Regarding 501© 3s
Basically the CBC Coalition:
What is "participating?" Your organization cannot participate in a campaign, directly or indirectly, on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate.
If your organization takes a stand in any campaign, supporting or opposing one or another candidate, this violates the prohibition.
If your organization takes a stand in any campaign, supporting or opposing one or another candidate, this violates the prohibition.
The IRS Rule
The IRS uses what is called a "facts and circumstances" test to help it determine whether an organization has violated the prohibition on political campaigning.
This means that the IRS will evaluate any potential misconduct within the context of the organization's other activities and the current political climate.
So, an activity might be considered political campaigning two weeks before an election, but not two years before an election.
Some activities that the IRS has found to violate the prohibition on political campaigning include:
· inviting a political candidate to make a campaign speech at an event hosted by the organization
· using the organization's funds to publish materials that support (or oppose) a candidate
· donating money from the organization to a political candidate
· any statements by the organization's executive director, in his or her official capacity, that support a candidate
· criticizing or supporting a candidate on the organization's website
· inviting one candidate to speak at a well-publicized and well-attended event, and inviting the other candidate to speak at a lesser function
· inviting all candidates to speak at an event, but arranging the speaking event or choosing the questions in such a way that it is obvious that the organization favors one candidate over the others
· conducting a "get out the vote" telephone drive in a partisan manner by selecting caller responses for further follow-up based on candidate preference, and
· using the organization's website to link to only one candidate's profile.
How many of these rules has the CBC Coalition, incl. WIC and other supporters broken ?
17 comments:
Even thought the CBC/CVB Coalition has clearly violated the INTENT of political restrictions on non-profits/501(c)3s, I don't think they "technically" broke the rules. However, now that the PRO and ANTI T.O.T. candidates have been identified, any support or opposition on their part that favors or criticizes any candidate is against the law. A coalition that has both non-profits as well as for-profits is bound by the rules applying to the non-profits.
In other words, the formed a PAC (Political Action Committee) like the big political wigs do. That way they think they are anonymous and the 501c3's involved can't be accused of politics by the IRS.
THEY THINK!
So if I understand this correctly, non-profits, including the CBC and CVB can't do or say anything in support of this Transient Occupancy Tax from here on?
That's correct. If they endorse anything that favors one candidate over another, they risk losing their tax-exempt status. And at the moment both the CBC and Humane Society are stillposting support the T.O.T. Increase on their websites. Time for someone to call the Treasury Dept & I.R.S. and report this?
Actually I wouldn't call on the Humane Society as they've just been led down the garden path by Steve Wilensky & Pat McGreevy. Definitely report CBC & CVB though as they're spearheading this.
I think this article on 501(c)3's is a generalization. I once worked for a non-profit and we were told emphatically by our legal counsel that we couldn't lobby for any legislation that benefitted us directly, which makes sense when you think about it. I mean the self-serving issue is at the heart of this restriction.
It's just common sense that you shouldn't try to influence legislation when it benefits you directly especially if it might place a burden on others. It's an obvious conflict of interest and basically immoral. Shouldn't take a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo and the government to enforce common sense values. But I guess we ignore the obvious whenever it suits us.
Where is the video they made? I think they should all lose their 501c3 status...and the video disappears.
The video isn't necessary as there are all sorts of comments posted about the position the candidates expressed at the forum. Both the Calaveras Enterprise & Union Democrat covered the forum and published who said what. But both the CBC and Humane Society are still endorsing the T.O.T. on their websites. I think this is their way of "flipping us the bird". But I think they're confusing Lobbying (which has some discretion) and Campaigning (which has ZERO discretion). If the Grand Jury and IRS haven't been advised yet, it won't be long.
It is important to distinguish between electioneering which is not legal and lobbying which is legal. Non profits cannot support or endorse candidates, they cannot donate to candidates. Non Profits CAN support legislation and even spend money to lobby for legislation that benefits them. In addition employees of non profits are free to endorse and support any candidate they wish as long as they do not state that they are doing so on behalf of the organization or imply that the organization supports their view.
You are wrong. Once Candidates publically state their positions on legislation any further lobbying is considered campaigning. And when related legislation benefits them directly it becomes even more dubious. Regardless, many non-profits choose to break the clear "intent" of the rules and then use the "I thought I was lobbying, not campaigning" defense IF and when they get caught.
These non profits are taking a HUGE risk because if they're found guilty they not only lose their tax exempt status but also have to pay back-taxes from the time they received their 501(c)3 status. But Wilensky's extensive experience as an SEIU Organizer has no doubt taught him how to safely circumvent the rules. When good intentioned organizers like the Humane Society and Senior Center buy into this kind of corruption, you know we've sunk to a new low. Sad.
1 of you is arguing about the INTENT of the restriction and the other is arguing the power of lawyers to use loopholes to oversome the restriction. There is no doubt that the law starts off by stating that a non-profit can't lobby for legislation on the verge of an election if doing so would favor one candidate over another, however there follows so much vague language that it provides a field day for unscrupulous lawyers to Spin it in their favor. That's why non-profits are so willing to push the envelope.
The laws restricting non-profits only really work for ETHICAL non-profits, which most start off as. It's like most laws: they're written with the intent of keeping the offenders in line but only heeded by the law-abiding, who didn't need the law in the first place. It's a culture that keeps lawyers, politicians and judges fat and happy mostly at the expense of taxpayers.
Heard that Wilensky had a meeting with the non-profits to tell them not to worry about the restirctions on campaigning and a strategy for getting out the message regarding which supervisors support the tax. In other words the non-profits are going to tell us who we should vote for so they get free tax money.
Glad that all of the 501c3 non-profits are not worried. We'll see if that's still the case once they've all been contacted by the IRS.
If a crime has been committed, will the DA prosecute? Oh, PROCEDURAL ERROR, the new defense from prosecution. The other excuse, at least in the BOS issue, they've been given their termination notice. NOT GOOD ENOUGH for breaching our sovereignty!! Seems there is a lack of ethics and integrity in Calaveras.
Post a Comment