Anonymous Funding: Where Credit Is Due

What bloggers do to the mainstream media – fact-check them, hold them accountable – some commenters in turn do to bloggers.

My long-time regular commenter Master of None has taken a particular interest in the Minnesota Monitor’s financing. He (along with Learned Foot) has, apparently, expertise to match interest in the field, as he noted (several times)in the comments to this post, about the Monitor’s dilatory sense of self-accountability:

There is fairly compelling evidence that the Center for Independent Media is organized as a 501(c)(3) public charity. The CIM pays stipends to all of the MiniMoni bloggers, and requires them to write not only for MiniMoni, but to also publish their own blogs.

IRS rules for 501(c)(3) bars them from being active in politics, with pretty precise guidelines for what is permitted and what is not permitted. It seems like these rules should apply to not only MiniMoni, but also to the blogs that are operated by the CIM fellows.

Do you know any Tax lawyers in MOB that might be able to comment on this?

Learned Foot at KAR continued, digging into the tax status of the Center for Independent Media and one of its major benefactors:

Well, wonder no longer! While MinnMon and CIM aren’t forthcoming about their sources of income, at least we now know where $100,000 of it came from:

$100,000 to the Center for Independent Media. This grant will support the Center’s efforts to strengthen its New Journalist Program by establishing a national branch in Washington, DC. The fellowship program, with operations currently in Colorado, Minnesota and Iowa, mentors and trains state-based political news bloggers in investigative reporting with the aim of creating a robust corps of citizen journalists to add diversity and local expertise to media coverage of important issues. Fellows serving in the New Journalist Washington DC Program will focus their coverage on Congress, federal agencies, the presidency, Supreme Court and the influence of lobbying, the national press corps and campaign finance.

From the Sunlight Foundation! And what is the Sunlight Foundation’s raison d’etre?

Transparency! In government!

We’ve noted this in the past. What I haven’t done, so far, is note what “Master of None” did in the comment above: non-profit organizations incorporated under 501c3 status have rules to follow when it comes to political partisanship, rules that 527 status doesn’t have.

The battle has moved to the Monitor’s comment section, where Master asks:

So Robin, is CIM a 501(c)(3) or not?

You’re getting plenty of money from 501(c)(3) public charities. Do you really think it’s appropriate to run a leftwing blog site using tax exempt charitable donations? Don’t you think the Red Cross or perhaps United Way could make better use of that kind of money?

As with the prior questions of the Monitor – on the whole plagiarism issue, for example – the Monitor remains officially silent.

A request to the Center for Independent Media asking their non-profit incorporation status remains unanswered.

Posted

July 20, 2007

Blogs, Media

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

17 responses to “Anonymous Funding: Where Credit Is Due”

LearnedFoot

July 20, 2007

There is fairly compelling evidence that the Center for Independent Media is organized as a 501(c)(3) public charity. The CIM pays stipends to all of the MiniMoni bloggers, and requires them to write not only for MiniMoni, but to also publish their own blogs.

Pretty sure CIM doesn’t require them to maintain their own blogs.
Kermit

July 20, 2007

Do I sense a major theme for NARN part deux tomorrow? I think mayhap.
swiftee

July 20, 2007

Observe the sock puppet queen’s reply to MON’s inquiry:

If everyone is going to keep using the same IP as multiple folks, I will have to turn on registration for the site.
Thank you.

Robin Marty also writes for Powerliberal and DFL Senate.
________________________________________
by: Robin Marty @ Thu Jul 19, 2007 at 07:41:35 AM CDT

Pffft.

The comment section is already being censored, and now in order to maintain control, it will be censored for not only what gets posted but who posts.
Master of None

July 20, 2007

The funny thing is that Andy Birkey wrote this post

http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=524

about the evils of a 501(c)(3) getting involved in the political process.

When I questioned Andy about the intent of this post

http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2093

Robin deleted two of my comments, and then posted her comment policy.

In the above post, Andy makes disparaging comments about a Republican candidate for office

“”Marriage is a time-tested and sacred institution between one man and one woman,” he writes on his campaign website. “Steve (Drazkowski) firmly believes that Minnesotans should be given the opportunity to vote upon the constitutional definition of marriage for our state.”

Marriage is so “sacred” that Drazkowski has now had two of them. Winona social studies teacher, DFLer Linda Feilsticker is running against Drazkowski. ”

This is strictly prohibited for a 501(c)(3).

Per the New Journalist website,

“Each fellow is expected to produce 6 – 10 original posts per week. ”

If these requisite posts become content of their personal blogs, then I believe that those posts also are covered by 501(c)(3) regulations. Furthermore, IRS regulations even prohibit 501(c)(3) websites from linking to other websites that are political active unless it is done in a non-partisan manner (ie a link to all of the candidates campaign sites.) Mini Moni links only to it’s bloggers websites. One of which ran a post about the virtues of Bill Richardson.
flash

July 20, 2007

“”in order to maintain control, it will be censored for not only what gets posted but who posts.””

You have to be registered to post here, so by your definition, SitD does the same.

Flash
Master of None

July 20, 2007

I have only ever posted as Master of None. I don’t know what she is talking about.
Master of None

July 20, 2007

Here’s a clear example of Mini Moni’s tax hypocrisy

In this article, Andy Birkey warns about the evils of misusing 501(c)(3) money to endorse a candidate

http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=524

“Churches that are tax exempt and file as a 501(c)3 organization are subject to most of the same rules that all other 501(c)3 nonprofits are subject to concerning political involvement: you must not show support for a candidate or political party.”

Yet in this post he does exactly this by making statements against the DFL opponent.

“Drazkowski has also come under criticism for asking the courts to discontinue his child-support payments while he runs for office on a pro-family platform.

“Marriage is a time-tested and sacred institution between one man and one woman,” he writes on his campaign website. “Steve firmly believes that Minnesotans should be given the opportunity to vote upon the constitutional definition of marriage for our state.”

Marriage is so “sacred” that Drazkowski has now had two of them. Winona social studies teacher, DFLer Linda Feilsticker is running against Drazkowski. ”

http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2093
Yossarian

July 20, 2007

“You have to be registered to post here, so by your definition, SitD does the same.”

Completely different. You have to register for SitD so as to limit spam. MinMon is threatening to do so to limit debate.
Master of None

July 20, 2007

Robin deleted two of my comments in another post when I asked Andy Birkey if he was advocating for the election of Democratic candidates. I can’t in any way see how that question violated Mini Moni’s comment policy, but we know their history of following policies.
flash

July 20, 2007

Yoss: Show me where there is any attempt to limit debate. There is a desire to have commenters take ownership of their words, but nothing to stifle said comments.

It is not hard to look at a comment thread’s addresses to see that the same person is using multiple names. I guess she could just go in and alter the comments themselves, but that is a tactic used more commonly here and at KAR. I suppose you find that acceptable and not a form of censorhip?

Flash
Centrisity.com
Yossarian

July 20, 2007

Flash, see MoN’s comment for one example. Also, Robin has repeatedly warned commenters that their comments would be deleted if they didn’t stay on the topic addressed in a post. Imagine if Mitch deleted every comment by AngryClown, or Doug, or you for that matter that didn’t stay on topic. So, yes, MinMon actively limits and threatens to limit debate. If you’ve even marginally followed their antics and flagrant dismissal of their own rules and policies, you’d know that.
Master of None

July 20, 2007

sorry about the duplicates. For some reason my comments got stuck
Yossarian

July 20, 2007

Also, Flash:

“I guess she could just go in and alter the comments themselves, but that is a tactic used more commonly here and at KAR. I suppose you find that acceptable and not a form of censorhip?”

Show me where KAR or SitD have positioned themselves as anything other than bloggers. As bloggers, we can diddle with idiotic comments all we want, because they’re OUR blogs and no one else’s. So, no, it’s not a form of censorship when done on personal blogs. You have no more “right” to comment here than I do. Mitch is judge, jury and executioner when it comes to comments on HIS blog, just as I am on MY blog.

MinMon, on the other hand, is dressing itself up as a legitimate media entity, complete with “Journalist Fellows,” pushing forth an obvious left-leaning agenda, propped up with funding from leftist sources that they’re oh-so hush hush about (and, as Master of None points out, possibly ILLEGAL funding at that, which I’m sure you’re just gosh darn fine with). They have lofty “rules” and “policies,” all intended to add to their air of media legitimacy, even though they repeatedly violate their own rules and policies, and obfuscate in the face of plagiarism claims.

If they’re going to operate under the auspices of being a legitimate media engine, they give up the right to stifle debate. If they’re going to allow comments on a LEGITIMATE news source at all, they had better be open to opposing viewpoints. If not, then why have a comment engine at all?
Mitch

July 20, 2007

but that is a tactic used more commonly here and at KAR.

To what are you referring, Flash?

I don’t change posts. I VERY rarely delete them – I can think of maybe ten, ever, usually for being grossly and inappropriately off-topic (and when you see what Doug and Clown get away with, you know how gross and inappropriate you have to be). I’ve banned four people, ever, always for getting REALLY personal with the insults. For the same reason, I edited a few people’s comments to mock them, once or twice, years ago – which got chuzzlewits like Eva Young all exercised, but who cares what they think?

In short, my comment section has vastly more integrity than that of Minnesota Monitor.
Master of None

July 20, 2007

Plus their threaded comment format is teh suck.
Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Mn Monitor: Adios Boyd?

November 12, 2007

[…] Rumor has it that Boyd – whose much-ballyhooed entree to the Monitor was intended to be yet another coat of credibility (along with hiring Eric Black) onto an enterprise that employs some good writers, some ethical trainwrecks, and some well-meaning amateurs. […]
Just To Be Perfectly Clear On Things | Shot in the Dark

December 12, 2014

[…] mind that many – especially Joe “Learned Foot” Tucci at Kool Aid Report and this blog’s regular commenter Master of None – did the digging and found the links. The Monitor’s party line, and the line from […]