• Free speech: IRS intimidation? Free speech: IRS intimidation? By St. Louis Post-Dispatch – October 31, 2004 The Internal Revenue Service is abusing its power by investigating the NAACP because of a speech in which its chairman, Julian Bond, criticized
• Free speech: IRS intimidation?
Free speech: IRS intimidation?
By St. Louis Post-Dispatch – October 31, 2004
The Internal Revenue Service is abusing its power by investigating the NAACP because of a speech in which its chairman, Julian Bond, criticized the president.
In a letter to the NAACP this month, the IRS said the group’s summer convention in Philadelphia may have violated the restriction on political activity by nonprofit groups because Mr. Bond’s speech “condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush on education, the economy and the war in Iraq.” The letter even asked the NAACP for information on the cost of its convention and the “names and addresses of each board member and…how each voted.”
In his speech to the convention, Mr. Bond had said, “The election this fall is a contest between two widely disparate views….One view wants to march us backward through history….The other view promises expanded democracy.”
Reacting to the IRS letter, Mr. Bond accused the agency of “Nixonian” political intimidation just before the presidential election, an accusation denied by the IRS. Frances Hill, a University of Miami law professor and expert on the political rights of tax-exempt organizations, says it’s “amazing” that the IRS would audit a group based on a passionate public speech. If Mr. Bond’s speech is sufficient to trigger an audit, she says, the agency must have developed “quite a new standard.”
If the IRS does have a new standard, the public deserves to know what that standard is and whether the government is applying it evenhandedly. If Mr. Bond’s comments amount to participation in a political campaign, what about the election advice of Catholic bishops or the voters’ guides of various churches? Mr. Bond is right to wonder whether his group is being unfairly singled out for scrutiny solely because he criticized the president.
