Should Non-Profits be allowed to use "political intimidation"

Its my understanding that non-profit status is a privilege 

the IRS grants to organizations which meet criteria within 

the code. Within this code we find non-profits "must be 

organized and operated exclusively for "exempt purposes".

With more than 1.5 million non-profits its impossible for the 

IRS to properly oversee that only 'exempt purposes' occur, 

which opens the door for the privilege to be abused, even to 

the point of doing damage to individuals, businesses and 

even other non-profits.

Which brings me to the subject question... 

Should Non-Profits be allowed to used "political intimidation"? 

Intimidation can take many forms, but is easily recognized when 

the damage is inflicted. And, by any reasonable understanding 

'intimidation' would not fit into the category of an exempt purpose.

Recently this abuse of non-profit guidelines was seen at the

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Planned Parenthood,

two prominent non-profits, more political activist organizations

than non-partisan non-profits.

The Southern Poverty Law Center  (SPLC), doesn't even try to 

hide its desire to  intimidate.  It has shamelessly promoted its

list of "hate groups" which it actively publicizes and uses to 

destroy, through intimidation, as has done quite often and 

successfully for years.

The SPLC's intimidation campaign is now seeking to destroy the 

David Horowitz Freedom Center by contacting the two largest 

credit card services,  Mastercard and Visa, demanding they 

refuse to do business  with his Freedom Center, that would 

shut down its primary fund raising mechanism.  

The story: https://bit.ly/2OYUzPW

Most recently Planned Parenthood successfully got an Austin 

movie theater to not show the movie, "Gosnell", the true story 

of an abortion doctor now in jail.  The target is not a single

theater it is ANY theater that dares to show it.

 Story: https://bit.ly/2xNHmDt

Non-profit status was included it the original Revenue Act 

of  1913 for a purpose, but it was not to do harm through 

threats or intimidation. The laudable reasons for non-profits

seem to be forgotten when zealots run them.

Non-profit were meant to "further a social cause or advocate

a point of view", but not at the expense lawful enterprises or

individuals. 

It one thing to address issues but quite another to intimidate 

businesses  as these two non-profits and I am sure so many 

others are doing. Its time the IRS gets tough on these abuses. 

Regards,

Anthony Bruno