US abuse of charities in politics

There are a lot of abuses in the US involving money in politics. Huge amounts of money are involved, being used to try and attain huge amounts of power. Regulations and laws are generally pathetic when it comes to controlling abuses.

The Washington Post has a story that shows how easy it is to abuse the intent of charities as a way of financing political activism tax free.

Trump adviser received salary from charity while steering Breitbart News

Donald Trump’s chief White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon accepted $376,000 in pay over four years for working 30 hours a week at a tiny tax-exempt charity in Tallahassee while also serving as the hands-on executive chairman of Breitbart News Network.

During the same four-year period, the charity paid about $1.3 million in salaries to two other journalists who said they put in 40 hours a week there while also working for the politically conservative news outlet, according to publicly available documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

The salary payments are one part of a close relationship between the nonprofit Government Accountability Institute, a conservative investigative research organization, and for-profit Breitbart News.

Breitbart News openly and actively promoted Trump and trashed Clinton. Bannon was employed as a Trump campaign advisor in August, and will now become one of Trump’s most senior assistants.

The ties between the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) and Breitbart call into question the assertions the institute made in filings to the IRS that it is an independent, nonpartisan operation, according to philanthropic specialists and former IRS officials.

Bannon launched the institute in 2012, shortly after taking the helm of Breitbart. He sought tax-exempt status from the IRS by describing the institute as an education group to help the United States and other countries maintain a “higher quality of life” through “promotion of economic freedom,” according to IRS filings.

The institute’s board of directors included Rebekah Mercer, director of the conservative family charity, who has become an influential adviser to Bannon and Trump, disclosure forms show.

So it’s a tax free sham, like many US political organisations.

Under federal code, tax-exempt groups known as 501(c)3 public charities must “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.” 

That’s a joke.

GAI spokeswoman Sandy Schulz told The Post the institute “is and always has been in total compliance with all 501(c)3 rules.”

So is that, but like others they get away with it.

Rob Reich, a political science professor at Stanford University who studies philanthropy, said the IRS regulations are poorly written and difficult to enforce. As a consequence, ideologically driven charities across the political spectrum are taking advantage of the agency’s minimal oversight.

Huge amounts of money slosh around with impunity in the United States’ corrupt democracy.

Leave a comment


  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  24th November 2016

    I don’t see how the law could be applied differently without infringing the constitutional right to free speech. Seems to me the ban on political involvement is borderline violating the constitution anyway.

    • I presume charity status could be tightened up. At the moment it’s a farce – I’m sure the Democrats exploit this laxness big time as well.

      Fortunately we have nothing like this here.

      Whale Oil has long fashioned themselves on Breitbart, but don’t have fiddles like in the US to finacne their operation.

      Yesterday they launched a subscription system that was for the same content but advert free, and also proudly associated themselves with Breitbart – but they are unlikely to get any parties associating themselves with WO, openly at least.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  24th November 2016

        I fail to see the problem. No doubt individuals pay tax on their salaries irrespective. Why shouldn’t charities make political statements in pursuit of their aims anyway?

        • But in this and many cases their aims are purely political and not charitable.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  24th November 2016

            How so? The charity’s objects were accepted. That is where objection should be raised then, not in the political involvement that logically follows.

          • dealing with this at MCANZ, we are being super careful about what we do, as Medical Cannabis is highly politicized, and we dont want to be seen as an extension of the Green party or the left in general. The whole reason I started MCANZ was to avoid being seen as a lefty lobbyist.

  2. Its Hilary whose the worst at this. Her foundation has channelled endless funds into political activities. The Republicans only do it to level the playing field. If Hilary wasn’t around her opponents wouldn’t have to game the system.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  24th November 2016

      See how much money Trump’s charity spends on charity as opposed to the Clinton one. The answer is the rather rude one about the square root of……unless you think that paying for a portrait of Trump is a charity.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s