Dear NAACP Supporter,

In October 2004, the NAACP received a letter from the Internal Revenue Service.

Arriving shortly before the November 2nd election, the letter said we were being audited because I had criticized and “condemned” President Bush’s economic, educational and war policies.

Of course, like you, we were outraged and angry.

Never in our wildest imaginations did we think that anyone – including non-profit organizations like the NAACP – would be penalized for criticizing any public official. And we never through our precious tax-exempt status would be threatened because we dare to speak truth to power....

Mr. Bond is apparently referring to his speech before the NAACP National Convention on July 11, 2004. I don't know exactly what he said. A few websites have links to "Download the full speech (pdf)" but the text has apparently been removed from the NAACP website. However, exactly what he said is not the issue, because he admits in his letter that he criticized Mr. Bush.

The IRS is not “auditing” the NAACP, and it is not threatening their “tax-exempt” status. The NAACP is eligible for tax-deductible contributions under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the IRS wants to review its qualification under that section. Here’s that section, with the relevant passage emphasized, cited in its entirety so nobody can say I’m misquoting it:

Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

The problem is not that Mr. Bond criticized a public official, as he put it. The problem is that the official he criticized was a candidate. Read the code I just cited: he published a statement in opposition to a candidate for public office. He admits to criticizing the man, he knew the man was a candidate, and he is presumed to know the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and Mr. Bond’s disclaimer of his “wildest imagination” is out of place.