Friday, July 11, 2008
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 33rd 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
Thursday, July 10, 2008
I was directed today to a Facebook group called "CST is the best thing that's happened to politics since Thomas Jefferson". Hmmm. Can I agree with the first part and remain cool to our limousine-Jacobin third President? =-)
Gerald Russello has provided a nice short introduction to the (often overlooked) work of American Catholic political theorist Orestes Brownson.
A friend of MOJ suggests that my current highest, best service is to call attention to this here . Who am I to disagree? This is only the second time Planned Parenthood's Action Fund has bestirred itself to endorse a candidate for President of the United States.
At the wonderful religion-and-media blog, Get Religion, there is an interesting discussion of Tim Russert's Catholic faith and how it shaped his journalism, including a recent talk on that topic by NBC anchor Brian Williams and an excerpt of Russert's repeated pushing of Al Gore to answer the question, "When do you believe life begins?" My favorite quote is from Williams, who said that Russert's faith "was not the elephant in the room. It was the room."
From a January 23 column:
...Many non-Catholics already work at Catholic Charities. But the key leadership positions in Catholic Charities obviously do require a practicing and faithful Catholic, and for very good reasons. Catholic Charities is exactly what the name implies: a service to the public offered by the Catholic community as part of the religious mission of the Catholic Church.
Catholic Charities has a long track record of helping people in need from any religious background or none at all. Catholic Charities does not proselytize its clients. That isn’t its purpose. But Catholic Charities has no interest at all in generic do-goodism; on the contrary, it’s an arm of Catholic social ministry. When it can no longer have the freedom it needs to be “Catholic,” it will end its services. This is not idle talk. I am very serious.
* * *
Catholic organizations like Catholic Charities are glad to partner with the government and eager to work cooperatively with anyone of good will. But not at the cost of their religious identity. Government certainly has the right and the power to develop its own delivery system for human services. But if groups like Catholic Charities carry part of society’s weight, then it’s only reasonable and just that they be allowed to be truly “Catholic” — or they cannot serve.
