By Patricia Abbott

It seems that Rainforest Action Network needs to take a few lessons from the Sierra Club. Some thirty-five years ago when it came under attack for violating it's 501(c)(3) restrictions because it was lobbying to stop congressional legislation, the Sierra Club gracefully conceded that its organization had outgrown its nonpartisan 501(c)(3) status and it added a 501(c)(4), which allowed it to lobby openly. However, the Rainforest Action Network's response to a similar challenge by Frontiers of Freedom has been decidedly less graceful. In fact, it might be termed an environmental temper tantrum.

Organizations have life spans just like people, and it appears that the Rainforest Action Network is currently undergoing an awkward growing stage. When they were organized in the early 1990s, they made an effort to restrict themselves to nonpartisan educational activities in order to increase public awareness of environmental issues. Back then, the 501(c)(3) status may have been appropriate. As Rainforest Action Network has grown however, it has crossed the line from educational advocacy to full-fledged grassroots lobbying and pressure campaigns, which 501(c)(3) educational organizations are specifically prohibited from doing. In recent years, RAN members have been active participants in various direct actions, or protests, in which they break the law in order to raise awareness of their issues. During the Democratic National Convention of last August, several RAN climbers were arrested and charged with misdemeanors for climbing a public building in order to hang a protest banner. RAN would have a right as a 501(c)(4) to lobby whatever issues it chooses, however, it is wrong of them to operate under the guise of a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) group and accept the benefits attendant to that tax status when they no longer meet the requirements.

The Rainforest Action Network is reluctant to add a 501(c)(4) because as a 501(c)(3), it has the privilege of receiving donations without having them taxed by the federal government and its donors can deduct their contributions. However, the key word in that last sentence was "privilege" and RAN needs to have the maturity to admit when it has outgrown its old tax status.

The essence of RAN's temper tantrum is to cry that its First Amendment Rights are being infringed. Everyone from RAN leadership to Bonnie Raitt at a recent rally has decried "the chilling effect" that a revocation of their 501(c)(3) status would have on their organization. Mike Brune, RAN's Campaigns Director stated, "We see this not necessarily as a quest for tax justice, but we see it as a more sophisticated attempt to silence those who criticize corporate abuses of power."

This First Amendment argument is flawed in many ways. The IRS challenge is, fundamentally, not a free speech issue. The Rainforest Action Network has the right to protest anything it likes. Their status as a 501(c)(3) or a 501(c)(4) is irrelevant to their First Amendment Rights. RAN needs to remember, however, that 501(c)(3) status is a privilege, not a right. Those organizations which restrict their activities to charitable and educational purposes are entitled to 501(c)(3) status. Those which engage in lobbying and political pressure campaigns must accept that they are not charitable or educational and therefore are not entitled to a tax-exempt status. Lobbying and advocacy organizations have exactly the same right to exist as do charitable organizations. The only difference is that they are called 501 (c)(4)'s and their donations are not tax-exempt. That is the law, and that is life. The 10th Circuit made that precise ruling twenty-nine years ago in Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington when it ruled that 501(c)(3) prohibition on lobbying and political activities was not an unconstitutional restriction on that organization's First Amendment Rights. The court referred to 501(c)(3) status as "a matter of grace rather than right."

It is time for the Rainforest Action Network to do the graceful thing and do what the Sierra Club did thirty-five years ago. Sierra Club may have had a difficult period after they added their 501(c)(4) as they revised their fundraising methods, but now they are a massive and flourishing organization. RAN needs to learn that part of growing up for every person-- and for every organization-- is learning that you can't break the law.

###

Patricia Abbott is an Adjunct Scholar at Frontiers of Freedom, a non-profit, non-partisan public policy organization dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans and restoring constitutional limits on the extent and power of government.