One of the speakers scheduled for the Palestine Solidarity Movement's conference at Georgetown is Ali Abunimah the co-founder of The Electronic Intifada news service. It turns out that Electronic Intifada is actually a project of the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt

Middle East Cultural and Charitable Society
Cambridge, MA 02238

In the Middle East Cultural and Charitable Society's tax returns for 2002, 2003, and 2004, it seemed reluctant to spell out "Electronic Intifada", preferring instead to call it the "EI Project." Descriptions of EI to the IRS include, "[a] needed supplement to mainstream commercial media presentation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Now let's see what kind of "needed supplement to mainstream commercial media presentation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" this activity provides.

Photostory: Israeli bulldozer driver murders American peace activist
Nigel Parry and Arjan El Fassed, The Electronic Intifada, 16 March 2003

On 16 March 2003 in Rafah, occupied Gaza, 23-year-old American peace activist Rachel Corrie from Olympia, Washington, was murdered by an Israeli bulldozer driver. Rachel was in Gaza opposing the bulldozing of a Palestinian home as a volunteer with the International Solidarity Movement.

This statement is presented as a photostory as opposed to an editorial opinion. Is this "news" or inflammatory propaganda? Here is what the Internal Revenue Service has to say about propaganda:

IRS Publication 557, "Tax Exempt Status for Your Organization"

Advocacy of a position. Advocacy of a particular position or viewpoint may be educational if there is a sufficiently full and fair exposition of pertinent facts to permit an individual or the public to form an independent opinion or conclusion. The mere presentation of unsupported opinion is not educational.

Method not educational.

The method used by an organization to develop and present its views is a factor in determining if an organization qualifies as educational within the meaning of section 501(c)(3). The following factors may indicate that the method is not educational.

The presentation of viewpoints unsupported by facts is a significant part of the organization's communications.
The facts that purport to support the viewpoint are distorted.
The organization's presentations make substantial use of inflammatory and disparaging terms and express conclusions more on the basis of emotion than of objective evaluations.
The approach used is not aimed at developing an understanding on the part of the audience because it does not consider their background or training.

Exceptional circumstances, however, may exist where an organization's advocacy may be educational even if one or more of the factors listed above are present.

This is not, however, the only place Electronic Intifada makes the false, emotionally-charged, and probably libelous accusation of murder. At least the following are presented as "opinion/editorial" as opposed to "news," but they still say as a statement of fact that Rachel Corrie was "murdered."

Of broken bodies and unbreakable laws

Laurie King-Irani, The Electronic Intifada, 19 March 2003
Last weekend, though, the murder of a civilian by the IDF in the Occupied Gaza Strip dominated international news headlines, evoking sorrow and outrage throughout the world. The victim in this case was a bright, eloquent, and courageous 23-year-old American activist, Rachel Corrie, a student at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington who had been serving as an International Solidarity Movement (ISM) observer in Gaza since January.

Rachel
Ghassan Andoni, The Electronic Intifada, 25 March 2003

This is the first time in which I could sit behind the computer and write about the tragic murder of Rachel.

Here is another "opinion or editorial":

The passionate minority and the silenced majority
Laurie King-Irani, The Electronic Intifada, 22 March 2005

What kind of truths do statistics tell? What version of reality is our media mediating? What kind of democracy do we settle for when the will of the majority is sidelined by the fanaticism of the few?

Rachel Corrie, a minority of one, in the last hours of her life (March 16, 2003)
Just days after the second anniversary of the shocking death of a young American woman, the result of a murderous act underwritten by US taxpayers... [the paragraph then discusses Terri Schiavo]

Next we come to what EI's parent organization told the IRS about its attempts to influence legislation in 2003.

This seems to differ, however, with what Electronic Intifada actually did in 2003. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1673.shtml, which was online in 2003 (the same year as covered by the statement above) has since been taken down but the page was saved for future reference.

Educate Congress about the Rachel Corrie Resolution
Action Item, Partners for Peace, 3 July 2003

On 16 March 2003, peace activist Rachel Corrie was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer while trying to protect the home of a Palestinian doctor.

Ask your Representative to co-sponsor HR 111 and ask why simply investigating the killing of an American citizen is not a priority for a shocking 90 percent of the US House of Representatives.

The Rachel Corrie Resolution (House Concurrent Resolution 111) now has 42 co-sponsors. But the resolution will continue to languish in the House International Relations Committee without a continuing groundswell of grassroots support.

...Yet many members of the House International Relations Committee show every sign of wavering in their responsibility to support this courageous young American and her family. The Washington Wednesday coalition is urging calls to those members of Congress who have not yet co-sponsored the resolution.

Your member of the House of Representatives can be reached at 202-224-2131 or 202-225-3121.

TALKING POINTS

An Israeli military bulldozer killed Rachel Corrie on March 16, 2003. An American investigation is needed as there is ample evidence that the Israeli investigation whitewashed what happened that day.

...Many more non-violent Americans are headed to the region to participate in the International Solidarity Movement's "Freedom Summer." A failure by the Congress to back an investigation into what happened to Rachel could be taken by the Israeli military as evidence that the United States will not stand up for its own citizens. This will leave many non-violent American volunteers with the International Solidarity Movement vulnerable to attacks by Israeli soldiers this summer.

Rachel was an advocate for a just peace between Palestinians and Israelis. She was also an advocate for the rights of Palestinians living in grim conditions in the occupied territories, particularly in Rafah. The United States government has yet to speak up strongly for the human rights of Palestinians. Now has it reached the stage where it will not even speak up for the human rights of its own citizens?

TEXT OF THE RACHEL CORRIE RESOLUTION

H. CON. RES. 111

Expressing sympathy for the loss of Rachel Corrie in the Palestinian village of Rafah in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 25, 2003

Mr. BAIRD (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. DICKS, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. WU, Mr. HONDA, Ms. ESHOO, and Mrs. CAPPS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing sympathy for the loss of Rachel Corrie in the Palestinian village of Rafah in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--

(1) expresses its sympathy to Craig and Cynthia Corrie and to their extended families, friends, and co-workers for the loss of Rachel Corrie in the Palestinian village of Rafah in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003;

(2) calls on the United States Government to undertake a full, fair, and expeditious investigation into the death of Rachel Corrie; and encourages the Government of the United States and the Government of Israel to work together to determine all the circumstances that led to this incident and to ensure that an incident of this kind never occurs again.

I am not an attorney (tax or otherwise) and I cannot be 100 percent sure that the above falls under the IRS definition of "attempting to influence national legislation... [or] public opinion on a legislative matter or referendum" but common sense suggests that this needs to be looked at.