From MIRS news:
Anti-MCRI Accused Of Law Violations
------------------------------------

According to Greg BRODEUR, who has filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) against the campaign opposing the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), the anti-MCRI campaign has been flagrantly breaking federal laws and not even trying to hide the violations.

"It's so obvious," Brodeur, an Owosso-area resident, told MIRS today. "They're using Michigan United for political purposes. What's amazing is that they're so blatant about it all."

Michigan United (MU) is a 501 (c)(3), a tax-exempt non-profit corporation. One United Michigan (OUM), the primary campaign opposing the MCRI, is an affiliated entity identified as a 501 (c)(4) non-profit.

But Dave WAYMIRE, spokesman for OUM, said that Broduer, who has apparently been a persistent letter to the editor writer on MCRI-related issues in the Owosso area, basically doesn't know what he's talking about.

"Not only have we stuck to the letter of the law, we've also stuck to the spirit of the law as well," Waymire told MIRS. "Everything we've done has been proper and lawful."

Waymire said that as a 501 (c)(3) entity, Michigan United can be used to "educate" citizens on the value of affirmative action programs in Michigan and the damage that affirmative action proponents claim occurred in California when Proposition 209 (which was basically the California version an MCRI) passed out there. He said Michigan United is not used for actual campaign activity against MCRI (openly advocating voting against the ballot proposal), and it hasn't been used in that manner.

"I think Mr. Brodeur should look at the actions of ACRI (the American Civil Rights Institute) and ACRC (the American Civil Rights Coalition), anti-affirmative action groups that back initiatives like the MCRI, and he'll see that they follow the IRS rules the same way we do," Waymire said.

Meanwhile, Brodeur makes the fine point of distinction that he is not a member of MCRI, but has attended MCRI rallies. He said he got interested in the IRS tax-exempt angle when he overheard a discussion about it at an MCRI gathering and thought someone should take action.

According to Brodeur, after he checked the anti-MCRI campaign out, he concluded that in practice there has been no apparent distinction between the tax-exempt entity (MU) and the campaign (OUM). His complaint to the IRS apparently included multiple exhibits.

"I'm beginning to think that they (the anti-MCRI campaign) don't care whether they're breaking the law," Brodeur said. "I think they may have decided that they'll be fined after the election and the amount of the fines will be far less than what their campaign is likely to raise."

Waymire said the accusations being made are just part of an overall campaign of deception by pro-MCRI forces.

"So far we haven't received anything whatsoever from the IRS about a complaint," Waymire said. "The MCRI people have to use these deceptive tactics to divert attention from the real issue, which is the damage this proposal would cause in Michigan, including its effect on the economy, and the truly tragic effects it has had in California." The blurring of the line between MU and OUM that Brodeur alleges includes the following accusations:

- Michigan United and One United Michigan were formed on the same day and share the same individuals as principles and board members

- One United Michigan provides the Web site address, post office box and premises for Michigan United

- All contact with Michigan United is routed through One United Michigan

- To access the Michigan United Web page one must first open the One United Michigan page, which contains 100 percent political campaign information expressing opposition to the MCRI

Brodeur said that even personnel announcements for Michigan United have been posted on the One United Michigan Web site.

"I'm sure when my name gets out there, One United Michigan will come after me with accusations of racism," Brodeur said. "So I just want to say now that I have a multi-racial family. I have a son, a daughter and an adopted Hispanic son. According to those opposing the MCRI that means each of my kids fall into a different category."

Another less specific bullet-point concerning the complaint is that Brodeur contends the IRS should investigate to see that there is no commingling of funds between the two organizations.

Despite Brodeur's allegations, Sam SINGH, president and CEO of the Michigan Nonprofit Association, said the main issue the IRS would likely look at would be how funds were actually used.

"I don't know enough about the complaint or the organizations involved to comment specifically," Singh said. "I can say that 501(c)(3)s are allowed to make a certain amount of comment on ballot proposals. They can't do electioneering. That is they can't advocate for a specific candidate or party. Groups form various and separate types of entities under IRS classifications. (C)(3)s are allowed to be used for ballot proposal education. (C)(4)s are created for more direct advocacy. What the IRS would look at is whether or not the dollars from the groups have remained separate."

Back to home page