Media Matters took $600K for gun control while carrying?

posted at 10:25 am on February 15, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The Daily Caller continues its series on Media Matters for America, this time looking at its tax returns and its tax exemption as a political organization.  The tax returns don’t reveal anything shocking, except for one point of hypocrisy.  In the first report, The DC revealed that the personal assistant to founder David Brock carries a concealed Glock when Brock goes out in public to protect him from attackers, either real or imaginary.  That is a defensible action to take as political debate sometimes brings out the fringe crazies, as I can personally attest, except for two things.  First, if he’s carrying in Washington DC, it’s probably not legal.  And the reason it’s not legal is because of organizations like Media Matters for America, whose tax returns show a hefty amount of cash earmarked for gun-control activism:

Media Matters reported at the end of 2010 that $612,500 of its assets were “restricted” by donors to be applied to “gun and public safety issues.” During this time, The Daily Caller has already reported, Brock’s personal assistant was carrying a holstered and concealed Glock handgun when he accompanied Brock to events.

That’s hardly the only example of hypocrisy in the gun-control movement.  A while back, I wrote about the difficulties in California over open carry; when researching that post, I ran across an article that reported on the difficulties in getting a concealed-carry permit in the state, thanks to the overwhelming power of the sheriffs to make arbitrary decisions on who should get them.  In the county of Los Angeles, few permits get issued, but one went to an attorney who conducts activism for — you guessed it — gun-control legislation.  I can’t find the link at the moment, but I’ll add it if I come across it.

On the matter of MMFA’s tax exemption, The DC reports that Congress may open an investigation into their status:

Congressional Republicans are now interested in examining the Media Matters For America‘s tax-exempt status, The Daily Caller has learned. Doing so would cause the GOP to wade into the complex world of tax laws that govern “exempt organizations” such as Media Matters and more than 1 million other charitable organizations that are exempt from federal income tax.

Media Matters’ critics have questioned its tax-exempt status for some time. The Internal Revenue Service has a series of requirements that must be met before organizations can qualify. Successful applicants pay no federal income tax because the government presumes such charities perform services that benefit the public. Donors also may deduct their charitable contributions.

One central requirement before an organization like Media Matters can achieve the gold-standard nonprofit status — known by its place in the tax code, Section 501(c)(3) – is that it may not “attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities” or “participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.”

But the law, and how it is implemented, is complex.

I think this is a mistake.  Setting a precedent of opening tax investigations on the basis of partisan grudges is one that Republicans and their allied political organizations will regret, and probably sooner rather than later.

What we should be doing is ending tax exemptions for political organizations entirely, along with the forty years of campaign finance laws that ended up with super-PACs running elections.  Eliminate the tax deductions for all political contributions, or perhaps all but those going to a specific candidate, although I’d prefer to make it absolute.  Taxpayers don’t need to subsidize the contributions of others through the tax code.

At the same, eliminate the contribution limits to candidates and instead impose requirements for immediate and continuous disclosure on the Internet through the FEC.  The technology to accomplish this has existed for well over a decade, and should be put into use for true transparency.  Taking those two steps would put the cash back into the hands of the candidates, who would be held accountable for the messaging conducted in the campaigns.

Let’s fix the real problem, rather than attack the symptoms, or the minor players.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Holder was asked at the hearing if he is still in contact with media matters.

Holder dodged by saying he didn’t understand the question.

workingclass artist on May 15, 2013 at 5:24 PM

OT: Obama to address the IRS scandal at 6pm EST. Must of found a YouTube video.

hillsoftx on May 15, 2013 at 5:28 PM

So someone will be bringing up all the releases of military and national security stuff by the New York Times during the Iraq War, right?

catmman on May 15, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Media Matters should go into the pretzel making business.

VorDaj on May 15, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Has IRS ever audited Media Matters ?
Why ?

burrata on May 15, 2013 at 5:33 PM

One of the Media Matters talking points:

It was not acceptable when the Bush Administration exposed Valerie Plame working undercover to stop terrorists from attacking us. It is not acceptable when anonymous sources do it either.

But if Veep Biden wants to call out SEAL Team 6 for the benefit of al Qaeda (the Seals are dead, Valerie Plame is alive), that’s cool.

de rigueur on May 15, 2013 at 5:33 PM

So, appalling liberal support group supports appalling liberal behavior. Again.

Color me a-freaking-mazed.

squint on May 15, 2013 at 5:34 PM

(As Bryan Preston notes, “the Bush administration” is their term for Colin Powell’s deputy Richard Armitage, who outed Plame inadvertently.)

This makes no sense, you can’t “out” someone who’s not undercover.

slickwillie2001 on May 15, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Wait. So a CBS reporter is making jokes about Media Matters being in the Obama tank?

oldroy on May 15, 2013 at 5:35 PM

This is how authoritarian regimes function, there will always be a base of support wholly dependent on those in power and they will act accordingly.

rob verdi on May 15, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Has IRS ever audited Media Matters ?
Why ?

burrata on May 15, 2013 at 5:33 PM

You realize audits are not alleged in the IRS scandal, right?

Capitalist Hog on May 15, 2013 at 5:37 PM

This makes no sense, you can’t “out” someone who’s not undercover.

slickwillie2001 on May 15, 2013 at 5:35 PM

You mean the whole investigation was a sham?

oldroy on May 15, 2013 at 5:38 PM

AllahP’s ‘buddy’

Schadenfreude on May 15, 2013 at 5:38 PM

I’m really loving the double standard espoused by many on the left that

1) Republican/conservative leaders and elected officials always be made to answer for the misdeeds or misstatements of anyone, no matter how independent or fringe, on the right (Todd Akin, Michael Savage, Alex Jones, etc.),

but,

2) Obama/Hillary/any Democrat can never be held responsible for the likes of Bill Maher, MSNBC producers, corrupt Democrat officials, Progress Kentucky, etc. — let alone the actions of those serving in the Administration at their pleasure and directly under their command (take your pick of any current scandal).

steebo77 on May 15, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Eric Boehlert must smoke a lot of Obama-Kush.

Capitalist Hog on May 15, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Wait. So a CBS reporter is making jokes about Media Matters being in the Obama tank?

oldroy on May 15, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Wish I could draw cartoons. This would be funny.

oldroy on May 15, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Media Matters shoots itself in the foot, then reloads and keeps blasting away!

michaelo on May 15, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Before Monday, government abuses of civil liberties had registered as policy disputes. And, because the complaints usually emanated not from powerful centrists or leaders of the opposition party but politically marginal liberal and left-wing critics, they often barely registered on the political debate at all. (Speaking personally, I plead semi-guilty. I’ve paid little attention to civil liberties, because there are only so many complex policy questions I’m capable of mastering, but I have applied this benign neglect in a scrupulously nonpartisan fashion to Democratic and Republican presidents alike.)

The head-spinning sequence of events from Friday to Monday suddenly elevated the phone records story from a one-day story that would produce denunciations in liberal blogs and taunting from the libertarian right into something categorically different. It was the capstone of the Obama Scandals.

Schadenfreude on May 15, 2013 at 5:39 PM

a wide range of potential messaging products for progressive talkers to win public political debates with conservatives.

FIFY
But isn’t this an admission that they are blatantly political in their “editorial process?” They didn’t say that their messages were intended to equalize public debate on social welfare issues, rather they are admitting to advancing progressive (i.e., Democrat) talking points. Not sure how this qualifies them as a charitable organization that works towards social welfare.

College Prof on May 15, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Mrs. Obama

Mr. Obama

Your America, circa May, 2013!!!

May these thugs destroy all who brung/kept them, and your families tood, irrecoverably. YOU deserve NO less and it’s the only hope the land has left.

Schadenfreude on May 15, 2013 at 5:41 PM

To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare

OK , so what does it mean

and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare…

????
Is destruction of Fox News and Glen Beck called social welfare ?

burrata on May 15, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Media Matters shoots itself in the foot, then reloads and keeps blasting away!

michaelo on May 15, 2013 at 5:39 PM

…reaches head and goes poof.

The leftards on this board are the dumbest creatures in America.

Schadenfreude on May 15, 2013 at 5:43 PM

May these thugs destroy all who brung/kept them, and your families tood, irrecoverably. YOU deserve NO less and it’s the only hope the land has left.

Schadenfreude on May 15, 2013 at 5:41 PM

No. They told us what they wanted to do. The Republicans told us they would do differently and then immediately took up leadership of the socialist causes once elected.

There should be no shock that the Obamas have done what they have done. And there should be not one more vote or dollar for the Republican party.

oldroy on May 15, 2013 at 5:44 PM

oldroy on May 15, 2013 at 5:44 PM

No disagreement on your latter point. One doesn’t excuse the other. I have no clue why you said “NO”. To Hades with all, the Oamas, those who brung/kept them, and the Rs.

Schadenfreude on May 15, 2013 at 5:46 PM

The buck stops at a different part of my website.

No, a completely different part of that website! Don’t you listen?

Axeman on May 15, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Is destruction of Fox News and Glen Beck called social welfare ?

burrata on May 15, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Yes. To them it is. Teaching the Constitution didn’t strike them to be much more than politics, but lobbying to get gays the right to call themselves married, that’s “social welfare”.

A news website that promises to report in the interest of the public, is “social welfare”.

Axeman on May 15, 2013 at 5:50 PM

No disagreement on your latter point. One doesn’t excuse the other. I have no clue why you said “NO”. To Hades with all, the Oamas, those who brung/kept them, and the Rs.

Schadenfreude on May 15, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Sorry. I guess I’m saying we shouldn’t be shocked about Obama. It wasn’t a secret what his intent was. It was a secret what the Republican party’s intent was.

Yes to Hades with all. I suspect that those who can lie so easily have no other place that they would be going anyway.

oldroy on May 15, 2013 at 5:50 PM

The buck stops at a different part of my website.

— Dylan Byers (@DylanByers) May 15, 2013

That about covers it.

MMFA claiming a ‘separation’ MMAN is like Coca-Cola buying Pepsico, marketing both products with their names still intact, then trying to tell the world they’re two completely different companies.

Liam on May 15, 2013 at 5:50 PM

As Bryan Preston notes, “the Bush administration” is their term for Colin Powell’s deputy Richard Armitage, who outed Plame inadvertently.

To “outed” Plame means she needed to have been in undercover operative within the last 5 years of the “out” and we found out that in fact she was not so there was no “outing” of her, which is why no one was ever charged with that crime. It is one thing for the democrats and liberal media to continue to claim this but I expected better from those at Hot Air.

JeffinSac on May 15, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Laugh and Jeer time :-)

AP – this is not a sufficiently “drive the stake through” post.

antisocial on May 15, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Not that it would happen in DC, but it’s time the Bar stopped Holder from masquerading as a professional attorney. He’s a political hack, nothing more. His poor conduct, general ignorance of things important, lack of maturity, and among other things, lack of professionalism is unbecoming to the profession. Had he spoken to a judge like that he’d be serving time for contempt.

Since when does a government appointee get to lecture those who approve him about demeanor?

And if he were a real partner in a law firm and knew as little about what was going on in his department as he professes, there’d be numerous malpractice claims and the firm would be uninsurable.

What a tool.

Thanks for listening!

EB

EdmundBurke247 on May 15, 2013 at 6:00 PM

apoplectic

Dude, Don’t make me get my dictionary out…

Kaptain Amerika on May 15, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Where was Media Matters when the NYT’s exposed the tracking of terrorist money?

Media Matters – selective hypocrites!

GarandFan on May 15, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Allah, I haven’t heard the term ‘red in tooth and claw’ since my 18th Century British Poetry course….. It pleaseth me well, I doth declare.

cynccook on May 15, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Dude, Don’t make me get my dictionary out…

Kaptain Amerika on May 15, 2013 at 6:15 PM

It means one’s head ’bout to bust open.

cynccook on May 15, 2013 at 6:40 PM

And Media Matters sailed throught their tax exempt application process…No problems.

d1carter on May 15, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Lol. Going after Media Matters already? Didn’t take the billies that long to draw the parallel.

HotAirLib on May 15, 2013 at 6:43 PM

And Media Matters sailed throught their tax exempt application process…No problems.
d1carter on May 15, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Probably because they tell the truth.

HotAirLib on May 15, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Holy Carp! Breaking news headline!!!

It was not acceptable when the Bush Administration exposed Valerie Plame working undercover to stop terrorists from attacking us. It is not acceptable when anonymous sources do it either.

Valerie Plame was working undercover?

Since when???

JohnD13 on May 15, 2013 at 6:54 PM

How many truckloads of paper did Media Matters have to send to the IRS to get their tax exempt status approved..? Anybody?

d1carter on May 15, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Well, in their defense, Media Matters does support the Progressive agenda so no questions were necessary. Evidently, it is the way the IRS has worked for years.

d1carter on May 15, 2013 at 6:58 PM

David Brock finally airs his mental problems. ‘That wasn’t me defending the administration. That was another guy named David Brock. I ♥ the 1st Amendment. For real.’

Resist We Much on May 15, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Probably because they tell the truth.

HotAirLib on May 15, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Riiiiight, so it wasn’t lying when it said that conservative media hadn’t been covering the Gosnell trial either.

Please tell nobrain.

Jazz, I think it’s time for another gosnell post…

*snickers*.

nonpartisan on April 27, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Resist We Much on May 15, 2013 at 7:11 PM

I thought it notable that in regard to AP/DOJ, Media Matters invoked “la Affair Ms Flame” as part of it’s defense talking points.

Even more notable was that they managed to find a link to NPR for “Timeline: The CIA Leak Case” which is complete devoid of the name of the leaker, Richard Armitage.

J_Crater on May 15, 2013 at 7:14 PM

HotLips on May 15, 2013 at 6:43 PM

…its dumbPhucks shift!

KOOLAID2 on May 15, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Probably because they tell the truth.

HotAirLib on May 15, 2013 at 6:45 PM

You jagoffs wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you in the ass.

bbinfl on May 15, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Definition of libturd’s idea of the truth – “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

bbinfl on May 15, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Media Matters for America monitors, analyzes, and corrects conservative misinformation in the media and was not involved with the production of the document focusing on the DOJs investigation.

Mr. Brock, I don’t think that word means what you think it means. I think the word you were looking for was on the order of “disputes”, “obfuscates”, “spins”, “waxes apoplectic over conservative facts”, “denies”, “mocks”, or “deflects”.

… and I fixed your typo regarding conservative information in the media

You’re welcome

AZfederalist on May 15, 2013 at 8:04 PM

OT: Obama to address the IRS scandal at 6pm EST. Must of found a YouTube video.

hillsoftx on May 15, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Is this a re-run? Didn’t we do this yesterday, and will he misuse another Marine?

dogsoldier on May 16, 2013 at 5:58 PM