By Simon McCormack, Abq Alibi
A decision last week by New Mexico Secretary of State Mary Herrera could have a major effect on what some nonprofit organizations do and say.
...Robby Rodriguez, executive director for the SouthWest Organizing Project, says his group sends out flyers similar to the ones Youth Organized distributed. If his organization is asked to either stop sending out politically themed mailers or register as a PAC, Rodriguez says it could muffle SWOP’s voice. "We would never be able to say anything good or bad about a sitting elected official," Rodriguez says. "We'd never be able to be critical of these guys, and that's ridiculous."
4 Tell us what you think:
If only it were true, Karlos. This isn’t about free speech. That excuse is just some PR spin. This is about an inability for groups hiding behind non-partisan, tax-free status to actually follow through on the responsibility that comes with that privilege. When you’re a 501c3 you don’t get to take advantage of that tax-free status like some Three Card Monty game, going after legislators who you don’t like while giving a pass to those you do. If this was a real education campaign then the groups involved would have done something like, oh I dunno, reported on all of the members of the Legislature. That way the “issue education” argument might have made sense, instead now you’re trying to spin the “free speech” angle to distract people long enough to make it to the election.
Why isn’t this about free speech? Because while these groups have all of the right in the world to back who they want, create cute little attack pieces on certain people, and help out their pals running these campaigns, the people in those groups just have to make sure it’s worth it to give up that tax-free privilege. Because you can’t advocate for ethical campaigning while breaking the same rules you want to shoehorn everyone else into following.
Benson,
Thanks for the comment.
For nearly 30 years SWOPs mission has been to empower disenfranchised communities in the southwest to realize racial and gender equality and social and economic justice.
During that time, SWOP has become internationally known for its community organizing and advocacy work in accordance with its mission.
SWOPs theory of change is that middle, low income and communities of color should have a say in the decisions that profoundly affect our lives.
And, yes, time and time again, SWOP has taken on the status quo - a status quo that has left New Mexicans ranked at the bottom of practically every social indicator from education to healthcare.
SWOP has taken on Intel, the Military, local, county, state, federal and other governments and decision making bodies, environmental and other boards and commissions and so on and so on.
SWOP has organized for basic services like water for the children on Pajarito Mesa, for equality, dignity and respect for people down in Carlsbad, in the Mountainview neighborhood when Ponderosa was spewing saw dust into people's homes, for more funding for our schools and opportunity for our children, for real community benefit and control of economic development, and so much more.
In fact, SWOP recouped over $13 million in taxes for the city of Albuquerque when Philips Semi-Conductors left the country with the equipment bought with taxpayer dollars.
SWOP has also been instrumental in building an international environmental justice movement that defines our environment as where we live, work and play.
At each point in the democratic process, SWOP and its members invariably come up against a democracy divide - a gap that spans across race, gender, class and region. In an information age, "our free speech" has been used to hold big money, big business and patron politicos to account for the decisions they make - all in the context of working towards our mission. It is SWOPs mission, our right to free speech and expression, and our theory of change that we think will begin to bridge the democracy divides that result in racial, economic and gender disparities in the important issues of our time - from healthcare to education to how we collect and spend our tax dollars.
As SWOP has previously noted, we have and continue to cross our T's and dot our I's when reporting from whom and where our funds come, and are sure we have never crossed the line that would jeopardize our 501c3 status.
We are confident history will absolve us.
That said, there's a rule in politics, life and communications:
Be careful what you wish for, because it just might come true.
Thanks for the response Karlos, even if it doesn't really address the points I raised until the very end. I work in PR just like you and know the whole boilerplate-bridging deal. That said, while I don't agree with some of the things SWOP stands for, and agree with others, why would SWOP, NMYO and CCP risk real 501c3's by engaging in campaign activities, especially when it would have been so easy to avoid by just sending out info mailers (not thinly veiled attack pieces) on all of the members of the N.M. Legislature. By engaging in these activities, then all of the good work y'all have done is at risk.
You see, by trying to cower behind legitimate 501c3's - in essence using MADD or the American Cancer Society, or SWOP, as a shield for their activities - the groups in question have damaged the activities of those same 501c3's. Robby's wrong, because 501c3's can be critical of politicians, but not in an electoral cycle because it crosses a well-defined line. Let me ask you this, if it's OK for NMYO and CCP to get involved in political campaigning, is it then OK for churches and other "non-profit" religious groups to send out information against politicians they don't like? Can the Catholic Church then decide to decline the Eucharist for all Democratic politicians unless they renounce all family planning? Because that's the line y'all want to cross.
It's not about free speech, it's about playing by the rules as they have been set out. If NMYO, CCP, et al want to get involved in electoral campaigns, that's fine - just play by the same rules (501c4, 527) that you expect everyone else to play by.
As for getting what I wish for? You mean, CCP, NMYO, Lee, King and Brix standing up and admitting they crossed a line and that they'll give up 501c3 status? Can you really make sure I get that? ;)
Thanks again for the comment, Benson.
I think there is a tendency to talk passed one another online, and especially in comments.
I wish I knew a little more about you and what you stand for.
That said, I hope to address your points.
We know the law. We know the rules. We wouldn't jeopardize our 501c3 status by engaging in any "campaign activities" during an "election cycle." (Your words.)
Just what line did we cross? We've just been accused of "walking like a duck," a thinly veiled cryptic attack, BTW. We have and will continue to be diligent on all our reporting.
As the facts in the case come out - which by the way the media has failed miserably to report on, and has rather focused on mailers and dubious accusations - you'll come to see that we have crossed no lines, only our T's and I's.
About churches and religious organizations: we are neither. There's this thing about separation between church and state...for a reason.
There is not (supposed to be) a separation between concerned voters and our democracy.
Post a Comment