|
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
http://www.moveon.org/news/fec-gag.html
Extract EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES FOR NONPROFIT GROUPS Under the proposed rules, nonprofit organizations that advocate for cancer research, gun and abortion restrictions or rights, fiscal discipline, tax reform, poverty issues, immigration reform, the environment, or civil rights or liberties - all these organizations could be transformed into political committees if they criticize or commend members of Congress or the President based on their official actions or policy positions. Such changes would cripple the ability of groups to raise and spend funds in pursuit of their mission and could be so ruinous that organizations would be forced to back away from meaningful conversations about public policies that affect millions of Americans. If the proposed rules were adopted, the following organizations would be treated as federal political committees and therefore could not receive grants from any corporation, even an incorporated nonprofit foundation, from any union, or from any individual in excess of $5,000 per year: - A 501(c)(4) gun rights organization that spends $50,000 on ads at any time during this election year criticizing any legislator, who also happens to be a federal candidate, for his or her position on gun control measures. - A "good government" organization [§501(c)(3)] that spends more than $50,000 to research and publish a report criticizing several members of the House of Representatives for taking an all-expense trip to the Bahamas as guests of the hotel industry. - A fund [§527] created by a tax reform organization to provide information to the public regarding federal candidates' voting records on budget issues. - A civil rights organization [§501(c)(3) or §501(c)(4)] that spends more than $50,000 to conduct non-partisan voter registration activities in Hispanic and African-American communities after July 5, 2004. - An organization devoted to the environment that spends more than $50,000 on communications opposing oil drilling in the Arctic and identifying specific Members of Congress as supporters of the legislation, if those Members are running for re-election. - A civic organization [§501(c)(6)] that spends $50,000 during 2004 to send letters to all registered voters in the community urging them to vote on November 2, 2004 because "it is your civic duty." Other potential ramifications include the following situations: - A religious organization that publishes an election-year legislative report card covering all members of Congress on a broad range of issues would be unable to accept more than $5,000 from any individual donor if the report indicated whether specific votes were good or bad. - A 501(c)(3) organization that primarily encourages voter registration and voting among young people will be required to re-create itself as a federal PAC. - A 501(c)(4) pro-life group that accepts contributions from local businesses would break the law by using its general funds to pay for any communications critical of an incumbent Senator's position on abortion rights after the Senator had officially declared himself for reelection more than a year before the next election. - A 501(c)(3) civil rights group that has been designated as a political committee can no longer hold its annual fundraiser at a corporate-donated facility, and it must refuse donations or grants from donors that have already given $5,000 for that year. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:44:18 GMT, Jim wrote:
http://www.moveon.org/news/fec-gag.html -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ I don't usually reply to my own posts, but since some might consider this off topic and flame me for not posting it as such, I will expand the list of examples Suppose Boat US wants to support a candidate who is in favor of cleaning up the Chesapeake, or has a favorable stand on docking rights, or wants more funding for CG search and rescue? What about a local YC trying for something like a zoning variance so they can expand, or pushing for a mooring zone? What about boat builders opposed to another "luxury tax"? |
Republicans trying to "gag" nonprofits
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 |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
Suppose Boat US wants to support a candidate who is in favor of cleaning up
the Chesapeake, or has a favorable stand on docking rights, or wants more funding for CG search and rescue? More funding for SAR, probably OK. If you holler "Mayday", nobody asks if you're a Bush supporter before they dispatch a rescue. (Although there is likely a group who feel that they should.) If a candidate has some boater friendly poistions, I would want to know where he or she stands on the *rest* of the issues. If they are pretty much OK, I don't need my Boat US membership money going to them.....I will send a personal check. 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. Every election year my trash fills up with solicitations from these organizations asking for additional money yet to support some (usually) right wing candidate or another. As this newsgroup so aptly illustrates, boating and politics are a difficult mix. :-) |
Republicans trying to "gag" nonprofits
"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. |
Republicans trying to "gag" nonprofits
"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? |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
"Jim" wrote in message ... 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 |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
Couldn't wait to get back in the political BS, could you?
PLONK Gordon "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Suppose Boat US wants to support a candidate who is in favor of cleaning up the Chesapeake, or has a favorable stand on docking rights, or wants more funding for CG search and rescue? More funding for SAR, probably OK. If you holler "Mayday", nobody asks if you're a Bush supporter before they dispatch a rescue. (Although there is likely a group who feel that they should.) If a candidate has some boater friendly poistions, I would want to know where he or she stands on the *rest* of the issues. If they are pretty much OK, I don't need my Boat US membership money going to them.....I will send a personal check. 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. Every election year my trash fills up with solicitations from these organizations asking for additional money yet to support some (usually) right wing candidate or another. As this newsgroup so aptly illustrates, boating and politics are a difficult mix. :-) |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
Gordon wrote:
Couldn't wait to get back in the political BS, could you? PLONK Gordon Gordon Please add me to your filter list, I don't need any of your comments either. Thanks. -- __________m___~ΏΤ___m____________________________ |
Republicans trying to "gag" nonprofits
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:0lhdc.1093 . See the problem? Selective enforcement is always a problem, even when Democrats are in charge. |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... 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. Hmm. Do you feel the same way about unions? |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
|
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
Couldn't wait to get back in the political BS, could you?
PLONK Gordon Too bad you won't see this Gordon. Looks like you reacted emotionally, not intellectually. Somebody asked, hypothetically, how we would feel it Boat US endorsed a candidate. I replied that I dislike organizations choosing candidates for me. If you think that's "political BS", you're far too sensitive to hang around rec.boats I'm just passing through once in a while, and avoiding the political posts. The question about BoatUS taking a stand in favor of a political candidate is a boating related topic. Even in Sequim. I didn't agree or disagree with any other aspect of the original post. Plonk yourself. Incidents like this remind me why I gave up on this kindergarten in the first place. |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
My thoughts exactly. He comes back for two seconds and starts the
political baloney. See my reply to Gordon, Wally. The question: "What if BoatUS decided to endorse a political candidate" is a boating related question. Especially if you're a member of Boat/US. The comment, "I don't like organizations picking candidates for me" isn't political baloney. Am I not allowed to make any remark that encompasses potential political activity by BOAT/US because I'm proud to be a liberal? Give me a break, I didn't even mention your president or any of the several immensely discussable "issues" of our time. You'll want to apologize for your remark when you reevaluate my post. Don't bother. Have a happy Easter instead. |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
|
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
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. |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
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 |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
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. |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
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? If BOAT/US, or anybody else, felt it was important for the membership to understand the differences in candidate's positions on certain issues that might effect something of interest to organization members, it would be more appropriate to make a certain amount of space available in the newsletter for the candidate to say his piece. It would also be fair (although there are fewer rules requiring fair play these days) to allow the opposition an equal amount of space. Far too much editorializing gets shoveled under the crack in the door when a newsletter editor makes a recommendation to the membership. Whether it's Marine Trade Association, the Yacht Brokers Association, Boat/US, or whatever....the main purpose of those and similar organizations should be promoting the best interest of the entire membership on a non-partisan basis. Not diverting membership dues to political campaigns on *any* side of the spectrum. Not even using the membership roster as a "mailing list" to pressure members to contribute to the campaign of some gool ol' boy or another. |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
|
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:17:51 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: It's just another attempt by the right-wing trash to turn everything into a black or white issue. Harry, you're getting lazy. Steve |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 07:05:24 +0000, Steven Shelikoff wrote:
That's exactly what many unions do. You're forced to pay union dues as a requirement to work a job snip Not in the 22 Right to Work states. As an aside, I found a link with the Right to Work states mapped. It's interesting to note that they are surprisingly close to Bush's red states. Right to Work states: http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm The election map: http://www.democraticunderground.com...08/27_map.html |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
thunder wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 07:05:24 +0000, Steven Shelikoff wrote: That's exactly what many unions do. You're forced to pay union dues as a requirement to work a job snip Not in the 22 Right to Work states. As an aside, I found a link with the Right to Work states mapped. It's interesting to note that they are surprisingly close to Bush's red states. Right to Work states: http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm The election map: http://www.democraticunderground.com...08/27_map.html That's right to work for less states. |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
That's right to work for less states.
Maybe we should use the maritime example (that has served so well for a thousand years) to modernize employment. If we were employed as commercial fishermen, whalers, privateers, or Vikings on a longboat raid not a one of us would work for wages. Before an enterprise began, there would be a contract assigning shares to various responsibilities. Ship's owner 20%, ship's master 10%, officers several percent each, all the way down to shanghaied "landsmen" that might get a fraction of a percent apiece. Some would say, "That smacks of Communism!" but it does not. Under a communist system, every crew member would get an equal share regardless of contribution or responsibility- and that's not likely to be sustainable because it is inequitable. Previously agreed expenses would be deductible, of course. The system worked well because each person was equitably vested in the success of the venture. No results or poor results meant financial ruin for all. Cutting a fat hog meant that ordinary seamen earned far more than their unfortunate, wage slaving fellows working ashore. To keep the system functioning on the up and up, the crew would elect a "quartermaster" to help control expenses and keep a running inventory of booty, prizes, and cargo. Even umpteen hundred years ago, there were "clever" folks who would otherwise exaggerate expenses or conceal income to more adequately pad thier own pocket prior to settling up. Unfortunately, the "trust me" system doesn't work very well. Failing to follow the maritime model means that we have a system where labor and management are adversaries, not partners. Labor is an unfortunate expense, which any smart businessperson will take steps to reduce to the lowest possible dollar amount. Management is seen as the greedy capitalist group with little or no regard for anything beyond putting up the best possible numbers on the quarterly report. Under those circumstances, it's no wonder that labor and management are always at odds and squabbling over the division of profits. In the modern economy, you can find the maritime model routinely employed in sales jobs. When I was a very young man, my family all tried to warn me against "working on commission". They couldn't have been more wrong. Give a man (or woman) a piece of the action, get the hell out of the way and let them do the job, *ACCOUNT HONESTLY*, and everybody gets rich. We also find the maritime model employed by investors. In that system, "shareholders" rather than working partners divide the profits based on a ratio that reflects the contribution of capital (rather than skill, labor, time, or expertise) to the enterprise. The workers (considered an expense rather than partners in an endeavor) are often paid as little as the company can get away with to minimize the impact on the most important reckoning....the return on capital. Best businessman I ever knew built an business with 75 -80 employees, all of whom were either on a generous commission structure or paid higher per hour than employees at similar businesses in the area. Didn't need a union- working for union scale would have been a cut in pay. My employer used to take a lot of flack from other people in the same industry. They would criticize him for his payroll expense, and try to point out how he'd be more profitable if he'd cut back to the industry norm. Had he cut back to the prevailing pay scale, he would not have been able to attract the type of talent that made his enterprise what it was. What most of the competitors failed to appreciate, was that this particular bsuiness was (according to a national manufacturer who would be in a position to know) among the top 5% in the nation for net profit among businesses of its type. I eventually worked up to a (substantially jr) partnership in the firm and know for a fact that my employer was personally drawing over $7mm a year from the operation. That's not a lot of money by today's standards, but it was a decent, executive level income 20 years ago- when major league ballplayers were still willing to bat for just a few hundred thousand a year. :-) The common labor vs. capital model doesn't work well because both sides are squabbling over how to divide the pie. If we use the maritime model and put people on equitable shares, the emphasis is no longer on fighting over the division of the corporate pie but rather making the pie large enough that everybody can eat his or her fill. Might be something to this. Notice that national economies, whether capitalist, socialist, communist, or what not......seem to come and go with the passage of centuries. While there aren't a lot of privateers these days and it's been a while since the last longboat went raiding, commercial fishing and crabbing still use a very old system for equitable division of income and the activities have outlasted scores of more sophisticated economies. So..to hell with unions. Let's all go crabbing. :-) |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
Well trying to get used to a new browser, I inadvertently replied just to
Gold. Post as best I can remember it follows While in my "reading room" this Am, I picked up the March Issue of the boat US Mag. Note all content summarized and paraphrased On the cover ----Sen Breaux bids adieu page 4 Behind the buoy ---- Sen Breaux is a good guy Page 7 Breaux's legacy in pearl -- dealing with a $500 Mil trust fund for boating Page 8 Manatee Deaths up ---- But not because of boats Page 10 California Budget Woes --(complete with a Pix of Arnold who is going to divert boat fuel tax to other than boat uses Page 11 SC Sky-High Tax -- Personal property tax on boats is bad Page 12 Boat Liability Insurance --- Might be a good thing Pages 20-21 Profile of NTSB Chairwoman Pages 28-29 Fuel tax -- how states use it Page 32 Fl has no lemon law for boats --- Bad So which (if any) of these are political? (suggest you read your own copy before replying) You ARE members aren't you? "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... 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? If BOAT/US, or anybody else, felt it was important for the membership to understand the differences in candidate's positions on certain issues that might effect something of interest to organization members, it would be more appropriate to make a certain amount of space available in the newsletter for the candidate to say his piece. It would also be fair (although there are fewer rules requiring fair play these days) to allow the opposition an equal amount of space. Far too much editorializing gets shoveled under the crack in the door when a newsletter editor makes a recommendation to the membership. Whether it's Marine Trade Association, the Yacht Brokers Association, Boat/US, or whatever....the main purpose of those and similar organizations should be promoting the best interest of the entire membership on a non-partisan basis. Not diverting membership dues to political campaigns on *any* side of the spectrum. Not even using the membership roster as a "mailing list" to pressure members to contribute to the campaign of some gool ol' boy or another. |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
I thought you threatened to leave with you ball and bat.
Change your mind Chuckie? "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... 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? If BOAT/US, or anybody else, felt it was important for the membership to understand the differences in candidate's positions on certain issues that might effect something of interest to organization members, it would be more appropriate to make a certain amount of space available in the newsletter for the candidate to say his piece. It would also be fair (although there are fewer rules requiring fair play these days) to allow the opposition an equal amount of space. Far too much editorializing gets shoveled under the crack in the door when a newsletter editor makes a recommendation to the membership. Whether it's Marine Trade Association, the Yacht Brokers Association, Boat/US, or whatever....the main purpose of those and similar organizations should be promoting the best interest of the entire membership on a non-partisan basis. Not diverting membership dues to political campaigns on *any* side of the spectrum. Not even using the membership roster as a "mailing list" to pressure members to contribute to the campaign of some gool ol' boy or another. |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
correction edit to my original post.
"jim--" wrote in message ... I thought you threatened to leave with your ball and bat. Change your mind Chuckie? |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 13:18:56 -0400, "jim--" wrote:
I thought you threatened to leave with you ball and bat. Change your mind Chuckie? He did as he said, left for three months. Now he's back. At least his post was boating related. Actually, it was kind of interesting. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
I thought you threatened to leave with you ball and bat.
Change your mind Chuckie? I said I'd be gone for 90 days. With a couple of minor exceptions, I was. I said I'd not be posting here as much in the future as in the past, and I will not. If I want to argue philosophy, I'll look for a forum where the typical rebuttal isn't a juvenile, personal insult. If a thread doesn't somehow relate to boating, there's no use persuing it in this forum. I only got sucked into this one because BOAT/US was brought up as an example of a non-profit orgainzation that could, conceivably, endorse or support a political candidate. It's easy to get a fresh perspective on rec.boats after an absence. Would you believe there are a bunch of no-boaters who hang around here just looking for opportunities to take personal potshots at folks? Such people are without any useful purpose in a boating newsgroup, and unworthy of any time or concern. Watchout for them, Jim. They will try to screw up your on-topic discussion by bringing up personal issues and flaming. Most of them are none too bright, and they come from many sides of the spectrum. They are as noisy and annoying and insignificant as blood sucking mosquitoes, and you certainly wouldn't want to get any of them dogging you around. Besides, "You cannot teach a pig to dance. You get all muddy and it irritates the pig." Darn good reason to avoid the political posts. :-) |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
jim-- wrote:
correction edit to my original post. "jim--" wrote in message ... I thought you threatened to leave with your ball and bat. Change your mind Chuckie? Chuck's post had some interesting content. I can't recall one of yours that did. |
Republicans trying to gag nonprofits
Gould 0738 wrote: Would you believe there are a bunch of no-boaters who hang around here just looking for opportunities to take personal potshots at folks? Such people are without any useful purpose in a boating newsgroup, and unworthy of any time or concern. Watchout for them, Jim. They will try to screw up your on-topic discussion by bringing up personal issues and flaming. Most of them are none too bright, and they come from many sides of the spectrum. They are as noisy and annoying and insignificant as blood sucking mosquitoes, and you certainly wouldn't want to get any of them dogging you around. Wow, did you finally get your eyes opened about krause? Probably not. -- Charlie |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com