But I just watched Marlee Ginter’s rock-hard sexposé again. The facts are, to say the least, flaccid.
The point of KOMO’s report was that “your tax dollars [are] paying for a sex club.” To that end, Ginter reports that the club is operating as a 501(c)(7) nonprofit, which provides it a tax-exemption. You’d think that if there were some sort of tax-law violation, Ginter would find the law, compare what the law requires to the actual activities of the organization—and voila, a scandal is born. She doesn’t do that, probably because if she reported the actual IRS rules for a 501(c)(7), she would have to tell viewers this:
Requirements for Exemption… To be exempt under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(7), a social club must be organized for pleasure, recreation, and other similar nonprofitable purposes and substantially all of its activities must be for these purposes.
Personal Contact Required: An essential earmark of an exempt club is personal contact, commingling, and face-to-face fellowship.
Fuck, according to the IRS, a 501(c)(7) is practically required to be sex club.
But rather than discussing the law—that’s the point of the piece—Ginter hooks us in by claiming our tax dollars are going to paying for a sex organization. But is money going from the government to the sex club? If so, Ginter doesn’t mention it.
A federal tax exemption is not our money going to the sex club any more than the Mormon Church’s tax exemption means we’re giving money to the Mormons. Thank god. There are 1,315 (c)(7) organizations in Washington. They aren’t funded by our money. They are funded by members dues. Sure, those members are tax payers, but they’re not spending our tax dollars—they’re spending their private money. Right, Ginter?
Ginter doesn’t answer that question. But she does ask the state why it hasn’t cracked down by telling the sex club, “hey, you’re not a charity, you’re a sex club.” Again, Ginter, if you’d read the IRS information, you’d see 501(c)(7)s aren’t charities. Says the IRS: “Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations.” On the other hand, 501(c)(7)s are in the category “other non-profits,” and the funds must be gathered exclusively from member dues, not charitable donations.
voila, sweet pea, not viola. your typos are so cute, just like you!
voila, honey, not viola. your typos are so cute, just like you!
What the “expose” is actually implying is even more absurd: taxing sex. Their IRS designation allows them the benefits of any not-for-profit sports group, Welcome Wagon, book club, or any other such thing. To imply that they shouldn’t fall under that umbrella based solely on their behavior, and not on the grounds of the function they serve, is to imply in some cases, casual, consensual sex is taxable.
If this were a for-profit swingers club, they would definately be taxed.
What the “expose” is actually implying is even more absurd: taxing sex. Their IRS designation allows them the benefits of any not-for-profit sports group, Welcome Wagon, book club, or any other such thing. To imply that they shouldn’t fall under that umbrella based solely on their behavior, and not on the grounds of the function they serve, is to imply in some cases, casual, consensual sex is taxable.
If this were a for-profit swingers club, they would definately be taxed.
what is the old saying – about whipping the dead horse to death
god folks, this is so dreary, oh yeah, well
zzzzzzzzzzzz no more please, we get it, bad reporting on a non issue
we are at war, the economy is collapsing, the state and the county are in the verge of bankruptcy,and on and on
news anyone?
need some ideas? ck drudge and huffington and go local
“Fuck, according to the IRS, a 501(c)(7) is practically required to be sex club.”
ROFLMAO!!
Oddly enough, “viola” works.
Sigh. I have nothing against the Center for Sex Positive Culture. Hell, I think it would be a great place for a SLOG happy. But I don’t think KOMO’s report is particularly bad, either.
A tax break is the economic equivilent of a subsidy. The government subsidizes your home purchase via the mortgage tax deduction. The The government subsidizes your child-rearing via the child tax credit. And the government subsidizes this sex club via its non-profit tax exemption.
The report is quite upfront about the fact that the club meets the legal 501c requirements. They interview a state official to that effect, and point out that golf clubs are also exempt. They aren’t trying to say the that the club violates the law. They are trying to say that the law doesn’t reflect the mainstream view of what should constitute a subsidy-worthy charity.
What pissed Dan off is not that the report didn’t provide an in-depth exposition of the existing accounting and tax law. It’s that the tone of the report was scandalized and titilated. Here’s some news for Dan: mainstream people are scandalized and titilated by sex clubs. A mainstream media outlets adopt a tone that caters to the views of its mainstream audience. It’s not the job of the mainstream media to “educate” their audience with an eye to turning them into good little progressives who wear their amorality as a badge of honor.
Oi vey – you guys have been whining about this all day, so I finally looked at the clip. How come all those people are always fat and have warts on their faces?
Yay for 501(c)(7) statuses! I think I’ll pop down to my sweet li’l sex positive social club tonight to celebrate with some tax-free, ahem, commingling.
@8 = it’s also not the job of the mainstream media to wrinkle their noses, widen their eyes & say “oh noes, people are having SEX!!” This exposé isn’t about a hunting club or golf cub, because that’s not titillating. But if those member-supported clubs don’t have to pay taxes, why should the sex club? The job of the mainstream media is to present facts, not infotainment with an opinion either way.
& it is TOTALLY the job of columnists to beat whatever horse they want to death. Don’t like it? Get your own column.
Mr. Wright:
What has people outraged is that Marlee Ginter and KOMO were given accurate information, and they not only did not report a complete story, but what they did “report” was knowingly WRONG.
If you noticed in their “teaser,” the woman interviewed, Allena Gabosch, is not the “owner” as KOMO reported. She is the Executive Director. It is not a “sex club,” but a private, members only community organization in support of Sex-Positive Culture, providing a balance to the puritanical “don’t talk about secks!” attitude legislated by the US Administration through executive order over the last 8 years. It includes educational outreach, community resources, and many other benefits for its members and the community. That includes basic sexuality education that the current administration does not allow in our schools or library – such as prevention of STIs, birth control methods, sexual expression beyond strictly heterosexual intercourse, self-esteem, differences in sexuality and gender, and anatomy beyond peg b goes into slot g mechanics for reproduction only.
It is not a “charity” as KOMO would have viewers believe, but a “non-profit organization” as defined by the US IRS, and that is not up to Washington State in any way. They do not ask for anyone’s tax dollars. Nor are membership dues tax deductible for the organization or any other in the same category. Being a 501(c)7 does not exempt the organization from all taxes, either. It still must pay B&O taxes. That is not a subsidy. If it were, then numerous organizations would be receiving “government subsidies” from the same designation. I know I personally disagree with many of those organizations that receive tax-exemptions much more extensive under 501(c)3 and (c)7 status – many hate-mongering “churches” for example – but since it is America, discrimination based on personal biases is illegal.
Marlee Ginter and KOMO knew all of this information and was provided with accurate details about what the organization does as well as Brian Alexander’s previous interview. They used intentional misrepresention, distortionion, and flat out fabrication in an attempt to sensationalize, construct a scandal out of thin air, and to commit slander/liable against those they claimed to accurately cite. In short, they KOMOed the piece. And in doing so, they violated the rules of the FCC for fair news reporting.
If that isn’t worth of outrage, then perhaps you should tell us what YOUR constitution says.
What does KOMO want people to do, run to their nearest H&R Block to get picket signs, torches and pitchforks to attack the club with? They must have absolutely nothing else more important to report on, the poor slobs.
@9 – eagerly awaiting your posting of your own (preferably naked) picture so that it can be critiqued in detail.
FYI, other 501(c)(7) ‘s include the fraternities and the Knights of Columbus. So the sex club requirement appears to hold true.
excellent reporting, dominic. way to show ms. ginter how it is done.
THE REAL question is how often does Stranger staff go there for….education.
This has hit much harder at the Stranger than its news value. Oh, mercy, the hideout for … education.
OK by me, I have what I need at home EVERY night after NIGHT after Night …..
Noticed good taste has been in all coverage and the word whores has not been used at all … hurrah.
Using the word “might” will not save Dan. It is obvious that this is a malicious attack, not satire. He wants to cause her harm. He wants her to lose her job. He wants her to be harassed. He wants her family to suffer because of his harassment. Anyone who reads this site can tell that this is not satire. If it were satire he would have stopped when people began to threaten her and her family. Instead it only geared him up to do more harm.
To claim that is is simply an adolescent frat-boy wannabe giggle fest would be inaccurate. This is Dan Savage’s malicious attempt to cause harm to someone. Was he named in the story? Was he directly provoked? Has this reporter maliciously tried to ruin his reputation because of his writings? I hope she hires a lawyer, this will be an easy victory.
@18 – Read and watch it again. The word “might” is the *entire point* of the parody. That’s how KOMO thought they could get away with saying all that bogus crap.
The reason that this story has so much play is because there are many of us (literally thousands) that feel our Community Center is being threatened by this story. The Center is pretty much my home away from home. I go there to snuggle with friends, dance, and watch pretty and passionate scenes, from which I learn and by which I am inspired. I know how lucky I am to be in the same city as CSPC – the only organization of it’s kind (certainly the first) in this country or the world.
When you threaten something that this many people care about this much, yeah, you’re gonna get their backs up. Also, it was bad reporting, which sucks all on it’s own.
@18 – Marlee Ginter and KOMO violated FCC regulations for news broadcasting, committed libel and slander, and willfully attempted to destroy a community of people and the professional reputation of someone who is on the Seattle Commission for Sexual Minorities by claiming she is illegally defrauding the government of tax dollars. They acted maliciously and illegally by intentionally distorting, misrepresenting, and “creatively editing” or manufacturing statements by not only Ms. Gabosch, but also a respected author of a competing network’s (MSNBC) articles, Brian Alexander.
Dan Savage has continued to be upfront and honest about what his mockery is – a condemnation of KOMO and Ginter for their actions. There have been no such disclaimers of any sort or any retraction of the false statements made by KOMO and Ginter. Ironically, they are the only ones in this situation who are legally bound by the standards for fair news reporting. And KOMO et. al. are the only ones who have violated them.
People who own homes often write off the interest for their mortgage off their taxes. Many people who own homes are married. Many people who are married commit adultery.
Therefore, the government is subsidizing adultery!
You know, I watched the video again, and I can’t help it. She’s got a pretty mouth.