Just curious, but the VFW is also a 501c(3), so didn't Christine Gregoire "break the law" as well by speaking to them?

No. She rented out the hall which, as one Democrat pointed out, anyone can do.

From the article: "“Just having somebody speak isn’t participating in a political campaign,” she said, citing Gov. Chris Gregoire’s visit to a Veterans of Foreign Wars hall in Tacoma on the same day as Rossi’s appearance. VFW is a nonprofit organization, but Gregoire’s campaign said it rented the hall and that it was a campaign event, not a VFW event."

But you said yourself when quoting IRS Code:

"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."

The VFW is a 501c(3) - established
All 501c(3)s are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating - also established

Thus, isn't the audience the important factor here, and not the venue? The IRS code seems to indicate so.

So it WAS NOT the VFW she was speaking to. Is that what I gather from your statement?

And aside from renting out the hall, the VFW didn't promote the event to their members or give the Gregoire campaign access to member contact information so they could promote directly to VFW members?

Organizations like to bring in prominent figures who share their beliefs. Public figures are often invited to speak. Whether it is a TV personality, a politician, a CEO, an author or a newspaper columnist, big names fill seats and keep members engaged. Sometimes these meetings are fundraising events for the organization; sometimes they are just regular meetings.

So a successful Catholic businessman who ran for governor and is running again goes to speak to a non-profit religious businessmen's group on the topics of religion and business. Technically, the problem is that the group funded the event and that he is a candidate (I will not address perceived biases, agendas or 'sour grapes' factors that could arguably be reasons behind bringing this up as an issue at all).

This seems to mean that for our partisan elected officials, they can't speak to any number of charitable or civic organizations in an election year (or if they have indicated they might be running for some partisan office). I understand the reasoning behind the rules, but this just isn’t good business for the government (limiting the access of officials to groups of people or discriminating regarding which groups could be addressed). It isn’t good for non-profits because it may hamper their ability to keep their members informed and/or raise needed funds for their cause (this would include everything from emergency and social services like the Salvation Army and Red Cross to environmental causes like the Autobahn Society to pro-choice issues like NARAL to organizations tackling race issues like the NAACP – all are non-profits). It isn’t good for our citizen legislature because this could be construed to mean that only people who do not work for or represent a non-profit or participate in a non-profit organization can be elected to partisan offices (or that the legislator or part-time partisan government official cannot overtly participate in the organization lest it seem the organization supports that individual).

I know some would say I am crazy. Of course the governor can speak at the American Cancer Society’s fundraising dinner, right? She is the governor for crying out loud. They want her there because she is the governor. She isn’t there to talk about her campaign. She is there in an official capacity as governor to represent the state. Maybe so, but according to the strict interpretation of the rules, it doesn’t matter if she is also a candidate for a partisan office. According to the information I have seen, Dino was at this event to talk as a Christian businessman. Everyone knows the game and everyone knows that candidates will do everything they can to get their face in front of people at events. Anyone who believes that a campaigning politician doesn’t have someone with them to accept campaign contributions is not paying attention.

Gigatt is absolutely right. A 501(c)(3) has every right to have Dino speak at a meeting of their members. Gregoire can speak to the American Cancer Society without them losing their tax-exempt status. If we adopt the interpretation of the law that the reporter suggests, the first amendment would be gutted.

As the law stands, non-profits can't endorse or give money to candidates. Or spend money on campaigns. This makes sense because otherwise monies would be funneled through 501(c)(3)s to campaigns, and donors would get an unwarranted tax break.

However, 501(c)(3)s can unquestionably invite anyone to speak at a meeting of their members -- about any subject. They can also pray for a candidate. The first amendment guarantees this. The fact that "Dino left a couple of envelopes" is hardly going to bring the IRS cracking down And it's not news.

This is an agenda-driven story justified by gross misinterpretations of the law.

Dino Rossi used his own sham non-profit to skirt campaign finance laws so I'm sure he's familiar with the rules. The law says you can't use your "Movement of Men" evangelical non-profit to campaign and Rossi did it anyway. And he got busted. That's what you get for trying to brew up cash by mixing religion and politics as Rossi likes to do.

He's just a joke.

Good use of REASON there Mr. Lossi. Way to retort the arguments, and just pick us apart. Don't know how we can ever respond to such infalliable logic. You are the master of the debate. Pardon the complete lack of insight and contribution of the three prior posts, because clearly their blatant partisan sniping is no match for your objective analysis. Allow me to just lay down and concede the argument right now. Consider the towel thrown in.

Yep, the transcript of this prayer -- and the words following it about envelopes -- shows absolutely no evidence, of any kind, of any violations of the tax code.

This reporter needs to actually go learn something about what she is covering.

And "dinolossi," Dino Rossi did not "skirt" any campaign finance laws: he followed them. You have no evidence to the contrary, because none exists. He did not get "busted" for anything. The complaint was dismissed, and no wrongdoing of any kind was found. You're lying.

And EVEN IF he were violating the law with Forward Washington, which he absolutely was not ... how about Gregoire's "listening tour" late last year, which just happened to be timed right before her campaign started? How about her ACTUAL illegal use of the governor's mansion for fundraising?

Pull the log out of your eye.