Nice to see that a magazine that has continually endorsed the establishment has come out against Donald! Hopefully it further fuels his campaign.
National Review against Trump
- Thread starter IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life
- Start date
In March of last year, Politico reported that National Review was becoming a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, which would enable it to solicit tax-deductible donations: “Since its launch, the magazine has operated as a not-for-profit business, even as it came to rely on more and more donations in recent years. Starting next month, it will become a nonprofit organization, which will make it exempt from federal taxes. National Review also plans to merge with the nonprofit National Review Institute, its sister organization, according to a source with knowledge of the plans.”
Rich Lowry averred that the shift would be good for the magazine, which was fighting a costly lawsuit and had never been profitable anyway. “We're a mission and a cause, not a profit-making business,” he told Politico. “The advantage of the move is that all the generous people who give us their support every year will now be able to give tax-deductible contributions, and that we will be able to do more fundraising, in keeping with our goal to keep growing in the years ahead.’”
This anti-Trump issue of National Review is, in effect, a campaign pamphlet directed against a political candidate—indeed, the cover proclaims “Against Trump”—and, as such, is in clear violation of IRS statutes regulating nonprofit organizations.
The regulations are quite explicit that nonprofit organizations 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.”
The IRS web site informs us that “The regulations further provide that activities that constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate include, but are not limited to, the publication or distribution of written statements or the making of oral statements on behalf of or in opposition to such a candidate.”
Whole article:
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/in-clear-violation/#.VqKCbaD65v0.twitter
Rich Lowry averred that the shift would be good for the magazine, which was fighting a costly lawsuit and had never been profitable anyway. “We're a mission and a cause, not a profit-making business,” he told Politico. “The advantage of the move is that all the generous people who give us their support every year will now be able to give tax-deductible contributions, and that we will be able to do more fundraising, in keeping with our goal to keep growing in the years ahead.’”
This anti-Trump issue of National Review is, in effect, a campaign pamphlet directed against a political candidate—indeed, the cover proclaims “Against Trump”—and, as such, is in clear violation of IRS statutes regulating nonprofit organizations.
The regulations are quite explicit that nonprofit organizations 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.”
The IRS web site informs us that “The regulations further provide that activities that constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate include, but are not limited to, the publication or distribution of written statements or the making of oral statements on behalf of or in opposition to such a candidate.”
Whole article:
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/in-clear-violation/#.VqKCbaD65v0.twitter
Amusing article on this in The Guardian. Among other clever observations, there's this:
Take Glenn Beck. I really don’t know what genius at National Review thought he would be a good representative for impeaching an opportunistic huckster prone to wild populist confabulation.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...onal-review-donald-trump-attack-will-backfire
Take Glenn Beck. I really don’t know what genius at National Review thought he would be a good representative for impeaching an opportunistic huckster prone to wild populist confabulation.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...onal-review-donald-trump-attack-will-backfire
I don't think it's a 501C(3) yet. We've been subscribers for decades, have donated money to the magazine, even did some beta testing when they got into computers for the first time, and we haven't heard anything about it. Considering the monthly (or more frequent) appeals for money, if it suddenly were a tax-exempt deal, I'm pretty sure NR would have mentioned it.
FYI, here's a lengthy blog by Jonah Goldberg about the anti-Trump position the magazine has taken. Really fairly interesting if you're a political wonk.
http://link.nationalreview.com/view/547f9de03b35d0210c8bb89f3jsqf.3lfa/698a2add
The chutzpah these guys have is amazing. They help create Trump and don't even acknowledge it.
