| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Fifth Column | |
| Greenpeace: Worried Warriors? | |
| 2003-10-31 | |
| Iain Murray (TCS) EFL A nonprofit watchdog organization, Public Interest Watch, after investigating Greenpeace’s 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 Watch’s 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 organization’s 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 OBL’s Afghan camps are "education." However, Greenpeace Fund’s definition of "education" stretches to include advocacy and activism -- and so does its money. The complaint, citing Greenpeace Fund’s 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 won’t 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 
There’s no merit to what they are accusing us of," a Greenpeace spokesperson told National Review’s 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 |
| #11 Was watching MSNBC last night and they had a Greenpeace talking head and someone else. The point was made that a lot of Greenpeace's donors are in SoCal and a lot of their homes went up. hehehehehehehehe Schaudenfreude??? |
| Posted by: Anonymous-not above 2003-10-31 8:55:02 PM |
| #10 Greenpeace is substantially independent of all lawfully constituted governments... Angie, I missed that line. Does that mean they are substantially dependent on unlawfully constituted governments - must be working for the Taliban. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-10-31 8:51:02 PM |
| #9 Wonder what grabbed the steering wheel of this school bus and headed towards the ditch. According to something I read the other day, when the Soviet Union went belly-up, all the Communist loonies had to find another hobby, and decided they could best carry out their previous agenda disguised as "environmentalists". Greenpeace is substantially independent of all lawfully constituted governments... But isn't that..that...globalization? I mean, just like the evil baby-blood drinking multinational corporations? |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2003-10-31 8:26:19 PM |
| #8 "the Know Your Enemy™ program"© Oh you mean like watching Mc/& Lame and listening to Baub E? |
| Posted by: dorf 2003-10-31 8:21:09 PM |
| #7 Hmmm Last week we read that France has re-targeted its nukes against "rogue states", now this. Consider: Greenpeace is substantially independent of all lawfully constituted governments, it regularly flouts international law, it opposes many French military and economic interests. Sounds like a rogue state to me. Worse, it has already defeated France in one military confrontation. Having failed with their conventional weapons, the revenge-crazed Frogs will no doubt be tempted to bring out their "big one" for the next round. If I were Green-piss, which thankfully I am not, I would getting a little worried just now. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2003-10-31 3:57:19 PM |
| #6 OP---I know how you feel about these clowns. I am frustrated, too, at what they do in their attempt to destroy this govt. Consider the links above as background and recon before they go in the sights. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-10-31 3:27:22 PM |
| #5 This is all part of the Know Your Enemy™ program. AP - the only way I want to "know my enemy" is to have him firmly bracketed in my gunsights. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-10-31 2:36:00 PM |
| #4 Here is a link to NGO Watch's webpage on Greenpeace. Click on the link in the webpage and you can see the IRS Form 990 for non profits that GP had to fill out. Organizations like these constantly explore the envelope of the non profit classification, and the IRS should smack them if they start being political. For further reading pleasure, or to test out your latest blood pressure medicine or tranquilizer, here is a link to the ACLU. This is all part of the Know Your Enemy™ program. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-10-31 2:17:05 PM |
| #3 Super Hose predicts - IRS will take no action. Tough call, mate... /sarcasm |
| Posted by: Raj 2003-10-31 12:47:57 PM |
| #2 I wouldn't doubt that they recieve funds from OPEC as a way to bottle up US production of oil reserves. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2003-10-31 12:23:41 PM |
| #1 Dont get me started on 'GreenPeace' which, in my opinion, is a front organization for the democratic party if not the communist party. What they did to the Lumber industry around here (and that based on made-up 'studies') they are now trying to do to the fishing industry (also based on made-up 'studies'). Unfortunately they are good at raising funds (not letting the truth get in the way of raising a buck) and can probaby weasle out of this. I've seen these people around here taking 'polls'. Funny how they only approach people who look a certain way (like they might be the sort of people who would agree with their agenda) to take a 'poll'.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2003-10-31 11:53:29 AM |