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/

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"?

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

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. :-)

"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?

"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

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. :-)

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___~¿Ô___m____________________________

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

. See the problem?




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