|
Greenpeace: Worried Warriors?
Iain Murray (TCS) EFL A nonprofit watchdog organization, Public Interest Watch, after investigating Greenpeaceâs finances, recently filed a complaint with the IRS alleging that Greenpeace has "illegally solicit[ed] millions of dollars in tax-deductible contributions." As those young activists might say, "Uncool!" Intersting idea for a watchdog group. I wonder who else they are "monitoring." Greenpeace has changed a great deal since its founding in the early 1970s. It began as a group dedicated to ensuring conservation by confronting people with the facts while maintaining a neutral position politically. It has now become a different beast entirely. Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore left the movement after 15 years "to switch from confrontation to consensus⊠to stop fighting and start talking with the people in charge." However, he notes, "this would bring me into open and direct conflict with the movement I had helped bring into the world. I now find that many environmental groups have drifted into self-serving cliques with narrow vision and rigid ideology⊠The once politically centrist, science-based vision of environmentalism has been largely replaced with extremist rhetoric." Wonder what grabbed the steering wheel of this school bus and headed towards the ditch. It is this consolidation that is at the core of Public Interest Watchâs complaint. Greenpeace USA is in fact two different organizations. Greenpeace, Inc. is the main entity conducting Greenpeace operations in the United States. As a tax exempt organization under section 501(c)(4) of the internal revenue code, it is free to lobby for legislation "germane to the organizationâs programs" and to engage in other advocacy activities, but because of these freedoms it may not accept tax-deductible contributions. Greenpeace Fund, Inc., on the other hand, is a 501(c)(3) organization, and can accept tax-deductible contributions but cannot engage in lobbying or advocacy. Any funds it spends must by law be spent on strictly-defined charitable purposes, such as education. I bet the definition of "education" is the missing guard rail that allows the bus to go offroad. By rights OBLâs Afghan camps are "education." However, Greenpeace Fundâs definition of "education" stretches to include advocacy and activism -- and so does its money. The complaint, citing Greenpeace Fundâs tax forms, alleges that, in 2000, the organization passed all of the money that it raised on to Greenpeace Inc, based in Washington, Greenpeace International, based in Amsterdam, and a few other affiliates. In 2000, according to its IRS returns, Greenpeace Fund raised $7.5 million, while disbursing $4.5 million to Greenpeace, Inc., $3.7 million to Greenpeace International for "general support," and $0.8 million to other Greenpeace organizations and projects around the world. Sounds like they are using a Saudi charity for their business model. According to the complaint, Greenpeace Fund acts solely as "a shell corporation established for the purpose of enabling tax-deductible contributions from big donors and from foundations to flow illegally to Greenpeace, Inc. and Greenpeace International." It could be argued that teh RICO statute would apply, but I wonât go there. The law states that a 501(c)(3) organization will not retain its tax-exempt status, "if more than an insubstantial part of its activities is not in furtherance of an exempt purpose." Given the activities of Greenpeace, Inc., Public Interest Watch argues that "grants made by Greenpeace Fund, Inc. to Greenpeace, Inc., suggest that charitable funds are being spent for non-501(c)(3) purposes. The grants to Greenpeace International and other foreign Greenpeace organizations, which are known to frequently engage in aggressive advocacy efforts, also point to an abuse of charitable trust." This could lead to an interesting trend. Public Interest Watch gives the following examples of exempt funds being used to support non-exempt advocacy and activism: · Campaigning against genetically-modified crops;Greenpeace has reacted strongly to the accusations. "There really is no story there ⊠Thereâs no merit to what they are accusing us of," a Greenpeace spokesperson told National Reviewâs Deroy Murdock. "Given the severity of these accusations by Public Interest Watch, Greenpeace USA is now considering its various legal options." So should the IRS. Super Hose predicts - IRS will take no action.
Posted by: Super Hose 2003-10-31 |
|
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=20610 |