republicans push to remove PETA's tax exempt status

[Guest guest]

PETA could lose nonprofit status

 

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=052802 & ID=s1154890 & cat=sectio\

n.spokane

 

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

 

WASHINGTON -- An animal-rights group should lose its tax-exempt status

because it gave $1,500 to a group the FBI lists as " terrorist, " say two

pro-business groups on the other side of the ongoing debate on animal

treatment.

 

An expert in tax law agrees that People for the Ethical Treatment of

Animals might have jeopardized its crucial status as a nonprofit charity.

 

A form PETA filed with the Internal Revenue Service shows it gave $1,500 to

the North American Earth Liberation Front last April " to support program

activities. " PETA offered several different explanations for the payment.

 

The Center for Consumer Freedom, a coalition of restaurants, and the Center

for the Defense of Free Enterprise, a group composed of mostly business and

property owners, say the donation should cost PETA its nonprofit status.

 

" The implication is PETA is funding someone who (wants to) overthrow the

government of the United States, " said Ron Arnold, Free Enterprise center

executive vice president.

 

PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said groups that don't agree with its mission

are looking for reasons to hurt them. PETA's attorney Jeffrey Kerr called

it a " smear campaign. "

 

" This is a straw man, " Newkirk said. " They're trying to create dirt where

no dirt exists. "

 

The IRS reviewed PETA's records several years ago, " took us apart seam by

seam, " and came up with nothing, she added.

 

The FBI has labeled ELF and its ally Animal Liberation Front as terrorist

organizations. It estimates the two groups have committed more than 600

criminal acts since 1996, primarily arson, causing at least $43million in

damage.

 

ELF and ALF attacks on local universities and businesses, such as

Washington State University in Pullman and Jefferson Poplar Farms in

Oregon, have raised concern about eco-terrorism threats in the area.

 

Republican Congressman George Nethercutt of Spokane has proposed tougher

penalties for

people convicted of " agro-terrorism. "

 

The current ELF spokesman, Leslie James Pickering, did not respond to

requests for a comment for this story.

 

Consumer Freedom's executive director, Richard Berman, complained about

PETA's $1,500 donation early this year at a congressional hearing on

eco-terrorism where Nethercutt's bill was discussed.

 

Patti Strand, president of the National Animal Interest Alliance in

Portland, a nonprofit animal-welfare organization, contends the payment is

part of a well-orchestrated effort.

 

" This is a very shrewd, business-savvy organization. Nothing they do is

spontaneous, " she said.

 

The conflict represents the different positions in the debate between

animal-rights and animal-welfare advocates. Animal-rights groups like PETA

believe animals shouldn't be used for research, food, products or

entertainment. Animal-welfare groups like the alliance believe it's OK to

use animals as long as they're treated humanely and thinks animal-rights

groups exaggerate abuse claims to increase fund raising and membership.

 

Newkirk said animal-welfare groups don't want animal-rights groups to get

their message out: " They don't want people to know what goes into their

meat, " she said.

 

Nonprofits, such as PETA, the alliance and the two pro-business centers,

are all funded by private donations and permitted to give to other

charitable organizations. The recipient doesn't have to be a nonprofit

group but the money must go to charitable purposes. Federal law also

prohibits nonprofits from financially supporting terrorism.

 

In a 12-page letter to the IRS in March, Arnold listed examples of PETA

activities he said border on inappropriate behavior.

 

He requested a thorough examination of PETA's history, including paying

legal fees for ALF and PETA members charged with misdemeanors and felonies.

He also cited statements by Newkirk and Bruce Friedrich, PETA's vegan

campaign coordinator, that Arnold believes encourage civil disobedience or

more extreme tactics.

 

Newkirk said the group is just exercising its First Amendment rights.

Strand said the group uses freedom of speech " as sword and shield. "

 

Kerr, PETA's lawyer, said the group refuses to " condone or condemn actions

attributed to ELF. (Actions) have occurred without any input or endorsement

from PETA, " he wrote to the House forest health subcommittee after its Feb.

12 hearing on eco-terrorism. Financial support for legal defense does not

mean the group condones illegal actions, and to suggest it does is " wrong

and inexcusable, " he wrote.

 

Paying for someone's legal assistance is weak grounds to investigate a

group's nonprofit status, said John Lawley, an American University law

student who has researched PETA's tax-exempt status.

 

Such donations are a legitimate function of a nonprofit because they fall

under social policy, which relieves the government of the obligation to

provide defense counsel, he said.

 

But PETA's $1,500 donation to ELF could be grounds to lose its tax-exempt

status, he said.

 

" Eco-terrorism clearly violates public policy, " Lawley wrote in a recent

study. " Activities employed by eco-terror groups call for the violent

destruction of property and the express goal of inflicting economic damage

on their perceived foes. "

 

Kenneth Anderson, an American University College of Law professor who

teaches nonprofit taxation, agreed: " Anything PETA does with money has to

be a charitable purpose. How can it be a charitable purpose if they're

giving it to a terrorist organization? "

 

The fact that the FBI labels ELF as a terrorist organization should be

enough for the FBI to investigate PETA, he said.

 

In recent months, PETA officials have offered several explanations of the

$1,500 check to ELF.

 

On Feb. 26, Newkirk told ABC News she did not remember the check. On March

4, the Associated Press quoted her as saying it was a request for funds for

educational materials. The following day, she was quoted by KOMO-TV in

Seattle as saying it was being used for " habitat protection. "

 

Two days later, Lisa Lange, the group's director of policy and

communications, said on a FOX News program the money was for a program

about vegetarianism. On March 14, Kerr wrote to Rep. Scott McInnis,

R-Colo., chairman of the House Forest and Forest Health Subcommittee, that

the $1,500 was " to assist (former ELF spokesman Craig) Rosebraugh with

legal expenses related to free-speech activities regarding animal

protection issues. "

 

Newkirk offered that same explanation in a recent interview with The

Spokesman-Review, saying the money assisted Rose-braugh for legal defense

when he was subpoenaed to testify before McInnis's subcommittee. Rosebraugh

invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 50 times during that appearance.

 

She believes Rosebraugh is being harassed: " He's not even being charged

with anything. This country is supposed to hold free speech sacred and not

pursue those that say they're fed up with animal abuse and will pass off

information from those that are exposing it. "

 

But IRS records show the check was written in April 2001, 11 months before

the hearing was held. The group said the check was " to support program

activities, " which means the organization could be cited for improper

record keeping, Anderson said. PETA used the same description for every

expenditure in 2001.

 

" Not keeping proper records is a killer right there, " Anderson said. " Even

if they say it's an honest mistake, it was a record-keeping error. If you

want the tax exemption, you have to keep proper records. "

 

The IRS does not have to prove PETA gave money for improper purposes on an

improper record-keeping charge, he added.

 

Josh Penry, spokesman for the subcommittee, said PETA's recent answer that

the $1,500 was intended for legal defense is " weak. "

 

" You can move money around. ELF could have spent that however they wanted, "

he said.

 

Anderson said it's up to the IRS to determine what the penalty is if it

revokes PETA's tax-exempt status. But, he said the real question is whether

the IRS will investigate an allegation that amounts to such a tiny percent

of the group's annual $14 million budget.

 

" Most large charities wind up making expenditures that after the fact are

questionable, " Anderson said. " It's very rare for the IRS to revoke the

status of an organization for, relatively speaking, minor amounts. It's

just crazy. "

 

If the IRS does revoke PETA's tax-exempt status, however, it would have a

significant impact on the organization, Anderson said.

 

" People who donate can't take a tax deduction, " he said. " It would make

life much tougher for the organization. But it's not the end of the world;

we're not talking about people going to jail. "

 

Congress also could pass a new law, he said.

 

" Congress could say any group that contributes one penny to a terrorist

organization listed by the FBI could lose its tax-exempt status, " Anderson

said.

 

Republican Nethercutt's proposed legislation would increase penalties and fines

for

eco-terrorism-related violations. If that bill is passed, he said, the next

step could be to look into nonprofit tax law.

 

" It's unacceptable that any nonprofit in this country would support a

self-described group like ELF, " he said.

 

http://www.peta.org