CRI’s Dangerous Game.
The Caesar Rodney Institute, according to its website, is a 501(c)(3) “research and education organization dedicated to the measured improvement in the quality of life, the degree of individual liberty, and opportunity for personal fulfillment for all Delawareans.”
Now, let’s remind ourselves what a 501(c)(3) organization is. A 501(c) organization is a tax-exempt, nonprofit corporation or association created under Section 501(c) of the United States Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)), which provides for 26 types of nonprofit organizations that are exempt from some federal income taxes. Sections 503 through 505 of the IRS Code set out the requirements for attaining such exemptions. Many 501(c) organizations are exempt from state taxation as well.
Now, to be a Section 501(c)(3) organization, CRI is prohibited from engaging in political activities.
“Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. […]
“[V]oter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
Now, since its creation, CRI has tried to brand itself as “Delaware’s preeminent non-partisan, free-market oriented think tank.” However, it is also quite clear, just through reading the CRI blog, or its issue papers, or through our posts on the CRI, that what the CRI is trying to do is brand right wing conservative talking points as nonpartisan.
For example,
CRI an Honest Broker?
Charlie, Come Out, Come Out Where Ever You Are
CRI an Honest Broker? Part 2
CRI an Honest Broker? Part 3
The Non Partisan Garrett Wozniak Addresses the Sussex GOP
Indeed, the whole purpose for CRI’s existence is to provide Delaware’s Republicans a source to point to for support of their positions. But up until now, the CRI has danced up to, but not over, the line prohibiting overt political activities.
Perhaps until today.
I am told from a downstate listener that CRI Executive Vice President Shaun Fink was a guest on a downstate talk radio station, where he railed against SB 234, the Recycling Bill, and told the listeners that “we will remember in November” who voted for this bill. I will leave untouched the similarity of Mr. Fink’s comment to the Republican Governor’s Association’s campaign Remember November, as it is a common phrase for any political opposition. Oh wait, I just used the magic word, didn’t I?
Is Mr. Fink engaging in political activity here, in his opposition to SB 234 and comments on air on behalf of CRI, that would “would favor one candidate over another” or would “oppose a candidate in some manner” or would “have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates?”
I dare say so, especially if specific Representatives and Senators were mentioned by Fink, and I hear they were. Now, we may be too far out from the election for these comments to be deemed to be “directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign” or “public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office,” especially when you consider that the filing deadline is not until July 30.
But perhaps it is time for us to contact the IRS.
Great post! The “non-partisan” nature of CRI has been a joke from day one. Someone forward this shit to the IRS for real. These DEGOP party hacks need to pay taxes on all the Rollins & DuPont wingnut welfare that is keeping Shaun Fink from earning an honest buck.
Why don’t you people monitor and expose the countless corrupt thieving politicians Delaware is infamous for instead of harrassing a private citizen who voices his political opinion. Oh wait … most of them are Democrats.
I listened to the show and there was no reference to CRI whatsoever. By your flawed reasoning, no one who works for a tax-exempt non-profit organization would be allowed to speak about or contribute to any political candidate. That’s a crock and you know it. In typical leftist fashion, freedom of speech only exists when you exercise it yourselves, while you consistently tell the rest of us to shut up under one guise or another. Guess what — we won’t be silenced.
Guess what — we won’t be silenced.
Nobody wants to silence you or CRI. We just want you to pay taxes due. Fink has 100% free speech; CRI does not (if it wants to keep its tax exemption). Roll the tapes and find out in what capacity he was speaking.
Guess what Mallory, CRI will obey the law and pay its taxes if it wishes to continue in engaging in politics. I know you teabaggers and Republicans hate the rule of law and attempt to break it every chance you get, but we won’t let you get away with it.
Fink does not have 100% free speech so long as he is an agent or representative for CRI. He is bound by the same rules as CRI is.
Fink does not have 100% free speech so long as he is an agent or representative for CRI.
I’m pretty sure he can speak as a private citizen as long as he makes that clear. I’d be surprised if he did make it clear though.
Correct, anon. He would have to preface every sentence he utters with the caveat “Speaking for myself and not for CRI…”
None of your comments answer the question why you’re not using your forum to out the all the corrupt Delaware politicians. Oops…forgot again. They’re mostly Democrats.
Anon: Fink can say what he wants as long as he doesn’t do so expressly on behalf of CRI. He has no duty to preface any opinion with the caveat that he is NOT speaking on behalf of CRI.
I’ve taken a look at the latest from the CRI on SB 234. I found several fundamental errors leading to an absurdly high cost/benefit projection for statewide recycling.
He has no duty to preface any opinion with the caveat that he is NOT speaking on behalf of CRI.
Actually he does. If he has fiduciary responsibility for CRI, then he has the duty not to incur tax liability that would be paid by donors who expected they were giving to a tax exempt organization.
Mallory, you are afraid to even address the subject of this post because of course you know I am right.
“Remember November” is not a violation of a 501(c)(3) organization’s charter. 501(c)(3) organizations are allowed to discuss and comment on politics and issues; they just are not allowed to advocate for or against particular candidates or parties.
A minister in a Church can preach against war or abortions and then urge his congregation to vote in November without violating 501(c)(3) as long as he does not state who they should vote for or against.
@Mallory: Why doesn’t CRI do what you suggest — say, take a good, hard look at the hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted under then-House speaker Terry Spence? Oh, of course, that’s right — because he and his big-spending cohorts were Republican. By ignoring that issue, CRI demonstrates exactly what it is — a political organization.
You “conservatives” are so predictable: You can count on a conservative being guilty of whatever charge she tosses around.
What would you people do if there were no such thing as ad hominem attacks and name calling? You wouldn’t have anything to talk about at all.
Actually, Fink solicited contributions for CRI during the show, gave the website address and repeatedly encouraged people to join.
Obviously this diatribe is your counteroffensive to Lee Williams’ exposé of corruption and tax evasion at InsRis, the DOI’s largest contractor to the tune of $1 million a month. Why are you not coming out on the side of their employees who were shafted by their misclassification as independent contractors but are attacking the messenger instead? The unsavory Tinsley-Karen Stewart connection is also something you should be paying attention to, but then she’s probably bought off all you losers with some of the buckets of money InsRis is kicking back to her. You’re guilty of everything and more that you’re throwing at CRI.
LOL, that’s the first time I’ve heard we’ve been bought off by the IC’s office.
Summary of this thread:
– The non-partisan CRI shouldn’t engage in partisan politics, they could lose their tax exempt status.
– Reply: HATERS!
I believe A1 is right; the restriction on tax-exempt politicking is only for explicitly supporting a candidate. You can talk about bills and policy all you want tax-free.
Thanks UI for your intelligent post. Look up “ad hominem” in the dictionary since you clearly don’t know what it means.
Oh how you suffer, Mallory.
You’re the one who doesn’t know what it means, Mallory. You claim to know motives you have no clue about, and attack those here without even knowing that people here were issuing warnings about the insurance commissioner before the CRI was even formed.
You’re free to explain CRI’s lack of interest in Spence’s wild spending at any time. So is CRI. I’m not holding my breath in any case.
Oh, and just to keep my record of ad hominem attacks intact, you’re a typical conservative — all mouth, no brain.
Well, Geezer, maybe you all are just talking to one another because obviously no one outside this blog listened if warnings were posted about the insurance commissioner before the election. Maybe they weren’t brought to the right people who could have publicized them in time. The WNJ would have been no help, but the party could have done something.
What’s stopping Delaware Liberal from outing Spence in detail if you know so much about him?
Um, because the Delaware General Assembly has thus far REFUSED to honor FOIA requests to release its travel records. Spence’s largesse and wastefulness as Speaker has already come to light.
“The party could have done something.”
The party backed Gene Reed, who lost in the primary. It would be most helpful if you knew anything about Delaware politics that you learned somewhere besides the CRI web site.
“obviously no one outside this blog listened if warnings were posted about the insurance commissioner before the election”
Nice bit of hyperbole there. “Not enough people listened” is more like it. And what was there to be publicized at that point? That she had no job, was functionally illiterate and shouldn’t be trusted? The party knew that.
“What’s stopping Delaware Liberal from outing Spence in detail if you know so much about him”
Delaware LIberal is a volunteer operation, unlike CRI, which pays an investigative reporter a full-time salary. For all anyone knows its other personnel are getting wingnut welfare as well. In fact, it’s kind of cute that you put so much faith in an organization that won’t reveal its funding. What a peculiar understanding of “transparency” that shows.
The General Assembly are protecting their own as usual. The Delaware Way. CRI probably encountered the same road block. They can’t publish information without support any more than anyone else. In their series on the DOI, including today’s part on InsRis, everything was documented to a tee by the department’s and this obviously corrupt commissioner’s own records.
Seems to me that some of CRI’s work is useful (prisons, insurance commissioner …), and some is in the wingnut category.
But the sad reality is that the right is on the march, with all sorts of funded media output in Delaware, and on the left there is effectively very little counterweight.