Wow, I never thought you'd be anti-union.

Steve

?????

Where did you get that?

In a discussion about whether it would be appropriate for BOAT/US to spend
members' money on specific political candidates, I commented-

Few things pizza me off worse than various organizations and associations I
choose to belong to (or am compelled to belong to for professional purposes)
making a decision about which political candidate they believe is "best" for
the organization and steering my membership fees to their campaign.


If I belonged to a union, (don't- and haven't for at least 25 years), I would
personally feel the same way as I do about some of the professional
organizations I belong to
endorsing and financially supporting candidates. I don't join an association to
be told how to vote, I don't want BOAT/US telling me how to vote, and I remain
independent from political parties for the same reason.

Would you think it a little strange if the board of directors at your yacht
club, country club, or what not voted to send several thousand dollars (or
more) to the campaign of a particular politician? The directors are free to
send their own personal money, as are the individual members, to the candidate
of their choice.

On 09 Apr 2004 15:57:38 GMT, Gould 0738 wrote:




If I belonged to a union, (don't-and haven't for at least 25 years), I
would
personally feel the same way as I do about some of the professional
organizations I belong to
endorsing and financially supporting candidates. I don't join an
association to
be told how to vote, I don't want BOAT/US telling me how to vote, and I
remain
independent from political parties for the same reason.

Would you think it a little strange if the board of directors at your
yacht
club, country club, or what not voted to send several thousand dollars
(or
more) to the campaign of a particular politician? The directors are free
to
send their own personal money, as are the individual members, to the
candidate
of their choice.


Spending money is one thing -- but what about saying "Mr. Smith is a good
guy, and we think he will work in our best interests" in their newsletter?


--
Jim

Gould 0738 wrote:
Wow, I never thought you'd be anti-union.

Steve


?????

Where did you get that?

In a discussion about whether it would be appropriate for BOAT/US to spend
members' money on specific political candidates, I commented-


Few things pizza me off worse than various organizations and associations I
choose to belong to (or am compelled to belong to for professional purposes)
making a decision about which political candidate they believe is "best" for
the organization and steering my membership fees to their campaign.


If I belonged to a union, (don't- and haven't for at least 25 years), I would
personally feel the same way as I do about some of the professional
organizations I belong to
endorsing and financially supporting candidates. I don't join an association to
be told how to vote, I don't want BOAT/US telling me how to vote, and I remain
independent from political parties for the same reason.

Would you think it a little strange if the board of directors at your yacht
club, country club, or what not voted to send several thousand dollars (or
more) to the campaign of a particular politician? The directors are free to
send their own personal money, as are the individual members, to the candidate
of their choice.



It's just another attempt by the right-wing trash to turn everything
into a black or white issue.

On 09 Apr 2004 15:57:38 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Wow, I never thought you'd be anti-union.

Steve

?????

Where did you get that?

I got that you were anti-union from your comment below, which you posted
again.


In a discussion about whether it would be appropriate for BOAT/US to spend
members' money on specific political candidates, I commented-

Few things pizza me off worse than various organizations and associations I
choose to belong to (or am compelled to belong to for professional purposes)
making a decision about which political candidate they believe is "best" for
the organization and steering my membership fees to their campaign.

That's exactly what many unions do. You're forced to pay union dues as
a requirement to work a job and then your dues are steered toward
candidates that the union believes is "best" for the organization. If
few things pizza you off worst than that, then few things pizza you off
more than the actions of unions.

Steve

I've just scanned the article, but it seems to me that the common
denominator in almost every example is the specific identification and
targeting of particular candidates. That's what makes it cross the line
into political activity, and in most cases specific naming is not essential
for a general advocacy group to make their point. For years, political
agenda groups have hidden under the shroud of non-profit status to avoid
legal responsibility, and these regs are trying to address that issue. As
is true in so many areas, a few have ruined it for the many who follow the
rules. In a couple of examples - specific activity such as voter
registration that is de facto political in nature - there's no question that
this type of thing should not be infringed upon. Although, I must say, if a
group is planning specific voter reg drives in Hispanic and Black
communities, then given the demographic, its hard to say the particular
activity is NOT partisan in nature.

JG

"Jim" responded to my private email, saying.....


So state senator candidate Jones is in favor of limiting industrial
discharge into a lake; Candidate Jones is not. Boat US says that limiting
discharge is in the best interest of boaters. You want to shut down Boat
US?


I'm presuming your example meant to be smith and jones.

Again, I've just had time to scan it, but the way I understood it (naively
presuming some degree of objective accuracy on the part of Salon... :-) ),
if Boat/US advocates for limiting discharge and cleaning the lake, then they
are clear of regulation. If they advocate specifically against Jones, then
they become a political group. Seems fairly simple. Nothing prevents them
from doing so. The only requirement is that if they want to be pointedly
political, they have to play by the rules for political groups.

And no, I don't want to "... shut down Boat US?..." There's that hyperbole
thing again. You really should try to control that. Its unbecoming.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
I've just scanned the article, but it seems to me that the common
denominator in almost every example is the specific identification and
targeting of particular candidates. That's what makes it cross the line
into political activity, and in most cases specific naming is not
essential
for a general advocacy group to make their point. For years, political
agenda groups have hidden under the shroud of non-profit status to avoid
legal responsibility, and these regs are trying to address that issue. As
is true in so many areas, a few have ruined it for the many who follow the
rules. In a couple of examples - specific activity such as voter
registration that is de facto political in nature - there's no question
that
this type of thing should not be infringed upon. Although, I must say, if
a
group is planning specific voter reg drives in Hispanic and Black
communities, then given the demographic, its hard to say the particular
activity is NOT partisan in nature.

JG



As long as the new rules are administered equally, it should work nicely.
The fear is that the administration will hand-pick groups that are a pain in
the ass, specifically with regard to pet legislation. For instance, the
Nature Conservancy is probably a big pain in the ass because it's alerted
its members to the hocus pocus going on with the Clean Air Act. But, a
lobbying group for electric utilities would NOT be considered a pain in the
ass, at least by your president. See the problem?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:0lhdc.1093

. See the problem?




Selective enforcement is always a problem, even when Democrats are in
charge.

"Jim" wrote in message
news
Jim,

I agree this legislation seems quite scarry. There are some tricky lines
here. On the one hand most people think there is already to much political
sway held by groups with money. Hence there are laws that regulate how
groups that are primarily political in nature - or are taking political
stances - how they can raise and spend money. On the other hand it's
importand that watchdog groups or any group that notices problems in the
government can raise and spend the money they need to -- in the ways they
need to -- to aleart the public.

In this case I don't yet know enough about the current and proposed laws to
know what makes sense. I will say that if "we" are going to error or if the
lines are at all blurry then I think we should CERTAINLY have fewer laws and
more ability for groups to speak out.

The free flow of ideas and information is what keeps it all honest.

Gary