| |
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by smokin
on Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:35 pm |
|
We have a member of Congress that would like to help us, who needs our support. Please read the following article and decide for yourself if you would like to help by writing a letter to Senator Charles E. Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee personally. Should you decide to do so his mailing address is:
Sen. Chuck Grassley
135 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC
20510-1501
202.224.3744
The Senator's website is: http://www.senate.gov/~grassley/
It does little good to email as they are generally not taken seriously as they require little to no effort and can easily be crafted to imitate a false reaction from the public, but 1 written letter is equated to 100 responses by a member of Congress.
Possible points in such a letter could be:
Using tax dollars to fund non profits who are acitvely supporting their own PAC's to promote and support state tax iniatitives to increase taxes on targeted products, not for the state's general fund, but for the state to collect and remit back to the non profit.
Using tax dollars to fund non profits who are actively involved in promoting fraudulent information for financial gain.
Using tax dollars to fund non profits who are then funding legislation targeted at products and groups who will be harmed -- but the corporate source of their donations will benefit from their product being used instead of the attacked product.
Yes - I am beating around the bush, but it doesn't matter if you are referring to oatmeal, orange juice, french fries or tobacco, the process is the same.
http://www.guidestar.org/news/features/charity_reform_july.jsp
Senate Committee Passes New Accountability Rules: Passage of Giving Incentives Now in Doubt
Reprinted from the Chronicle of Philanthropy, June 29, 2006
The Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday passed a series of measures designed to encourage greater accountability among donors and nonprofit groups.
Among the key elements: Donors who try to inflate the value of their charitable gifts would face tough new penalties, and small charities would be required to provide the Internal Revenue Service with far more information than they do now.
In pushing through those measures, Senator Charles E. Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, also appears to have been trying to warn some charities and foundations that he is tired of their efforts to stall passage of legislation designed to stamp out abuses in the nonprofit world.
For more than a year, Senator Grassley has been trying to win enactment of legislation that would both encourage increased giving to charity and close what he sees as loopholes in federal tax law that allow unscrupulous people to benefit from their involvement with nonprofit organizations.
His legislation has stalled in the Senate, however, and run into even greater resistance in the House of Representatives, where supporters have been unable even to find a sponsor for similar legislation.
In an apparent effort to break the logjam, Senator Grassley persuaded the Senate Finance Committee to pass the accountability legislation by attaching it to a bill making changes in the telephone excise tax that was unanimously approved.
Several lobbyists, representatives of nonprofit groups, and Congressional aides said Mr. Grassley's action was designed not only to win passage of some key elements of his comprehensive charity bill, but also to send a message to the nonprofit world: If it does not become more active in supporting his effort to pass a comprehensive legislative package, it may end up with piecemeal legislation that puts in place new laws penalizing improper activity without any accompanying proposals to encourage more people to finance charitable activities.
The top priority for nonprofit groups is a change in tax law that would allow people who do not itemize deductions on their tax returns to take deductions for giving to charity. The senator has supported that change, but only if it is done in conjunction with legislation designed to stop abusive behavior by raising penalties and fines on errant donors and nonprofit groups. In addition, he wants to find a way to make sure the federal treasury doesn't lose out because of the extra tax breaks given to donors, and he has proposed increasing the excise taxes paid by foundations on their assets.
"The chairman is letting the charitable community know that unless there is action on the larger package, he will start moving on his own to pass the reforms he thinks are needed, without the other provisions," said Rick Grafmeyer, a Washington lawyer who lobbies Congress on behalf of several nonprofit groups.
"He feels this is one of the most important issues the committee should be dealing with, and his action today demonstrates that he will do whatever he perceives needs to be done to enact this legislation," said Luis Maldonado, director of government relations and public policy for the Council on Foundations.
Diana Aviv, president of Independent Sector—a Washington coalition that represents 550 charities and foundations—agreed. "He believes unethical people are taking advantage of the charitable tax laws, and he wants it to stop," she said.
Senator Grassley was not available for comment, and his aides would not discuss the strategy behind his decision to attach the provisions to the telephone bill. In a news release announcing the action, Mr. Grassley emphasized provisions that would double fines and penalties for nonprofit groups that engage in improper political activities.
He said he was particularly concerned by the way charities had been involved in the scandal involving Jack Abramoff, the Washington lobbyist who pled guilty to corruption charges and is cooperating with federal investigators looking into possible wrongdoing by lawmakers and others in the federal government.
"We've all heard a lot about inappropriate activity by nonprofit groups connected to Jack Abramoff," the senator said. "The problem is much bigger than Jack Abramoff. Some people are exploiting vagueness in the laws or a lack of enforcement to enrich themselves rather than serve the public. It's unseemly for tax-exempt groups to function this way. It's also unfair to the taxpayers who subsidize that behavior. That's why I continue to try to tighten the laws governing tax-exempt groups."
In addition to the increased penalties for political activity, the Senate Finance Committee also voted to:
Require nonprofit groups to file their informational tax returns electronically.
Force nonprofit groups that receive less than $25,000 annually in income to provide the Internal Revenue Service with basic information about their organizations every three years. Such groups are exempt from filing informational tax returns with the IRS.
Increase penalties for taxpayers who deliberately overvalue items donated to charity so they can get bigger tax write-offs than they deserve. In addition, the legislation would tighten the definition of who is qualified to appraise the value of donated items to avoid conflicts of interest and other problems.
Levy higher penalties on top officials at private foundations or charities who engage in illegal financial transactions with the organization, and stiffen the penalties for nonprofit officials who approve such transactions.
Allow the IRS to share with state regulatory officials more information about actions taken against nonprofit organizations in an attempt to improve enforcement of charity laws.
Abolish privacy rules that make it illegal for the IRS to tell the public when it has denied or revoked an organization's tax-exempt status, and allow the agency to make public documents in the organization's IRS file supporting that action.
While Senator Grassley has usually asked his staff to keep key players in the nonprofit world informed about proposed legislation, Wednesday's action was taken without much fanfare or public announcements. Ms. Aviv thinks that also was a deliberate strategy.
"I think Senator Grassley wants to work with all of us, but he's found that during an open, transparent process a group of naysayers in the nonprofit sector who don't want any reforms enacted have been able to chip away at the bill," she said. "They run to whoever they can influence in the Senate or the House and say, 'Don't pass this and don't pass that.' I think the reason nobody knew all the details of what moved today is that by doing it this quickly, he stops the naysayers from trying to stop it from happening."
Ms. Aviv and Mr. Maldonado both said they feared that by passing the accountability measures first, it was not likely that the giving incentives would also be passed. "This will dilute the likelihood that a package will be enacted," Mr. Maldonado said. |
|
|
smokin
Newbie
Joined: Jun 26, 2006
Posts: 29
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by ericblair2084
on Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:14 pm |
|
What?! This is a shock! 501 (c)3 organizations like American Cancer Society and American Lung Association using their tax dollars and well intentioned charitable contributions for a political agenda!
I had no idea this was going on!
smokin, send me an e-mail. This needs to see the light of day. Democracy is great, but only if the sheeple pay attention.
Otherwise, only a benign monarchy works. As per Machiavelli. |
|
|
ericblair2084
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 19, 2006
Posts: 714
Location: Exit 13/Sulfur Dioxide, Toxic Waste, Superfund, Landfill, $5 Billion in debt, Socialist, NJ
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by smokin
on Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:27 pm |
|
ericblair2084 wrote: What?! This is a shock! 501 (c)3 organizations like American Cancer Society and American Lung Association using their tax dollars and well intentioned charitable contributions for a political agenda!
I had no idea this was going on!
smokin, send me an e-mail. This needs to see the light of day. Democracy is great, but only if the sheeple pay attention.
Otherwise, only a benign monarchy works. As per Machiavelli.
Here is a current one:
Yes, this article is about California, but the same applies to almost all states who are levying new tobacco taxes on its citizens.
Tobacco Taxes from http://www.forces.org
January 16 - Earmarked revenue
[ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/11/MNGV0GLJ2J1.DTL ]
- Rebuffed by both the legislature and the citizens of California in his attempt to bring some sort of fiscal order to a spend-happy state, Governor Schwarzenegger is embracing the maxim of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Last week he proposed a $97-billion general fund budget and a 10-year plan to improve the state's infrastructure at a cost of $222-billion. The sky is indeed the limit in California despite its bond rating being the lowest of the 50 states.
This story by the San Francisco Chronicle performs a public service by pictorially representing the sources of revenue that enriches the state's general fund. Of interest is the contribution the state's high cigarette and tobacco taxes make to the general fund. A glance at the pie chart (text here: http://www.forces.org/newimages/rev.jpg ) the paper provides reveals that alcohol taxes contribute three times as much as do tobacco taxes, but the real story is the figures below the chart.
Over $1-billion of tobacco taxes are collected from California smokers, a group that anti-tobacco says is shrinking to nothingness. From that huge wad of cash a paltry $118-million is deposited into the general fund, just over 10 percent of the take. What happens to the other 90 percent?
Taxpayers will be happy to know that the lion's share of tobacco taxes goes to rich non-profit corporations such as the American Lung Association that uses their windfall to "educate" the public on the dangers of smoking as well as "researchers" such as those who crank out the endless supply of junk science at the University of California - San Francisco. A large slice accrues to the "for the kids" racketeers set up by Rob Reiner who edify the public by expensive billboard messages advising parents to love their children. A small fraction of the funds supposedly makes its way into health care but with sloppy auditing being the standard in California it's anyone's guess whether any of the earmarked, non general funds, benefit anybody other than the well-oiled special interests who passed the special tobacco taxes that finance the "special funds."
It's a forgone conclusion that Schwarzenegger's capitulation to the California's culture of irresponsibility and waste will require some sort of tax increase. A voter approved initiative tacking a new tax of $2.60 per pack onto cigarettes won't help since revenue from this new tax, if it is passed, will be excluded from California's diminishing general fund. Who will get the money should it pass? Ask the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association who are enthusiastically on board the tax-hike campaign.
And my question, why is it legal for those non profit organizations to form PAC's for the sole purpose of lobbying a State Legislature to impose taxes on the public, that the same state collects through the merchants, and then remits back to the organization for their own use? |
|
|
smokin
Newbie
Joined: Jun 26, 2006
Posts: 29
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by ericblair2084
on Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:38 pm |
|
smokin wrote:
Quote: why is it legal for those non profit organizations to form PAC's for the sole purpose of lobbying a State Legislature to impose taxes on the public, that the same state collects through the merchants, and then remits back to the organization for their own use?
You don't know me well yet. You will.
I hope you appreciate sarcasm. |
|
|
ericblair2084
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 19, 2006
Posts: 714
Location: Exit 13/Sulfur Dioxide, Toxic Waste, Superfund, Landfill, $5 Billion in debt, Socialist, NJ
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by smokin
on Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:55 pm |
|
| Ahh, sarcasm - yes, but you ask the question the lurker is afraid to ask - so I answered. Thanks for asking, even if it was sarcasm. |
|
|
smokin
Newbie
Joined: Jun 26, 2006
Posts: 29
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by ericblair2084
on Sun Jul 09, 2006 7:57 pm |
|
MA wrote:
Quote: Of interest is the contribution the state's high cigarette and tobacco taxes make to the general fund. A glance at the pie chart (text here: http://www.forces.org/newimages/rev.jpg ) the paper provides reveals that alcohol taxes contribute three times as much as do tobacco taxes, but the real story is the figures below the chart.
Here's why. Thank liberal nanny state do-gooder Rob Reiner aka Meathead. If cigarette taxes were raised, it would interfere with his agenda.
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060316.shtml
It was on the 2nd chapter of my Economics 101 textbook in 1987. Higher prices = decreased demand = lower consumption for that good.
Meathead went to school apparently. If the cigarette taxes were too high, they wouldn't sell, resulting in less money for his utopian liberal agenda of pre-school for all.
I have a BA in Economics. On that 5th chapter in my Economics textbook, and I remember it like it was yesterday, were these words from our then President:
"Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem."--Ronald Reagan. |
|
|
ericblair2084
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 19, 2006
Posts: 714
Location: Exit 13/Sulfur Dioxide, Toxic Waste, Superfund, Landfill, $5 Billion in debt, Socialist, NJ
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Darkseid
on Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:52 am |
|
| Hell, I'd assumed (probably shouldn't do that, Benny Hill used to warn me) everybody knew about all this. Here in Toledo, the acs, aha, and the ala spent around 200, 000 clams in an all-out media campaign to get the smoker ban amendment defeated. The proponents of the amendment, mostly local, small business owners, spent a paltry sum, and most of it was radio ads. I think I saw ONE tv ad the business owners ran. You just can't compete with that kind of money. But yet....somehow....they did. The amendment passed, and it was the first loss the Nazis had suffered in Ohio. And they were pissed. A few months later, they announced they were going for a statewide ban. There will never be a doubt in my mind that their loss in Toledo is why. The most rabid anti'smoker rag in the entire nation, The Toledo Blade, had virtually daily front-page smoking-related stories and editorials demanding the total ban stay in place. And the scum owner of the paper lost the one thing the wanted more than anything. The paper was quiet for several weeks, then started having editorials calling for a statewide ban. It is my understanding the big three 'charitable' organizations have at least six million smackers ready to go for a media blitz. |
|
|
Darkseid
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 1390
Location: Peoples Republik of oHEILo
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Darkseid
on Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:01 am |
|
| And I hasten to add-in the tv ad blitz, they even had the guts to put their logos (ACS, ALA, & AHA) down in the corner-so there was NO doubt whatsoever as to how they were being paid for. Sorry I got on that rant/tangent about the local excuse for a newspaper, but you have no idea of the sheer amount of flaming hatred I have for it. The Block family (owners) have brainwashed the population here for decades, but their power is slowly, very slowly, beginning to erode a bit. They've done more damage to Northwest Ohio than perhaps any other factor, other than the sinking economy. Make no mistake. I've said this for years. THE MEDIA is our greatest enemy, and has been since their darlings, the Clintons, began the great war on smokers. They picked up the mantle. And the folks at FOX are not our friends, either. |
|
|
Darkseid
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 1390
Location: Peoples Republik of oHEILo
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by DC
on Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:33 pm |
|
| Thought I would bring this back up to make it easier for everyone to reread. |
|
|
DC
Smokers Rights Activist
Joined: Apr 04, 2005
Posts: 820
Location: MD
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by ericblair2084
on Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:39 am |
|
|
|
ericblair2084
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 19, 2006
Posts: 714
Location: Exit 13/Sulfur Dioxide, Toxic Waste, Superfund, Landfill, $5 Billion in debt, Socialist, NJ
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
|
|
