« | »

Soros Funded 501c3 Uses Illegals To GOTV

From an approving Associated Press:

In WA, illegal immigrants canvassing for votes

Friday, October 22, 2010

SEATTLE — When Maria Gianni is knocking on voters’ doors, she’s not bashful about telling people she is in the country illegally. She knows it’s a risk to advertise to strangers that she’s here illegally – but one worth taking in what she sees as a crucial election.

The 42-year-old is one of dozens of volunteers – many of them illegal immigrants – canvassing neighborhoods in the Seattle area trying to get naturalized citizens to cast a ballot for candidates like Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, who is in a neck-to-neck race with Republican Dino Rossi.

Pramila Jayapal [sic], head of OneAmerica Votes, says the campaign is about empowering immigrants who may not feel like they can contribute to a campaign because they can’t vote.

"Immigrants really do matter," Jayapal said. "If we can’t vote ourselves, we’re gonna knock on doors, or get family members to vote." …

Question, if it is against the law for illegal aliens to donate to political campaigns — such as it was when Mr. Obama’s Aunt Zeituni gave his campaign $250 dollars – why isn’t this illegal?

Is not campaigning door-to-door a ‘contribution in kind’? If it isn’t, what is? The head of OneAmerica just called it a contribution. Oh, and isn’t this also a ‘foreign contribution’ at that?

In close elections across the country, the immigrant and minority vote is considered key for candidates, especially Democrats…

Still, OneAmerica Votes launched one of the largest get-out-the-vote campaigns in the state on behalf of Democratic candidates. The organization is an offshoot of OneAmerica, one of the state’s largest and the most influential immigrant-rights advocacy group.

Through home visits, phone banks and mailings the organization is aiming to reach about 40,000 registered voters in the Seattle area in an attempt to help Democrats gain ground in key races…

About 150 volunteers rolled out in nine cities across Washington this past week, knocking on 3,000 doors…

Needless to say, OneAmerica is a 501c3 tax exempt ‘charity.’ As we have noted often before, 501c3s are supposedly prohibited by law from campaigning on the behave of any candidates for political office. From the Internal Revenue Service:

Political Campaign Activity

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. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.

Indeed, the Internal Revenue Service also allegedly prohibits 501c3s from lobbying Congress over legislation, which is the single purpose of OneAmerica, which actively lobbies Congress to pass amnesty:

Lobbying Activity

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying)…

An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

501c3s are also supposedly prohibited from breaking the law or encouraging people to break the law. Which, you would think they are doing when they hire illegal aliens:


Violation of constitutionally valid laws is inconsistent with exemption under IRC 501(c)(3). As a matter of trust law, one of the main sources of the general law of charity, planned activities that violate laws are not in furtherance of a charitable purpose…

Thus, all charitable trusts (and by implication all charitable organizations, regardless of their form) are subject to the requirement that their purpose may not be illegal or contrary to public policy.

But none of these details has never stopped any tax exempt organization that helps Democrats. Nor has it kept the Democrats from reporting the GOP for alleged 501c3 violations.

By the way, according to their funding report (a pdf file), among the usual suspects that you will find bankrolling OneAmerica, you will find George Soros and the SEIU.

What a surprise, huh?

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, October 22nd, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

15 Responses to “Soros Funded 501c3 Uses Illegals To GOTV”

  1. Petronius says:

    “Pramila Jayapal [sic], head of OneAmerica Votes, says the campaign is about empowering immigrants….

    “In close elections across the country, the immigrant and minority vote is considered key for candidates, especially Democrats….”

    Without question, the most important change in the American electorate has been the steady increase in the proportion of nonwhite voters. This trend began about 40 years ago, but it has accelerated in the last quarter century. It is a result of the 1965 Immigration Act (which Senator Ted Kennedy promised would not change the racial composition of the country), increased immigration from Asia, Africa, and Latin America, higher birth rates among these immigrant groups, and a deliberate policy of open borders and lax enforcement, particularly for visa overstays. Moreover, barring an economic collapse, this shift is almost certain to continue for the foreseeable future.

    As Pramila Jayapal and the AP (quoted above) implicitly acknowledge, electoral success for the Democrat Party has little to do with Liberal ideology, but instead is the direct result of combining racial / identity politics with a program of importing a new electorate through open borders, mass migration, and amnesty.

    Thus the current Democrat Party base, composed overwhelmingly of immigrants and nonwhites, will in 20 years constitute about one-half of the US population. When you look at the electorate under age 30, where nonwhites already have greater numbers, the percentage of conservatives and moderates shrinks to a permanent minority. As nonwhite immigration continues unabated, the future for the Republican Party –– and for conservatives and moderates alike –– becomes more problematic with each passing year.

    Republicans to be successful will need to capture all or nearly all of the conservative and moderate voters (generally whites, East Asians, and some Hispanics, especially those whose families were refugees from communism) who will make up the remaining half of the US electorate.

    Conservatives and moderates will continue to shrink in relative terms as mass immigration continues. As for the indigenous whites, unless they are willing to engage in identity politics in competition with other racial groups, they may, within another decade or two, become politically irrelevant and marginalized, except locally in Appalachia, the Great Plains, and the Northwestern States.

    Eventually, their only hope may be an economic collapse, combined with the emergence of white solidarity, which would enable them either to compete for their piece of the American pie on naked racial terms, or to establish break-away republics.

    • proreason says:

      I hesitate to abandon my traditional cynicism, but must confess that I am more optimistic about the future success of conservatism than you seem to be, Petronious; although I agree with you that libwits have been very successful at exploiting their balkanization strategy to recruit lamebrained voters to the dark side.

      The reason is that conservatism isn’t a philosophy that is for or against any nationality or race. The only reason the marxists have captured the African American vote is that they have bought it. And I don’t believe that money is an ironclad way to maintain a long-term majority. There are plenty of informed blacks, hispanics and asians, and the numbers are increasing. Fox News is the key, frankly. As more and more of non-white Fox analysts and correspondents espouse conservative principles, there is reason to be hopeful that more non-whites will come to see the light. As an example, there are more minority Republican candidates this year than ever before. That has to have an impact.

      I also question your conclusion about the voting habits of the under-30 voters. Young voters have always been more liberal than older voters. As you know, it’s because young people haven’t been burned enough to understand that idealism is cute, but doesn’t work very well. I don’t see why the natural migration of nitwit young voters to informed older voters will change just because the racial composition of the electorate changes.

      So I don’t think by any means that this is a lost cause. Keep the faith on this one baby.

    • confucius says:

      This coming November 2nd, there are three candidates running for my district’s U.S. House of Representative seat.

      I will not vote for the Republican candidate because he voted for Medicare Part D, TARP and is in favor of taxpayer funded high-speed rail.

      I will not vote for the Tea Party candidate because local tea party groups use racist “talent” to headline their events.

      I am considering voting for the Democrat or sitting it out (and either would be a first for me).

    • proreason says:

      Confucius, 3 blind mice.

      Here are my thoughts.

      A vote for a Democrat is a vote for Obama. Very bad.
      The Republican did not vote for Obamycare, the Stick-it-to-us, or financial reform. The Part-D vote was in a different era and TARP was reluctantly supported by many who, like Dubya, were panic’ed. Not good, but not nearly as a rubber-stamp vote for Obamy.
      The Tea Partier hits your sore spot, so you won’t do that. It would be a wasted vote anyway.
      None-of-the-above, given your preferences, may be an option for you this year.

      It seems to me that if your district is a no-contest election, you might be happiest with none-of-the-above. But if the race is tight, you should hold your nose and vote for the Republican.

      My district will go to a fade-into-the-woodwork republican, who I despise for doing nothing and will work against when a viable contendor emerges in the future. But this year, I believe that the magnitude of the message is important and will vote for mr. woodwork.

  2. untrainable says:

    At this time I would like to call on any Washington State voters who answer the door to an illegal immigrant engaged in political activism to do one thing. CALL I.C.E. and have them do their job.

    The blatent disregard for the rule of law in this country is shocking. The fact that this woman can campaign for specific legislation while not being shy about her immigration status speaks volumes about the disarray this nation has fallen into. If illegals are campaigning, door knocking for candidates, pushing the liberal agenda, and in too many cases, actually voting, then there are no fair elections. Where’s Jimmah Cahtuh when you need him, eh? I guess electioneering for liberals must be one of those jobs that Americans just won’t do.LEGAL Americans, that is.

  3. proreason says:

    Is it a coincidence that NPR fired Juan Williams as soon as Soros started funding it?

  4. tranquil.night says:

    Williams firing was no coincidence at all. It was a purging. A very ill-timed one politically obviously for how much their own stupidity exposed them. They likely underestimated the publics level of engagement as usual.

    Nevertheless it doesnt matter. The ruling class’ war betweem political correctness and freedom of speech is on. The war on the integrity of our voting system is on. It coincides with wikileaks too as we noted when this first started.

    • proreason says:

      Just a taste of what will happen after November.

      They aren’t going to say “oh gee, we perfectly understand the public refudiating our agenda, and totally respect it.”

  5. locke n load says:

    Ok, so its a stupid question but again I’ll ask it:
    What in the world is stopping us from attacking Soros and his 501c3 criminal frontgroups under RICO statutes?

    • heykev says:

      Or Treason.

    • Steve says:

      “What in the world is stopping us from attacking Soros and his 501c3 criminal frontgroups under RICO statutes?”

      I would guess it is primarily the Democrat bureaucrats who have infested the Department Of Justice for years. And, of course now, we have Mr. Holder in charge there.

    • Adam Moreira says:

      It may be that Soros is living dangerously on the edge without going over it. However, as I see it, the 501(c)(3) should have its status revoked and be immediately shut down. It’s the responsibility of the employer to make sure that employees and independent contractors are authorized to work in the USA. They did not, and these people have not been fired or turned in.

      The question is: Why isn’t that a serious crime with lengthy prison time in itself?

  6. canary says:

    Why did the article fail to tell the news a few days ago, that the Democrats were helping illegals illegally
    register to illegally vote. The AP makes her look like a hero, and I would think that a policeman would be
    at her door for her being illegal, yet alone violating the federal regulations that Steve posted.

    One America – Justice For All – Formerly Hate Free Zone

    My gut tells me tax payer’s money is going to this organization.

  7. canary says:

    Here they are still called the Hate Free Zone. Check out the ICIRR members & their new New Americans Democracy Project One Nation Dream in Illinoise. All they do is change names like ACORN did.


  8. canary says:

    Obama isn’t just postponing the military to control the increasing danger at the boarder such as yesterday’s 12 murdered at El Paso’s border, so liberals get their grass harvest . Obama is waiting til after the election
    & voting is over, and then there will be more excuses.
    I saw a former military aid to Clinton & George W. Bush who wrote a book. He said that Obama waiting months when the military was requesting more troops to lower our troop casualty loss was unspeakable and
    unprecedented. He said Bush was the more attentive than Clinton.
    Obama’s culture & roots makes him callous as to loss of lives. His attitude is the soldiers have it coming.
    I recently saw a study, and the higher majority of white soldiers fighting overseas at war is growing.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »