Olbermann uncovers Family Research Council filibuster flip-flop

[Judi Lynn]

Posted to the web on Tuesday April 26, 2005 at 5:03 PM EST

Olbermann uncovers Family Research Council filibuster flip-flop

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann noted that the Family Research Council (FRC), which is currently campaigning to stop filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees by Senate Democrats, was quite vocal in the late 1990s in defending the right to filibuster another presidential nominee, James C. Hormel, who was nominated by President Clinton as ambassador to Luxembourg.

On the April 25 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, host Olbermann recounted a statement made July 2, 1998, on National Public Radio by FRC senior writer Steven Schwalm:

OLBERMANN: As mentioned, the filibuster stretches back not merely to Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but to the presidential administration of Franklin Pierce 152 years ago. And, as a last measure of the defense of the minority, it has had many supporters over the years, like the very people of faith who sponsored yesterday's "Justice Sunday," the group Family Research Council.

Yesterday, it was opposed to filibusters. Seven years ago, it was in favor of them. That's when Clinton and a then-Democratic plurality in the Senate wanted a man named James Hormel to become the ambassador to Luxembourg. Hormel, of the Spam-and-other-meats Hormels, was gay, as the Senate minority bottled up Hormel's nomination with filibusters and threats of filibusters, minority relative to cloture, to breaking up a filibuster.
(snip/...}

On edit:

Here's that link!

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504260005



Sorry! Usually not this sloppy!
Must be the excitement....

[mbperrin]

1. Imagine! Hypocrisy is a family

value now!

[Fire Walk With Me]

3. The longer you stay on topic, the more glaring your agenda becomes

Up to this point where it's unsupportable.

If we can keep finding examples such as this, they will be left standing there in front of the public with their pants permanently down around their ankles.

[Mika]

2. They want it now because they own the voting machines..

.. and think know that the dems will never again hold power.

:puke:

[Moderator]

4. Judi Lynn...need to update your OP with a link

Thanks in advance.

[Judi Lynn]

6. Got it. Thanks. (Sorry.) n/t

[Greylyn58]

5. Keith is the man

and doesn't shy away from the hard stories. That's why I love his show.

Go Keith Go!!! :loveya:

[DanCa]

10. Keith indeed Rocks

He and Ronald Reagan Jr are the only reason's why I can stand to watch msnbc.

[Kolesar]

13. If Keith has a fan club, I want to join

oh, wait

[drkedjr]

7. "Non"- Profit Status

I'm lost regarding the FRC and like organizations. If they have "non-profit" status, isn't it illegal
for the group(s) to do such direct political work? If FRC does not have non-profit status, I'd like
to know how many people gave their little $25 donations and assumed it was tax deductible - who's
gonna check on that .... divided by the thousands of right-wing-nut-sky-god-morons?

[ElaineinIN]

12. I need to shower now..

I went over there to check it out. If you dig, There is a link to their audited financial statement and their Form 990.

Here's the scoop. "nonprofit" is the kind of organization they are for state law purposes. "tax-exempt" is the fact that they don't pay income taxes. There are lots of different kinds of nonprofit corporations, which don't have to be tax exempt. There are also lots of different kinds of tax exempt organizations. For these purposes, there are two Internal Revenue Code Sections that are important --Section 501(c)(3) and Section 501(c)(4).

Most organizations that we think of as tax deductible charities are tax exempt under Section 501(c)(3). A Section 501(c)(3) organization is not allowed to do any "political" activity and only a limited amount of "lobbying". Political activity is defined as involvement in campaigns for elected office only. Lobbying is defined as contacting legislators or soliciting grass root support for legislation. General issue discussion is not lobbying or political activity, although in general "advocacy" or "action" organizations--those that can't accomplish their purpose without legislation--aren't exempt under Seciton 501(c)(3). Its a fine line between "education" and "advocacy", but its a line that can be walked.

If you do more lobbying or advocacy than a (c)(3) org should, you set up an affiliated Section 501(c)(4) organizatoin, which is a "social welfare" organization. They can generally do an unlimited amount of lobbying, but only a little bit of political activity. If you do a lot of political activity, you can set up an affiliated PAC as well. If you check the notes to their audited financials, you'll see that they have an organization called FRC Action, which is the Section 501(c)(4) lobbying arm. So, if they are being careful, they segregate the lobbying/political stuff to FRC action, they keep the "education" in the Section 501(c)(3). The tax deductable donations go to the Section 501(c)(3) and they pay their tax lawyers a lot of money to keep the two separate.

[hootinholler]

14. The FRC is the PAC-wing of the Focus On the Family Non-Profit...

All legal like and everything. Just like a campaign committee donating dirty money to the National Committee and accepting a donation of clean money back.

-Hoot

[manly]

16. FRC

I was listening to the FRC's radio program, and when they asked for donations they did say they weren't tax deductible.

[xchrom]

8. quelle surprize!

uh -- not so much.

[Democat]

9. Is there a video link for this?

This video should be sent out to all of the media and used in advertisements as well.

[0007]

11. What a hoot! Great photo..n/t

[Roland99]

15. Talkleft uncovered this over the weekend. Good to see MSM catch up

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1743313


Also, send off this email to FRC and to your Senators!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1746229

[mcctatas]

17. Ho-hum hypocritical right wing nutjobs strike again

I'm just not shocked by anything they say or do anymore. I just find it hard to believe that there are so many of them!! On a lighter note, Olbermann is HOT!!

[Anakin Skywalker]

18. Well You Can Just Chalk This Up

to more CONservative/Rethuglican HYPOCRISY! Jay Zeus, where will it end?