I just received an anonymous note (via ProtonMail) that I will admit I'm having a hard time taking seriously but I'm going to pass it on nonetheless.
Anonymous tipster insists that Canada Revenue Agency is well aware of the questionable fundraising related to Rebel News and The Democracy Fund (based on numerous complaints), but they have been told to look the other way and do nothing.
This sounds more than a little unlikely since there is no apparent reason why CRA would want to do Rebel News any favours, but tipster is adamant that this is what is happening, and this is why Rebel News and TDF have been able to keep up this questionable fundraising for so long and still be able to offer tax receipts.
I'm having trouble believing this but, on the other hand, it would certainly explain so much.
7 comments:
Well, because we're all friends here, I'll stake out a contrarian position and argue that maybe CRA isn't digging into the Rebel and Democracy fund clusterfuck because the two parties are not doing anything illegal.
That doesn't mean their relationship ISN'T an obscene exploitation of CRA loopholes, a violation of the spirit and intent of the law, and a triumph of mutual parasitism whose ethical stench rivals a Dave Menzies lawsuit. But consider.
First we have a not for profit foundation, duly and legally constituted. It seems clear that the lawyers who set it up slapped a new set of objectives on a registration already in progress for something called "Bao Bao Love" with a completely different Board. (Repurpose, re-use, recycle, right?) It also seems clear that the Foundation's objectives are written specifically to paraphrase CRA's requirements for non-profit status, with phrasing perfectly designed to facilitate the flow of grants to for-profit media outlets like, oh, jeez, let me, think...the Rebel. Sleazy? Yep, but not illegal.
Next we have the Rebel. While the mutual parasitism on display here is obvious, I'm not sure why it would represent a violation of CRA guidelines. The Rebel promotes donations to the Foundation; donors who support the Foundation's goals send them money; the foundation then issues grants or contributions to an organization that has a plan to address those goals.
Ezra and Sheila have been adamant in insisting that no "Fight the Fines" money goes to the Rebel, and that may be true. However, they haven't ever commented on whether they get money from the Foundation under its second objective - "To advance education by establishing a journalism placement program that provides post-secondary journalism students with opportunities to obtain on-the-job skills training required to complete their education program." This objective might account for the sudden proliferation of young, unskilled, uncredentialled, and deeply amateurish kids playing at journalism at the Rebel. But of course, the Rebel doesn't report on their funding sources, so we'll never really know.
So despite the fact that we all know exactly what's going on here, it may well be that CRA has decided that there is insufficient evidence of actual lawbreaking.
The one that I wonder about is objective three, which is:
"To relieve poverty by providing health supplies and other necessities of life to impoverished families in disaster-stricken and other needs-based areas including Iraq, Hong Kong, China, Syria or elsewhere."
Objectives one and two are clearly set up to feed the Rebel (and perhaps other like minded recipients. But which sleazy organization is sucking off this particular tit?
I doubt that the anonymous tipster's story is accurate. However, it is strange that CRA hasn't cracked down on Rebel yet, given that their scams are pretty transparent.
My guess is that the CRA might be building a bigger investigation, which includes the various institutions and individuals who fund and launder money for Ezra and The Rebel. Not to sound conspiratorial, but there are tangled webs of networks and money flows in today's far-right.
The CRA is too busy hassling average citizens for pocket change. I imagine most of their talent is still working from home and /or is too understaffed to bother with complex cases.
The CRA was perfectly happy to allow themselves to be used by stephen harper as a weapon against his critics (attacking the charitable status of a bird-watchers group for one example).
It's possible that "The Rebel" and the "Democracy Fund" are also skating just inside the letter of the law. (The definition of "strategic litigation" might be stretched to accommodate their "Fight-the-Fines" campaign for instance.
It's also the case that as the comment above states; the CRA goes after average people for pocket-change, because we don't have lawyers. Ezra/Democracy Fund do.
@thwap @ 7:15:
Offhand, I'd guess it depends heavily on how The Rebel is reporting the revenue from its various fundraisers. Normal and honest people would report the revenue as normal and pay the taxes on it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Ezra doesn't even report it. At all.
Thwap, their new "Fight the Vaccine Passports" campaign is clearly a deliberate attempt to align their cash grab with the CRA definition of "strategic litigation".
Post a Comment