Feb 23 2010

Propaganda & Legislation

This is another verbatim quote of HSUS's original Articles of Incorporation from 1954. (See page 4 of this PDF.)

We swear we're not making this up:

No substantial part of the activities of the corporation shall consist of the carrying on of propoganda [sic] or otherwise attempting to influence legislation or to participate or intervene (including the publishing and distribution of statements) in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. (emphasis added)

If we tried to count how many times HSUS has tried to influence legislation with propaganda materials in the last decade, our Windows Vista calculator would crash.

Any of you nonprofit attorneys out there, let us know what you think. Is it up to HSUS's members to rise up and complain? Or can anyone take action?

Maybe next year at the HSUS annual meeting, someone will actually make a motion to amend the Articles and strike out this provision. That would be the only way to be honest about what HSUS is doing with its donors' money, after all.

How would you like to be a fly on the wall in that meeting? Can you imagine Wayne Pacelle getting up and saying:

Mr. Chairman, I move that the corporate Articles of the Humane Society of the United States be amended specifically to permit—nay, require—the use of propaganda in our systematic approach to lobbying. Who will second the motion?

Yep. Definitely a moment tailor-made for a hidden camera.

Just for the record, here's how the ol' Wikipedia defines "propaganda":

Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political  agenda. (emphasis added)

Sometimes this blog just writes itself.

Related Documents

Related Organizations

Posted on 02/23/2010 at 03:45 PM by the HumaneWatch Team

The Best of HumaneWatchDocument AnalysisGov't, Lobbying, Politics • (15) Comments

Share

Comments 

Great info. About time someone exposed this org. for what it REALLY is!

Posted by horsetrainerr on 02/24 at 05:09 PM

For those in the Nassau area, an excellent “spay, neuter, and release” animal stray organization, (primarily cats) is LAST HOPE Inc., PO Box 61, Syosset, NY 11791. They are all volunteers, and ALL the money raised goes to help animals. They work closely with local vets for spaying and neutering at rock bottom fees. They are in desperately in need of support to carry on their work.

Posted by ralph georgalis on 02/25 at 01:23 AM

IMHO It should likely be up to the AG if prosecuted, and IRS to take action afterward. The members would not have to do it but insiders would inevitably get questioned down the line if it went that far.

Posted by C Cardozo on 04/25 at 04:39 PM

Please don’t use/quote Wikipedia as a reliable source.  Anyone can change the information in Wikipedia and it is not always true information.

Posted by Frances O on 06/12 at 11:55 AM

Is that still in the current articles or have they since been amended? Those were written over 50 years ago, it would seem likely they are different now. I’d like to see the latest version.

Posted by Janey on 10/18 at 01:56 AM

@Janey—By-laws can be changed, but Articles of Incorporation are forever, for the most part. They can be amended, but a record of such changes usually follows the documents. So if you requested a copy of HSUS’s “Articles” from the Washington, DC government, they would give you all the documents in the Articles’ history. In this case, there’s just one document.

Posted by HumaneWatch on 10/19 at 01:45 AM

Why do they have non-profit, charity status?  Why hasn’t the IRS investigated and revoked their status?  Legislators need to be informed of the animal rights industry’s infiltration in the schools, political arena, and university systems.  There should be more transparency in charitable giving, especially with funds funneled through Tides or other organizations to hide donors.  If transparency in funding were mandatory, I think we would be shocked at the groups and individuals that fund animal rights (and other radical) efforts.

Posted by GotMilk on 11/10 at 04:00 PM

Since when did the IRS do anything good for anything? Legislators, the same, they are informed, they don’t care as long as they get a piece of the action. How far do you think they can take this and the people just say “what the hell”?

Posted by Mickey Staley on 05/15 at 05:00 PM

I am a corporate paralegal (20+ yrs). Just saw this posting on FB and decided to look at the link.  The document you show is the original Cert. of Incorporation as filed with the Delaware Secretary of State.  This looks like to me that back then (1950’s) in order to “qualify” to do business in Washington, D.C. you filed a copy of your incorporation documents.  This is not the procedure now.  If you want to see the current Cert. of Inc. you need to order a copy from the Delaware Secretary of State, requesting Cert. of Inc. and all amendments, or Restated forward.  A Restated Cert. of Inc., means that any prior amendments have been incorporated into the one new document and any previous filing is superceded by the Restated filing.

Posted by MDiamond on 05/15 at 05:14 PM

At the risk of sweeping generalization, I’m compelled to make the following statement:
Anyone who considers the Humane Society evenly remotely akin, (and I don’t mean your look alike cousins) to radical politics,  should probably hoist themselves up from their armchairs, or ease themselves down from their tree stands, lose the cartoons, beer (and ah, weight) and open their eyes to the brutality of man’s dominion over every living creature on this planet.
Nothing that begins to mediate the depravity with which we’ve conducted our self-appointed stewardship over “non-human” animals is radical - just a tiny step in the right (not Right) direction.
But heck, I was all for the Killer Rabbit in “Life of Brian” - which you probably never saw…

Posted by Bonnie Engelman on 05/25 at 01:38 AM

I am totally against anything Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, has to say or ever has said, he needs to be taken totally out of the publics eye and out of all animal’s concerns, before he can do any more wrong.

Posted by mickey staley on 05/31 at 11:37 AM

Uhh…Bonnie….The killer rabbit was in The Holy Grail not Life of Brian.  Of course you will risk a generalization. Generalizations make it easy.  I do not need to lose weight. I do not have a beer in my hand.  I am not watching cartoons.  I am not sitting in an arm chair at the moment.  Your veiled references to incest and alcoholism along with laziness shows your attitude toward your fellow humans.

Posted by Greg Hollen on 06/24 at 11:14 AM

@ Frances O - There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia’s definition of propaganda. They define that accurately. It’s true that other information is not always as accurate as you’d like - their animal welfare section, for example, is written entirely by animal RIGHTS proponents. Maybe that’s why people are so confused about what HSUS is and what it does.

The Articles of Incorporation are, however, a government document.

Posted by Lynn on 10/24 at 09:51 PM

“Sometimes this blog just writes itself.”
Gotta love that, uh?!?

@Frances O.—While I do see your point about Wikipedia, it looks to me like they have the definition of “propaganda” pretty well nailed. Plus, a look at the discussion, edit, and history tabs on the Wikipedia page reveals that while there IS some ongoing discussion about the entry, none of the criticisms revolve around the accuracy of the section quoted.
Wikipedia can be VERY useful, as long as one looks deeper at the tabs I mentioned and uses a discerning eye.

Still, to give a more “acceptable” source, here’s the dictionary.com take on it:

prop·a·gan·da  [prop-uh-gan-duh] noun 1.information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
2.the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
3.the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organizationor movement.
4.Roman Catholic Church. a.a committee of cardinals, established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV, having supervision over foreign missions and the training of priests for these missions.
b.a school (College of Propaganda) established by Pope Urban VIII for the education of priests for foreign missions.
5.Archaic. an organization or movement for the spreading of propaganda.

Not that much different. The Wikipedia quote just fleshes it out a little, and accurately.

Posted by Candace Ware on 10/25 at 01:46 AM

I wish to echo everything Greg Hollen said—except that by most people’s standards, I probably could lose a little weight. But I don’t care grin I am fat and happy!

I’m also a Monty Python fan (nothing could have made me happier than that killer rabbit gaffe amongst all that overplayed rancor, condescenscion and sarcasm—SWEEEEET!), have a post-graduate education, don’t drink a drop, and haven’t watched a cartoon since I was 8.

(My brother IS kinda cute but ... IICCCCKKKK!!)

Posted by Candace Ware on 10/25 at 01:53 AM

Comments are moderated, and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. Extremely lengthy comments and those that contain obscenities may be edited before they are posted.

Add a comment:

Name:

Email: (will not be displayed)

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

« Back to blog homepage