Don’t Let the Headlines Mislead You on the Reported Endorsement of Hillary Clinton by “Planned Parenthood”
Across the country this morning, millions awoke to news source headlines proclaiming that presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is receiving the endorsement of “Planned Parenthood.” The prime exhibit is the headline for the story appearing in today’s New York Times. The print edition reads, “Planned Parenthood Gives First Primary Endorsement in Its 100 Years to Clinton,” and the online version of the Times story reads, “Planned Parenthood, in Its First Primary Endorsement, Backs Hillary Clinton.“ The story in the latter version opens with these words: “Planned Parenthood, which has become an ideological minefield in the 2016 presidential election, said Thursday that it would endorse Hillary Clinton — its first endorsement in a presidential primary in the nonprofit’s 100-year existence.” Stories in some other major news sources lead with similar language. See, for example, the stories published by ABC News and CNN.
Although its headline is also misleading, the story appearing in the Washington Post actually begins with what appears to be the accurate factual account: “The political arm of Planned Parenthood will endorse Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire on Sunday, a Clinton campaign official confirmed.” And therein lies the critical distinction. As the New York Times piece eventually reports, the endorsement is being “technically made through the nonprofit’s advocacy arm, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.”
“Technically made,” indeed. As exempt organization lawyers are well aware, the identity of the entity that supports or opposes a United States presidential candidate matters greatly. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. – the health care service-provider at the center of recent controversies over whether it should receive federal funds in the wake of allegations that it has profited from transactions in fetal tissue – is a tax-exempt charitable organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, to comply with the requirements for federal income tax exemption, Planned Parenthood must “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.” Planned Parenthood’s political affiliate is not bound by the section 501(c)(3) limitations.
The reporting of the Clinton endorsement highlights the degree to which, in the minds of many, including journalists, these rules are just “technical” distinctions. But the distinctions are of enormous importance. Consider the pastor of a local church who wants to express a political voice on politics. The pastor is free to do so in appropriate contexts, without having his viewpoint attributed to the legal entity which is the church. Cecile Richards may do the same, individually or on behalf of a political action organization, without having her statements attributed to the charity.
Of course, the reporting of the Clinton endorsement raises the issue that the Planned Parenthood brand is now being used to influence a presidential election, reportedly the first time it has ever been so employed during the primary election stage. The manner in which major media outlets are reporting the endorsement tends to magnify the impact of this brand on the endorsement itself. But a similar point may be made whenever a prominent personality associated with a tax-exempt charity endorses or opposes a candidate. Such a person is free under current law to identify herself by reference to her position with the charity, as long as she is not speaking on behalf of the charity. In each case, a charity’s reputational capital has to some extent been appropriated, either by referring to the charity’s name, or by using a similar-sounding name.
JRB