In The News

Faux Conservative Media Selling Out And The National Review Putting Its 501(c)(3) Status On The Line, All To Beat Trump

It would appear that more than just the establishment GOP are scrambling to maintain their power base. Conservative media giants are also scrambling to swat at the great giant buzzing Trump bumble bee. It raises lots of questions about the desperation of the GOP and the “so called” conservative media giants. Not the least of which is, WHY would the National Review jeopardize its 501 (c)(3) status by publishing two scathing  a hit pieces on Trump? And why would the faux conservative media jump on the band wagon to beat back the kind of independently conservative candidates they have been begging for since the uprising of the Tea Party? Where is this coming from? Who’s footing the bill, because this is gonna cost somebody, very dearly?

Late last night, National Review let loose with a scathing post from not less than 22 national media figures, all taking deliberate negative swipes at The Donald. Here’s the post:

Sure, Trump’s potential primary victory would provide Hillary Clinton with the easiest imaginable path to the White House. But it’s far worse than that. If Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, there will once again be no opposition to an ever-expanding government.        ~Glenn Beck

The GOP base is clearly disgusted and looking for new leadership. Enter Donald Trump, not just with policy prescriptions that challenge the cynical GOP leadership but with an attitude of disdain for that leadership—precisely in line with the sentiment of the base. Many conservatives are relishing this, but ah, the rub. Trump might be the greatest charlatan of them all.                  ~Brent Bozell

William F. Buckley Jr. proclaimed, in the founding statement of this journal, that conservatism “stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” Hasn’t Donald Trump always been a man inclined to go along—indeed, impatient to get along—with history?                                                                                        ~Bill Krystol

And there were many, many more. Additionally, The Editors posted this very lengthy diatribe, “Against Trump.” 

. . . Some conservatives have made it their business to make excuses for Trump and duly get pats on the head from him. Count us out. Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself.

Here’s the rub. It’s not so much that this media organization took a stand against Trump. But when you’re an organization with a 501 (c) (3) status with the IRS, you’re not allowed to take a political position, or engage in political activity, other than reporting factual information. I think they stepped beyond those boundaries at least twice.

3. Political Activity

Political activity (support of, or opposition to, candidates for public
office) is absolutely prohibited for 501(c)(3) organizations, and will lead
to revocation of exempt status as well as penalty taxes. (Do not confuse
political activity with lobbying, or legislative activity, described below.)

Some examples of forbidden political activity:

– Contributions to political campaign funds.
– Written or oral statements in support of or in opposition to a candidate.
– Candidate rating (of any kind – even scrupulous objectivity is
no defense).
– Making mailing lists, office space, or other services or facilites
available only to a favored candidate.
– Establishment of a PAC.

In addition to revocation of 501(c)(3) status, the IRS can impose a 10%
tax on the political expenditure, and require recovery of the political
expenditure. A 100% tax can be imposed if the funds are not recovered.
A 501(c)(3) that has had its exemption revoked because of political
activity is prohibited by law from applying for 501(c)(4) status.

The non-partisan educational activities listed below are permitted, but
be very careful. Do not engage in any of the listed activities without
knowledgeable professional advice.

– Publication of voting records
– Publication of candidates responses to questionnaires
– Public forums
– Voter registration activities
– Political science courses at universities
– News stories; news reporting

JoeForAmerica reported The Review was struggling and losing its reader base. The reorganization under 501(c)(3) was an effort to draw additional income through donations. Under this reorganization, The National Review does not have to disclose its donors.

The Review is an old, conservative publication started by William F. Buckley, a noted figure in the history of American conservative thought.  Once revered as a standard-bearer for right of center opinion, the magazine has seen waning subscriptions in recent years, and has struggled to remain relevant in the digital age.

Under increasing financial pressure, the current editor, Rich Lowry recently opted to re-organize National Review as a 501(c)(3).  This is the tax status of churches and other non-profits that allows for donors to contribute with a tax write off.  As everyone knows, one of the rules of being tax-exempt is that you must forfeit your right to participate in politics, because political donations do not merit a tax exemption

So, if this doesn’t raise an entire host of questions, let me lead it off. Under what circumstances would this media outlet find situations so critical it would risk financial penalty, and its charitable status? With everything riding on this election, the GOP and now the faux conservative media, clawing and scratching to maintain its power structure status quo, is someone funding this GOP primary assassination? Where were all these passionate pleas for authentic conservative support when Romney was running? If we had a non-establishment candidate running in 2012, would we have seen such an outcry from the faux conservative media then, or would they have supported the establishment guy?

Whether or not your a Trump supporter, you’ve probably noticed the worst assaults against non establishment candidates coming from the so called conservative media. It started with FOX News’ Megyn Kelly at the First Republican debate.

Today, Rush Limbaugh summed it up in a nice, neat package:

Have you ever seen this?  Have you ever seen a primary campaign where the two top front-runners in a party are both trying to be destroyed by that party?

RUSH:  Do you ever remember seeing anything like this?  Forget in your lifetime, because you haven’t.  Or maybe you — no.  Not two.  The two top front-runners, factions, different factions within the Republican Party are trying to take out both of these guys.

So, the bottom line is, is the GOP and the faux conservative media in cahoots? Are they working together to sustain their own power base at the expense of what is right for the country and the will of the people? Does the GOP want to maintain their establishment stronghold so badly they will work to destroy its top two candidates? And does the faux conservative media also have something to gain by keeping the old guard in power?

If the GOP goes down, will the conservative powerhouse media also sink their own ship with their obvious ‘in the tank for the establishment’ antics? I hope so. There’s no room in the media, or politics for anyone to drive the agenda, but the people they serve. Hopefully the people will teach them both that lesson, and make room for new media to rise up and fill that void, giving the people a louder and more powerful voice and a wider birth for more independently conservative candidates in the 2018 midterms.

To Top