http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x555523#555587Al Capone was taken down for tax violations. Maybe this will be the Koch's downfall.
Oh, wait.:rofl:
I crack myself up.
It sounds like they are violating IRS tax exemptions for 501(c)(3) organizations.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=9... 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.
Be aware that there are two organizations, Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
I did some research on foundations and propaganda for a political science class I had.
Corporations, like the totalitarian governments to which they are drawn, wield great
influence over belief systems in society (Friedmann, 1957). The large corporation is “the
institution which sets the standard for the way of life and the mode of living of our citizens;
which leads, molds and directs; which determines our perspective on our own society; around
which crystallize our social problems and to which we look for their solution" (Drucker, 1946, p.
6, 7 as quoted in Friedmann, 1957, p. 170.) Despite such great power, corporations have avoided
restraint due in part to the “charitable trust” where corporate earnings and corporate strategy can
remain undisclosed (Friedmann, 1957).
Maitland (1936, as quoted in Friedmann, 1957, p. 156) distinguishes the differences
between English and German concepts of trust and advocates for personal accountability:
any reformers of our "charities" have deliberately preferred that "charitable trusts" should be
confided, not to corporations, but to "natural persons." It is said-and appeal is made to long
experience-that men are more conscientious when they are doing acts in their own names than
when they are using the name of a corporation (p. 182, 183).
But apparently there is a widespread, though not very definite belief, that by placing itself under
an incorporating Gesetz, however liberal and elastic that Gesetz may be, a Verein would forfeit
some of its liberty, some of its autonomy, and would not be so completely the mistress of its own
destiny as it is when it has asked nothing and obtained nothing from the State (p. 207).
Friedmann (1957) distills Maitland’s thesis to its essence; there is “the social and political
danger of the assumption that an association, corporate or unincorporated, merely by being in
form private rather than public, should still enjoy the far-reaching immunity from judicial or
other official control which the courts have accorded it” (p. 157).
Spawned from the concept of the charitable trust, the foundation is what Friedmann
(1957) characterizes as “the most important modern institution in the field of group power” (p.
157). A chiefly American invention, the foundation is a permanent charitable institution that
provides a tax shelter to donors, primarily heads of corporate empires (Friedmann, 1957). The
foundation accomplishes this in multiple ways: through gifts exempt from gift taxes, which are
then allowed to be deducted from income; through bequests deductible from estate taxes; and
through the exemption of the foundation itself from income tax, property tax, and other taxes
(Friedmann, 1957). The foundation allows for large sums of wealth to be diverted from tax
collection, while simultaneously awarding control, credibility, and a perception of social
responsibility (Friedmann, 1957).
The ability of foundations to influence educational policy, research, and foreign affairs
has led to the development of what Adolf Berle has described as a “corporate
conscience” (Friedmann, 1957). As a conscience is dependent on the belief system that supports
it, it is not surprising that the endeavors of some foundations appear questionable (Friedmann,
1957). Friedmann (1957) cites the linkage of educational policy to the “political propaganda” (p.
162) of free market principles.
Foundations capitalize on the mass media to further their interests (Herman and
Chomsky, 1988, as cited in Goodwin, 1994; Joseph, 1982). Mass media has a dependence on
“experts” and foundations provide content, in effect subsidizing the media (Herman & Chomsky,
1988, as cited in Goodwin, 1994). The self-serving interests of the foundation creates a bias in
news (Herman & Chomsky, 1988, as cited in Goodwin, 1994). This is one of the five “filters” in
Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model that “filter out the news fit to print, marginalize
dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to
the public” (Herman & Chomsky, 1988, p. 2, as cited in Goodwin, 1994, p. 104). Taken as a
whole, these filters signify what Herman (1994) refers to as “power laws”- a “power law of
access” and an “inverse power law of truthfulness”:
The first law says that the greater your economic and political clout, the easier access to the your
mass media; the less your power, the more difficult the access. ... The second law says that the
greater your economic and political power-hence, access-the greater your freedom to lie; the
smaller your power, the less your freedom to prevaricate (p. 14, as quoted in Goodwin, 1994, p.
107).
”The second law, follows in part from the first, as those who would be most eager to refute the
lies of the powerful are weak and have limited access, further reduced by their discordant
messages” (Herman, 1994, p. 14, as quoted in Goodwin, 1994, p. 107).
Friedmann (1957) states, “the most powerful, wealthy, and highly organized group may
succeed in identifying the ‘public interest’ with its own interests” (p. 167). Key (1942, as quoted
in Joseph, 1982, p. 247) declares “"The great political triumph of large-scale enterprise has been
the manipulation of public attitudes so as to create a public opinion favorably disposed toward,
or at least tolerant of, gigantic corporations” (p. 102, 103). In a pluralistic society there are
countervailing forces, however their ability to heard may be limited (Friedmann, 1957; Joseph,
1982). C. Wright Mills (1956, as cited in Joseph, 1982) proposed a three-level pluralistic theory
of power: at the top was the executive branch of government, along with corporations and the
defense industry; the middle level was composed of interest groups where the pluralistic model
of competition actually occurred; and the bottom level held the general public. Seeking to
differentiate his theory from Marxism, which stated that the economic sector held all the power,
Mills saw power as being equal among the three groups in the top level (Mills, 1956, as cited in
Joseph, 1982). “Mills maintained that political, military, and economic elites all exercised a
considerable degree of autonomy, that they were often in conflict, and that they acted in concert
only on certain occasions” (Mills, 1956, as cited in Joseph, 1982, p. 250).
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
