Charitable Giving - Politics- United States

Political Action Committee  [PAC]

[reference] USA-Politics-PAC.html

---

In the United States, a political action committee (PAC) is a 527 organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. The legal term PAC has been created in pursuit of campaign finance reform in the United States. This term is quite specific to all activities of campaign finance in the United States. Democracies of other countries use different terms for the units of campaign spending or spending on political competition (see political finance). At the U.S. federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, and registers with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), according to the Federal Election Campaign Act as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold Act). At the state level, an organization becomes a PAC according to the state's election laws.

Contributions from corporate or labor union treasuries are illegal, though they may sponsor a PAC and provide financial support for its administration and fundraising. Union-affiliated PACs may only solicit contributions from members. Independent PACs may solicit contributions from the general public and must pay their own costs from those funds.

Super PAC  [SuperPAC]

[reference] USA-Politics-PAC.html

---

Super PACs, officially known as "independent expenditure-only political action committees," may engage in unlimited political spending (on, for example, ad-buys) independently of the campaigns, but are not allowed to either coordinate or make contributions to candidate campaigns or party coffers. Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups without any legal limit on donation size.

Super PACs were made possible by two judicial decisions in 2010: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and, two months later, Speechnow.org v. FEC. In Speechnow.org, the federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that PACs that did not make contributions to candidates, parties, or other PACs could accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations (both for profit and not-for-profit) for the purpose of making independent expenditures.

The result of the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org decisions was the rise of a new type of political action committee in 2010, popularly dubbed the "super PAC." ... According to FEC advisories, Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. This restriction is intended to prevent them from operating campaigns that complement or parallel those of the candidates they support or engaging in negotiations that could result in quid pro quo bargaining between donors to the PAC and the candidate or officeholder. However, it is legal for candidates and Super PAC managers to discuss campaign strategy and tactics through the media.

---

• [OpenSecrets.org, 2020-10-06]  While Biden's campaign pulled negative ads, super PACs kept attacking Trump.

501(c)(3) Organization

A 501(c)(3) organization is a corporation, trust, unincorporated association, or other type of organization exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code. It is one of the 29 types of 501(c) nonprofit organizations in the US.

501(c)(3) tax-exemptions apply to entities that are organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, for testing for public safety, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, for the prevention of cruelty to children, women, or animals. 501(c)(3) exemption applies also for any non-incorporated community chest, fund, cooperating association or foundation organized and operated exclusively for those purposes. There are also supporting organizations-often referred to in shorthand form as "Friends of" organizations.

26 U.S.C. § 170 provides a deduction for federal income tax purposes, for some donors who make charitable contributions to most types of 501(c)(3) organizations, among others. Regulations specify which such deductions must be verifiable to be allowed (e.g., receipts for donations of $250 or more).

Due to the tax deductions associated with donations, loss of 501(c)(3) status can be highly challenging if not fatal to a charity's continued operation, as many foundations and corporate matching funds do not grant funds to a charity without such status, and individual donors often do not donate to such a charity due to the unavailability of the deduction.

501(c)(4) Organization

A 501(c)(4) organization is a social welfare organization, such as a civic organization or a neighborhood association. An organization is considered by the IRS to be operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. Net earnings must be exclusively used for charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

According to The Washington Post, 501(c)4 organizations:

...are allowed to participate in politics, so long as politics do not become their primary focus. What that means in practice is that they must spend less than 50 percent of their money on politics. So long as they don't run afoul of that threshold, the groups can influence elections, which they typically do through advertising.

Allowed activities.  501(c)4s are similar to 501(c)5s and 501(c)6s in that the organizations may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program and, unlike 501(c)3 organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as their primary activity is the promotion of social welfare and related to the organization's purpose. ...

Contributions.  Contributions to 501(c)4 organizations are not tax-deductible as charitable donations unless the organization is either a volunteer fire department or a veterans organization. Dues or contributions to 501(c)4 organizations may be deductible as a business expense under IRC 162, although amounts paid for intervention or participation in any political campaign, direct lobbying, grass roots lobbying, and contact with certain federal officials are not deductible. ...

A 501(c)4 organization is not required to disclose their donors publicly, with the exception of organizations that make independent expenditures as of 2018. The former complete lack of disclosure led to extensive use of the 501(c)4 provisions for organizations that are actively involved in lobbying, and has become controversial. Criticized as "dark money," spending from these organizations on political advertisements has exceeded spending from Super PACs. Spending by organizations that do not disclose their donors increased from less than $5.2 million in 2006 to well over $300 million during the 2012 election season.

Every organization, including a 501(c)4 organization, that expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a particular political candidate and spends more than $250 during a calendar year must disclose the name of each person who contributed more than $200 during the calendar year to the Federal Election Commission. The Federal Election Commission is required to enforce this provision based on a federal court decision in 2018.

• Under U.S. federal law, "the IRS is required to provide the public with certain tax information [IRS Form 990] for 501(c)(4) organizations upon request -- but personal identifying information of donors must be redacted by the agency."

Nonprofit organization

A nonprofit organization (NPO), also known as a non-business entity, not-for-profit organization, or nonprofit institution, is an organization traditionally dedicated to furthering a particular social cause or advocating a shared point of view. In economic terms, it is an organization using the surplus of its revenues to further its objective, rather than distributing its income to the organization's shareholders, leaders, or members. Being public extensions of a nation's revenue department, nonprofits are tax-exempt or charitable, meaning they do not pay income tax on the money that they receive for their organization. They can operate in religious, scientific, research, or educational settings.

The key aspects of nonprofits are accountability, trustworthiness, honesty, and openness to every person who has invested time, money, and faith into the organization. Nonprofit organizations are accountable to the donors, founders, volunteers, program recipients, and the public community. Public confidence is a factor in the amount of money that a nonprofit organization is able to raise. The more nonprofits focus on their mission, the more public confidence they will have, and as a result, more money for the organization. The activities a nonprofit is partaking in can help build the public's confidence in nonprofits, as well as how ethical the standards and practices are.

Dark Money: USA -- Background -- Notable SCOTUS Decisions

• [2018-06-27] Janus v. AFSCME

  • Issue decided: the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overturning the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.

    ---

  • [InTheseTimes.com, 2018-{02|03}] Behind Janus: Documents Reveal Decade-Long Plot to Kill Public-Sector Unions. The Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME is poised to decimate public-sector unions-and it's been made possible by a network of right-wing billionaires, think tanks and corporations.  |  local copy

    The Roman god Janus was known for having two faces. It is a fitting name for the U.S. Supreme Court case scheduled for oral arguments February 26 2018, Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, that could deal a devastating blow to public-sector unions and workers nationwide.

    In the past decade, a small group of people working for deep-pocketed corporate interests, conservative think tanks and right-wing foundations have bankrolled a series of lawsuits to end what they call "forced unionization." They say they fight in the name of "free speech," "worker rights" and "workplace freedom." In briefs before the court, they present their public face: carefully selected and appealing plaintiffs like Illinois child-support worker Mark Janus and California schoolteacher Rebecca Friedrichs. The language they use is relentlessly pro-worker.

    Behind closed doors, a different face is revealed. Those same people cheer "defunding" and "bankrupting" unions to deal a "mortal blow" to progressive politics in America.

    A key director of this charade is the State Policy Network (SPN), whose game plan is revealed in a union-busting toolkit uncovered by the Center for Media and Democracy. The first rule of the national network of right-wing think tanks that are pushing to dismantle unions? "Rule #1: Be pro-worker, not anti-union. ... Don't rant against unions. ... Using phrases like 'union fat cats' and 'corrupt union bosses' and other negative language reduces support for reform."

    And yet, SPN groups have systematically spearheaded attacks on unions and workers in statehouses and courtrooms nationwide. The Janus case, and its precursor, Friedrichs v. the California Teachers Association, represent SPN's most audacious move yet, an effort to kneecap the unions of public-sector workers-including teachers, nurses, sanitation workers, park rangers, prison guards, police and firefighters-in a single blow. ...

    Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association is a United States labor law case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States. At issue in the case was whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) should be overruled, with public-sector "agency shop" arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment, and whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring employees to consent affirmatively to subsidizing such speech. Specifically, the case concerned public sector collective bargaining by the California Teachers Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association.

    Justice Antonin Scalia died shortly after the case was argued in front of the Supreme Court, leaving only eight members to decide the case. In the end, the result was a non-precedential per curiam opinion affirming the lower-court decision by an equally-divided Supreme Court. On June 28, 2016, the rehearing petition submitted by the Center for Individual Rights (CIR) was denied, letting the Ninth Circuit's decision stand as its final judgment.

    In 2017, after regaining a ninth Justice, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a substantially similar case, Janus v. AFSCME.

  • [2018-06-27] U.S. Supreme Court gives Rauner major victory over labor, in ruling that could undercut public worker unions nationwide

  ---

• Synopsis of Dark Money Campaign Financing and U.S. Constitution Article V Reform

• [Wikipedia]  Citizens United v. FEC

  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 [Supreme Court of the U.S., decided 2010-01-21], was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning campaign finance. The Court held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

  Citizens United v. FEC overturned the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2003, commonly known as McCain-Feingold.

  The case arose after Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organization, sought to air and advertise a film critical of Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary elections. ...

  ... The ruling effectively freed labor unions and corporations to spend money on electioneering communications and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates. In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the Court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government."

  ...The ruling had a major impact on campaign finance, allowing unlimited election spending by corporations and labor unions and fueling the rise of Super PACs. Later rulings by the Roberts Court, including McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), would strike down other campaign finance restrictions. Studies show that the Citizens United ruling boosted the electoral success of Republican candidates. ...

  • McCutcheon v. FEC was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. The decision held that Section 441 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which imposed a limit on contributions an individual can make over a two-year period to national party and federal candidate committees, is unconstitutional.

  • [2020-10-13] "Must-watch / read:" Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Schools Amy Coney Barrett on Dark Money. Superb presentation illustrating Republican Party and dark money influencers on vested special interests (abolition of: affordable health care, access to abortions, LGBTQ+ rights, judicial freedom; concentration of obfuscated power; ...).

    ---

    Advertising

    Since many dark money group ads stop short of explicitly calling for the election or defeat of a specific candidate, the spending doesn't have to be disclosed to the FEC. [Source.]

    ---

    Advertising: Ad Buys

    An "Ad buy" refers to a campaign messaging strategy that targets potential voters via paid media advertisements. Historically, the most common form of ad buying has been over broadcast television, and the decision concerning when and how much advertising space to purchase is typically handled by a campaign's media consultant. Ad buys can also be done on digital platforms, which some campaigns use to target specific sets of voters based on their internet search key terms and self-defined interests on social media. ... [Source: Ballotpedia.org  |  local copy (html)]

  ---

  Dark Money: Investigative Resources

  • To further investigate disruptive influencers -- such as tax-exempt nonprofit organizations, SuperPACs, ... -- note the following resources.

  • U.S. IRS:  Tax Exempt Organization Search

    ---

    OpenSecrets.org

    • The Center for Responsive Politics' website, OpenSecrets.org, allows users to track federal campaign contributions and lobbying by lobbying firms, individual lobbyists, industry, dark money, federal agencies, and bills. Other resources include the personal financial disclosures of all members of the U.S. Congress, the President, and top members of the administration. Users can also search by ZIP codes to learn how their neighbors are allocating their political contributions.

      Examples:  Top SuperPACs  |  Lawmakers' Estimated Personal Wealth

      

      OpenSecrets.org: SuperPACs [captured 2020-09-03].
      [Image source. Click image to open in new window.]

      ---

    • [2020-09-03]  OpenSecrets unveils new online ads database.
      With the digital-dominated 2020 election shifting into high gear, OpenSecrets is releasing a new searchable, sortable online ads database that provides comprehensive details about political ad spending on Google and Facebook.

      

      OpenSecrets.org: Online Political Ad Spending.
      [Image source. Click image to open in new window.]

    ---

    Other Dark Money Investigative Resources, Lookups

    • Charity Navigator (Wikipedia)  |  website

    • CampaignMoney.com

    • U.S. Federal Election Commission

    • ProPublica's Nonprofit Explorer, e.g.: Heritage Foundation;

    • DeSmogBlog.com's comprehensively detailed summaries of climate change deniers, e.g.: Heritage Foundation  [local copy (html, captured 2020-07-02)].

    • GuideStar | Candid.org, e.g.: Heritage Foundation

    • Transparify [<< Wikipedia summary], an initiative that provides a global rating of the financial transparency of major think tanks. Transparify [<< website] rates the extent to which think tanks publicly disclose their sources of funding, the amount of funding they have received, and the specific research projects that were supported by this funding. Transparify is based in Georgia and has a not-for-profit status.

      NOTE.  Transparify is funded by Open Society Foundations, an organisation set up by George Soros.

    ---

  • [2020-07-29] When Mega-Donors Dominate Charitable Giving, Democracy Pays the Price.
    Wealth inequality distorts giving sector, posing risks to democracy and integrity of tax system

  ---

  Return to Persagen.com