Power Grab - Jason Chaffetz Page 0,18

cash and volunteers from outside the state, Democrats managed to spike turnout among progressives and political agnostics, resulting in big wins for their party. Already these groups have a carbon tax ballot initiative on tap to help spike turnout among their voters in 2020. Such efforts can potentially benefit Democrat candidates up and down the ballot. All of this is being done with the help of deep-pocketed nonprofits that pay no taxes, do little real charity work, send their money offshore, and in many cases allow rich donors to write off the contributions to offset high tax bills. Taxpayers quite literally subsidize the work of the Democratic Party.

What is Grassroots Campaigns doing with the millions they are being paid? Again, the clues are on their website. They do political canvassing. One page explains “Why we canvass.” In their own words, they do it to build organizations: “Canvassing builds lists of new members and supporters. These lists of supporters are an invaluable resource for Progressive groups.” They do it to “deepen Democratic participation,” to “win elections,” and to “train activists.” That’s all very legal, but if the point is to help win elections, then it’s not the kind of activity a 501(c)(3) can legally engage in.

According to their website, Grassroots “collectively knocked on over 1.3 million doors to get out the vote in 2016. Our work was concentrated in a few key swing states and important Senate battlegrounds.”

Notice where they worked in the presidential election year of 2016:

Totals by State

Shifts

Knocks

Contacts

Totals

19,783

1,334,941

288,859

Ohio

1,028

72,593

16,764

Pennsylvania

4,739

332,179

85,226

Florida

6,606

436,853

84,638

Missouri

374

27,408

6,397

Nevada

986

64,838

14,913

Connecticut

388

22,172

5,224

Colorado

5,237

346,282

70,781

North Carolina

425

32,076

4,916

Source: grassrootscampaignsinc.tumblr

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

With the information about these three nonprofits in hand, my team and I decided to compare them to numbers for another left-leaning nonprofit—the ACLU. The ACLU operates both types of nonprofits at every level. In other words, the national and affiliate organizations all have a charitable 501(c)(3)—usually with significant reserves—and a separate 501(c)(4) for political activism.

The trend toward operating two separate entities allows nonprofits to have their cake and eat it, too. It’s all completely legal, but it most certainly blurs the lines between charity and political activism. Given the ability of nonprofits to work within both sets of rules, there is no excuse for engaging the charitable entity in partisan political activities. That’s what the social welfare nonprofit side is doing.

Of course, the ACLU is adamant that the organization is nonpartisan, writing in a 2016 Medium op-ed: “The ACLU is a staunchly non-partisan organization. For 96 years, we have fought to defend the rights enshrined in our Constitution. We have never opposed or supported any candidate for office. And we are not starting now.”

When you visit the ACLU website, the first thing you see is a large image of Donald Trump with the words, “THE FIGHT IS STILL ON” and a red box that says, “Give Monthly.” A pop-up appears that reads, “SEE YOU IN COURT, PRESIDENT TRUMP. We’re fighting to protect democracy and we need your support” followed by the big red “Donate Now” button. Certainly this is an organization that is raising money off of opposition to President Trump rather than support for its core mission of protecting civil liberties. Is the ACLU’s top priority to defend our constitutional rights or to be a front for the Democrat Party? They might tell you both are priorities. But what happens when their two priorities conflict with each other?

That question was answered during the 2018 confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh. On the one hand, the ACLU had a history of fighting for due process and the presumption of innocence, which Kavanaugh had obviously been denied. These constitutional rights clearly applied to Kavanaugh, who was the target of uncorroborated allegations that failed to meet even the lowest evidentiary standard. On the other hand, Kavanaugh was a Republican and the ACLU is aligned with Democrats. Having to choose between their stated mission and their political objective, the ACLU jettisoned the mission.

They didn’t just stand back and refuse to take a side, either. They proactively undermined their organization’s core principles, bragging in a news release about a $1 million multistate ad buy against Kavanaugh. Not just against Kavanaugh—but essentially against his right to due process and to the presumption of innocence. They wrote, “The ad buy is part of a larger advocacy effort that will engage the ACLU’s over 1.8 million members in actions that include phone banks, online petitions, congressional office visits, and a national day of action in partnership with other organizations.”

The outrageous ads they ran actually compared Kavanaugh to high-profile accused sexual