Talk:Conservatives target the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Lead

I removed the following par as I found it hard to follow. I'll see if I can redraft a par which is clearer.

"Organizations which represent multi-billion dollar corporations and heavily tax payer subsidized industries, consistently point the accusing finger at non-industry funded, non tax payer subsidized organizations (which are in fact, legal charities as opposed tax exempt front groups). Many of these organizations (including those listed below) are self described "charities", "non-profits", foundations or think tanks and tax exempt under the IRS code 501(c)(3), which does not require them report their donors to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)."

I think one of the problems with the above par is that is is trying to wrap too many arguments into a par that is simply designed to indicate that many of the groups critical of PETA are industry funded. So I'm inclined to a simple statement to that effect ie: "Many of the groups critical of PETA are industry funded. As groups designated as 501(c)(3) non-profit groups under the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax code, they are not required to disclose the details of corporate funders."

A few notes on some of the other points above that I note have been added to other pages as well:

  • "self described" ... either groups are non-profits recognised by the IRS or not; the use of the term "self described" implies that they aren't actually 501c3's, which can be easily checked;
  • the argument that PETA and other non-profit groups are "non tax payer subsidized organizations" is not strictly true if they are 501c3's. Donations which are tax-deductible represent potential tax forgone by the government. So while not necessarily gaining grants, 501c's do have benefits under the tax code.
  • "heavily tax payer subsidized industries" - m,aybe they are but to be strictly accurate we would have to ensure that applies to all the groups which fund those groups listed. And I just don't think this is necessary.--Bob Burton 20:57, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

response

I have put "self described", on a few front groups sites as a disclaimer. I don't think it means they can't be a real 501c3. Obviously, you can make very good profits, not be involved in charitable work, etc. and still qualify (but some people still actually think it means something to be a 501c3.) They all represent industries and subsidized industries and usually both. Subsidized industries include so-called "commodities" like oil, meat and dairy. Also tobacco and agribusiness, animal testing, hunting, trapping, etc. Corporate factory farms and large ranches are subsidized. There is a link at the bottom for U.S. Government's War on Animals, which list some subsidies.

The point is that real charities are up against government/industry in an intractable, vicious cycle. Meanwhile the IRS hands out 501c3's like candy and in effect looks out for corporate/government interests. I don't think university vivisection labs getting over 100 million a year from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are insignificant side issues to be compared to PETA's tax write offs. A tax write off is not technically a subsidy and it's also up front.

Lisa

Retrieved from "https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Conservatives_target_the_People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals&oldid=441742"