We all expect that we have to live by rules. Otherwise, the world would be a very unpredictable and even a dangerous place. At the least, not very nice. Sometimes, however, those who are accustomed to being in a position of power seem to forget that they, too, have to live by the rules or the laws of the land, in which they live and do business. Such may be the case with two very notorious, radical non-profit organizations, one an animal rights advocacy group, and the other, an environmentalist campaign machine.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) may well be breaking IRS rules for charitable, (501( c ) (3) organizations through their admitted financial support of domestic terrorists such as Rodney Coronado, and other convicted arsonists, bombers, and law breakers who routinely light fires to buildings, vandalize mink farms, let subject animals out of scientific laboratories, and in other ways, become scoff-laws. The apparent attitude of PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk is that the means to her goals of "animal liberation" are mere technicalities, i.e. if the laws of the land are being broken in the furtherance of PETA objectives, then so be it. We think that all the news reports of complicity between PETA and unlawful acts by her darlings should warrant a thorough investigation by the US Justice Department, with the end result being a lifting of the charitable status and even some penalties for PETA. Perhaps then, Ms Newkirk shall have fewer presents for her bad boys.

The other case is that of Greenpeace. Public Interest Watch, (PIW) is an advocacy watchdog organization, not a charity. PIW has filed a complaint with the IRS alleging that Greenpeace uses its charitable donations from individuals, corporations and granting institutions in ways that are not in compliance with US tax law. Further, PIW alleges that Greenpeace has illegally transferred charitable funds not inadvertently, but knowingly, to accounts that support illegal activities, and that over "a three year span, one Greenpeace entity diverted over $24 million in tax exempt contributions." PIW claims the money was used to support advocacy campaigns and unlawful activities rather than activities within the guidelines for charitable, educational or scientific programs. Mike Hardiman, Executive Director of PIW, notes that some Greenpeace charitable funds were diverted from the above legal categories to the following activities: -Blockading a naval base in protest of the Iraq war, -Boarding an oil tanker for a banner hanging, -Breaking into the central control building of a nuclear power station, and -Padlocking the gates of a government research facility. Please check out the PIW web site for further details.

A couple of ideas should now be publicly considered: One is that those large foundations such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Turner Foundation, which donate funds to Greenpeace, should be held accountable for any unlawful use of their money. At the very least, they should insist upon some documentation, and make their findings public. "Foundations that make tax-exempt contributions are responsible for verifying that their funds are used appropriately" according to Mike Hardiman. Illegal advocacy and civil disobedience may be the stuff of green heroes, but they should not be carried out under the guise of charity. Hardiman has also called for a Congressional investigation. His detailed report has been filed with the IRS, in the expectation that appropriate action against Greenpeace shall be taken. In addition, Hardiman may request the State of California to take action on its own because state laws on charitable fund use also appear to have been broken. Thus, not only California charitable status, but also that of the US, may ultimately be denied to the mighty Greenpeace.

IWMC agrees with the goals of the Public Interest Watch group, and urges that all improprieties in the use of funds by charitable organizations be corrected. Government agencies may have been guilty of lax enforcement in these two cases, and it is time that the stain of improper accounting is not only wiped clean, but also prevented from recurring.