits the Obama White House.

Either way, Media Matters has not committed any crime.