If it’s good for the goose, is it good for the gander?

I begin this post today by stating that I will not be commenting on any candidate for any office in the upcoming election which might imply my prejudice for or against the candidate. But I shall offer some thoughts about organizations that do offer their views, be they pro or con, regarding candidates.

Recently, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. endorsed Senator Obama for the presidency. This organization is a § 501 (c) (4) tax exempt organization. It is separately incorporated from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. which is a § 501 (c) (3) tax exempt organization. I understand the distinction of these exemptions and what they allow and do not allow organizations to do in the realm of politics. Some might argue that one may not endorse or campaign against a candidate, but the other may because they are distinct organizations. And in one sense, I suppose they are separate juridical entities. But, if fact, are they?

According to a recent federal tax return of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., it states that it makes contributions to the non-charitable but otherwise tax exempt Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. In one section of the same tax return, the amounts contributed are listed as $1,396,901.00, but in another part of the same tax return, contributions are listed as being in excess of $2,000,000.00. The tax return further notes that the two organizations have an overlapping board of directors; moreover, if you view their respective websites, you will see that they share a common president, Ms. Cecile Richards, the daughter of the late Texas governor, Ann Richards. Both organizations also have a common address at 433 West 33^rd Street in New York City, and they have listed the same general telephone number, which happens to be 212-541-7800.

I think back to the 1980s when the Abortion Rights Mobilization, an affiliated group of abortion advocates, sued the United States Catholic Conference and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (now both combined in the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) challenging the tax exempt status of the Roman Catholic Church because it, the Church, allegedly participated in politics to advance its views on abortion. The underlying litigation at one point suggested that the Church improperly expressed views for and against candidates that also violated its tax exempt status.

Ultimately, the Church prevailed in this prolonged and expensive legal challenge.

Taking into consideration the recent developments of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc.’s endorsement to which I have referred, I wonder if the Planned Parenthood Federation of America would object to the founding of a § 501 (c) (4) political action group with an address at 3211 Fourth Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20017 and a general phone number of 202-541-3000 that would have a directorate overlapping with that of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops? But, how could they object since they do the same thing?

Let me be clear, I am not advocating for such a thing nor would I, but, as a teacher of the law, am I not entitled to dabble in a hypothetical that borrows from existing cases?

RJA sj