Is Media Matters guilty of cheating on taxes?

Post Reply New Topic

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

So you're telling me it's okay to break the law and/or use tax money to support a partisan cause because it is something you favor?

....

It is against the law for a supposed educational nonprofit to declare a partisan war against another news agency and attempt to get people of a certain political ideology elected.

....

No matter how you try to spin this, Fox News is correct. If mediamatters wants to give up their tax-exempt status and engage in a partisan feud with Fox News, they are welcome to try, but they can't have it both ways.

....

What part of mediamatters is breaking the law, do you not understand? People often go to prison for tax-evasion.

....

Again, you're saying it's okay for people and organizations to be tax cheats as long as they support the leftist cause.

...

Their publicly declared partisan war on Fox News and saying they would pull any tactic to take out Fox News kinda showed that they were in blatent violation of the law....However, in doing this mediamatters is blatently violating tax law concerning their nonprofit status, not that they will be prosecuted until Chicago is kicked out of Washington, no matter how you spin it mediamatter is breaking the law by engaging in such partisan behavior....Fox News is a for-profit enterprise and thus they can say what they want, but there are rules concerning nonprofits and entities like NPR (which receive tax money), and they are in blatent violation of the law and they don't care.

Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c)(3) Organizations

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.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.

This isn't a popularity contest pandabear, the facts are the facts.

Mediamatters claims they are an educational group and a non-partisan nonprofit, however in their very mission statement, they show flat out that it is a lie.

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

I already know people here will vote not guilty regardless simply because it's for a left wing cause.

So quite frankly, I couldn't care less which way the poll because the facts are the facts, and your opinion is not fact.

Will you be serving, then, as the Lead Attorney for the Prosecution?



Once again, Media Matters' Mission Statement reads



Media Matters does claim to be not-for-profit. Media Matters does not claim to be non-partisan. Indeed, Media Matters states specifically that it is dedicated to analyzing and correcting specifically Conservative misinformation. Media Matters does not use the word "educational" in its mission statement, but it does seem to have an educational goal, which is to make the public aware of Conservative misinformation.


The Court's decision will be based upon the facts and arguments presented and upon the applicable laws.


Again, the Court's decision will be based upon the facts and arguments presented and upon the applicable laws.

I'm saying I'm not going to play along with your attempt to just turn this into a bashfest directed towards me.

I really don't care what you claim the verdict is because you are not a judge, and if you were you would know you would have had to recuse yourself from the case already.

Bashfest? Heavens, no!


Do you mean to say that you have no evidence or argument against the defendant?

I'm saying I'm not going to play along with your farce of a court. You are not a judge, and I'm not engaging in an idiotic popularity contest with a blatently biased jury where one would be more likely to reason with a brick wall than change minds of whom your "jury" would be.

I have better things to do than waste my time trying to reason with an individual that is more interested in mocking me than having an actual conversation on the issues.

You have called me an anti-semite, racist, you have implied that I was brainless, heartless, etc., so I'm not going to indulge in your attempts to bully me because I don't share your political views. So it's blatently obvious to me that this is just another attempt by you to try to turn this into a bashfest directed towards me hoping I will retailiate so you can get me in trouble with a moderator, well sorry but I'm not playing along.

Do you really consider me to be so mean?

You have accused Media Matters of breaking the law by cheating on taxes. You snipe at Media Matters here and there, when the discussion is a separate topic. This is your opportunity to present a full-blown case against Media Matters.

Are you only bluffing about Media Matters breaking the law? Do you have any evidence or real arguments?

Would you like an honest answer?

http://biggovernment.com/mdake/2011/07/ ... -them-one/

Excessive Lobbying activities and being involved in a political campaign are two things that come to mind.

Would you like an honest answer?



No, it really isn't because your court has absolutely no objectivity.



Let's see they bullied Fox News sponsors which Orbitz ended up calling them out on it. The pretty much exclusively target conservatives.

Furthermore as pointed out on biggovernment.com which I know you hate who owns it, there is a nice little bit of information on reason to send a complaint to IRS.


http://biggovernment.com/mdake/2011/07/ ... -them-one/

Excessive Lobbying activities and being involved in a political campaign are two things that come to mind.

Of course.

What were Media Matters' lobbying activities?

In what political campaign was Media Matters involved?

MMA’s activities should disallow its tax-exempt status in two fundamental ways. First, IRS rulings make clear that attacks on individuals, statement of positions that are unsupported by facts and use of inflammatory language and other distortions will cost an organization its tax-free status. Second, in declaring “guerrilla warfare” on Fox as the “leader” and “mouthpiece” of the Republican Party and in developing a sophisticated Democratic-leaning media training boot camp, MMA has transformed itself into an aggressive advocate for Democratic and progressive causes and thus produced a second deviation from exempt educational activities.

MMA’s activities should disallow its tax-exempt status in two fundamental ways. First, IRS rulings make clear that attacks on individuals, statement of positions that are unsupported by facts and use of inflammatory language and other distortions will cost an organization its tax-free status.

Second, in declaring “guerrilla warfare” on Fox as the “leader” and “mouthpiece” of the Republican Party and in developing a sophisticated Democratic-leaning media training boot camp, MMA has transformed itself into an aggressive advocate for Democratic and progressive causes and thus produced a second deviation from exempt educational activities.

Also American Campaign Academy was denied tax-exempt status for the same reason I'm saying mediamatters should have their tax-exempt status yanked (only difference was which side they supported).

Gingrich was in a position to know the dangers of mixing tax-deductible dollars and politics as long ago as the late 1980s, when the Internal Revenue Service took the unusual step of denying a tax exemption requested by the American Campaign Academy, a group formed by some Gingrich advisers to train political operatives. One of those who set up the academy, Joseph Gaylord, went on to become Gingrich's top political lieutenant in the period covered by the ethics charges.

In a 1989 ruling, a U.S. Tax Court judge upheld the IRS, saying that the academy was partisan because it served "the private interests of Republican party entities rather than public interests exclusively."

...

Gingrich's first foray into the world of tax-deductible dollars was in 1984 when he founded and became chairman of the American Opportunity Foundation, a 501(c)(3) group designed to research and conduct forums on such topics as "lessening the burdens of government."

In October 1984, a month before President Ronald Reagan's landslide reelection, The Washington Post reported that the foundation and a similar group were working with an arm of the Republican National Committee to arrange campus rallies to celebrate the first anniversary of the invasion of Grenada.

In connection with the rallies, Gingrich's group produced an ad that pictured an American student "rescued" during the Reagan-ordered invasion kissing American soil as well as blindfolded American hostages in Iran when Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, was president. Gingrich described the rallies as a "nonprofit educational experience." The group's director added: "If it does help the president's campaign, it does."

Gingrich's next experience with a charitable group came in 1986 with the American Campaign Academy -- the group that ended up in tax court. Gaylord, then executive director of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), was the driving force behind forming the training venture, according to Carlyle Gregory Jr. and Rich Galen, former presidents of the group. The academy was spun off from the NRCC after it became too expensive, Gregory recalled. "We were trying to figure out a way to fund it with tax-exempt money," he said.

...

An academy newsletter from the period shows the group ran get-out-the-vote drives in Gingrich's district in the 1986 election. In September 1989, a few months after the tax court denied the tax exemption, Gingrich noted in a letter from GOPAC, the political action committee he chaired, that "we work directly with the American Campaign Academy" among other GOP groups.

Inuyasha wrote:

Is it really developing a sophisticated media-training boot camp?

I found one article on the American Campaign Academy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 010797.htm



It looks to me like one difference between Media Matters and the American Campaign Academy is that Media Matters has a mission of educating the public on misleading statements by Fox News and other entities, whereas the American Campaign Academy did not have such a mission, but was rather involved in arranging campus political rallies.