This time I have the poster.
Recent Comments
 | moviedad on How does vinegar mix with tin… |
 | That Other Anonymous on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Forest Queen on March against Monsanto this… |
| moviedad on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Cookie on March against Monsanto this… |
 | "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
| "Henchman Of Justice… on March against Monsanto this… |
| Erasmus on March against Monsanto this… |
| Cookie on March against Monsanto this… |
 | suzy blah blah on Priorities |
 | Not A Native on March against Monsanto this… |
| suzy blah blah on For a Crisp Spring Saturday… |
 | HUUFC on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Eric Kirk on March against Monsanto this… |
 | Just Watchin on March against Monsanto this… |
66 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 19, 2010 at 8:29 am
Anonymous
Is he ever going to comment on the lies on the ballot? Taking credit for stuff he didn’t do is over the top.
October 19, 2010 at 9:04 am
un-named nobody
From the Fall Splender post you had said – “Absolutely correct. I will post notice of any nonprofit fund raising event, including the park’s”
So who is the nonproft in this case, Beginnings? Does Beginnings benefit from this fundraiser as a nonproft along with the Gallegos Election Campaign? How does this work with a 501c3 having a fundraiser event for an election campaign?
October 19, 2010 at 9:48 am
Cozy Powell
Interesting the poster says nothing about prosecuting criminals, except of course, those evil corporations.
October 19, 2010 at 10:12 am
pathetic actually
While the Gallegos campaign is a partisan political campaign, and not a 501c3, it is a non-profit organization. Are you splitting hairs here just to try to call Eric to task for some new transgression?
October 19, 2010 at 10:37 am
Eric Kirk
Is he ever going to comment on the lies on the ballot?
Lies on the ballot? You mean his name isn’t Paul Gallegos?
unnamed – I also post any event announcement from a political campaign which is sent to me. I’ve posted events for Jackson, Jaeger, and Bass. Equal opportunity poster here.
October 19, 2010 at 10:51 am
un-named nobody
pathetic actually, not splitting hairs more like splitting fire wood! Beginnings is the 501c3 Corporation, under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
October 19, 2010 at 10:51 am
brian
P.G. lost the Palco case…….remember.
October 19, 2010 at 10:59 am
capdiamont
“PAUL GALLEGOS’ BALLOT STATEMENT READS:
“…I established the Criminal Investigations Bureau, the Consumer and Environment Protection Unit, the Child Abuse and Adult Sex Crimes Unit, the Worker’s Compensation Fraud Unit, the Domestic Violence Unit and Bad Check Program….” and in his responses to candidate questionnaires he claims: “… I taught the United States Constitution when I was a professor at Humboldt State University,…””
http://watchpaul.blogspot.com/2010/10/piece-by-piece.html
October 19, 2010 at 11:34 am
Eric Kirk
Unnamed – they can rent their hall out to political campaigns as long as it’s a straightforward business transaction
October 19, 2010 at 1:36 pm
pathetic actually
un-named nobody I just love it when people cut and paste from Wikipedia, especially when it’s just a distraction. Beginnings’ status is irrelevant to the discussion if they are renting their hall out to Gallegos. If you believe that Beginnings is illegally engaging in election activity (I doubt it), maybe you ought to complain to their Board of Directors.
Eric said he posts announcements from non-profit orgs. The Gallegos campaign is a non-profit group (not a 501c3, maybe, but many “non-profits” are not organized under 501c3). For example, the Sierra Club chose non-profit status under 501c4, so that they would not be subject to lobbying restrictions imposed on 501c3′s.
Political campaign committees are exempt from tax under other parts of the tax code.
October 19, 2010 at 2:07 pm
un-named nobody
pathetic actually, I can’t find anything on Gallegos that his campaign is non-profit. In most cases, political candidate campaigns are:
http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/charities/political/article/0,,id=96350,00.html
October 19, 2010 at 2:43 pm
un-named nobody
If Beginnings rented the Octagon for this re-election fundraiser as you said “they can rent their hall out to political campaigns as long as it’s a straightforward business transaction”. Then Beginnings would have to make the Octagon a for-profit business, completely separate from the Beginnings not for profit 501c3 Corporation and unrelated business income tax for the 501c3.
October 19, 2010 at 5:36 pm
the reasonable anonymous
A Neil Diamond cover band? Ick!
October 19, 2010 at 5:58 pm
un-named nobody
Here is a little more from the IRS:
Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention. Distributing statements prepared by others that favor or oppose any candidate for public office will also violate the prohibition. Allowing a candidate to use an organization’s assets or facilities will also violate the prohibition if other candidates are not given an equivalent opportunity. Although section 501(c)(3) organizations may engage in some activities to promote voter registration, encourage voter participation, and provide voter education, they will violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention if they engage in an activity that favors or opposes any candidate for public office. Certain activities will require an evaluation of all the facts and circumstances to determine whether they result in political campaign intervention.
October 19, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Eric Kirk
Then Beginnings would have to make the Octagon a for-profit business, completely separate from the Beginnings not for profit 501c3 Corporation and unrelated business income tax for the 501c3.
You’re the expert I guess. Turn them in and see what happens.
October 19, 2010 at 7:27 pm
un-named nobody
Sounds good to me, I’ll tell them you said it was ok, OK….
October 19, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Paint Your Wagon
Turn them in and see what happens? Why not just do the right thing and operate your 501c3 to the extent of the law! After all, its a DA campaign fundraiser?
October 19, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Eric Kirk
PYW – They are operating it lawfully. Hundreds of non-profit run halls across the country routinely rent to political campaigns, for-profit events, etc. The purpose of the halls is to provide space for such events. As long as they offer the same package to everyone, they’re fine. It’s a bullshit issue.
October 19, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Paint Your Wagon
Just because people you believe are 501c3 and routinely rent their assets or facilities to political campaign fundraisers, don’t make it right or lawfully right. Could you give me any examples? I don’t remember any campaign fundraising events at the MCC.
October 20, 2010 at 7:35 am
Eric Kirk
Well PYW, let me list some events I’ve personally attended. Terrence Hallinan kicked off his run for DA at the United Irish Cultureal Center in SF. Mabel Teng held an event at the Women’s Building. When in Santa Cruz I attended two campaign fund raising events at the Kuumbwa Jazz Center and one at the Lounden Nielsen Center.
Since I’ve moved here I’ve attended numerous campaign events at the Civic Club in Garberville as well as Beginnings.
Have you checked into other local campaigns and where they’ve held their events? I seem to remember Frank Jager kicking off his campaign at the Boys and Girls Redwood Club Teen Center. Otherwise I haven’t really paid attention.
The statewide candidates, particularly Whitman and Fiorina, are holding events at Busines Roundtable locations, and at least this one is a nonprofit.
http://babrt.org/uploads/Lockyer-BenjaminSpeakersPR-FINAL.pdf
October 20, 2010 at 9:33 am
Rose
Looks like Gallegos has AMENDED his questionnaire, it now reads:
“I studied the United States Constitution in the law school, I taught the United States Constitution when I was a lecturer at Humboldt State University…”
changed from:
“… I taught the United States Constitution when I was a professor at Humboldt State University,…”
BECAUSE, of course, HE WAS NOT AND IS NOT A PROFESSOR.
screenshots
But this was not the first time he pulled this – has he also notified the HCDCC of the falsity of his claim?
He has not amended his claim to have created the Domestic Violence Vertical Prosecution Unit, and his attempt to sneak his claim into the County’s Official record has failed – and in fact the county’s own Board of Supervisor’s Agendas and Minutes show quite clearly just how false his claim is. This did not stop him from forcing employees to submit Op-eds, “My Words” to the Times Standard containing his claim.
He has tried to cement his claim, first by using an employee’s “My Word” in the Times-Standard to repeat his ballot statement claim. Then, this very week, he tried to tuck that same paragraph into a Board of Supervisor’s proclamation honoring the workers in the Domestic Violence Vertical Prosecution Unit. Unbeknownst to him and his handlers, the paragraph was removed prior to the proclamation being passed BECAUSE EVERYONE IN THE ROOM KNEW THAT THE CLAIM WAS FALSE, including Bonnie Neely, who put forth the proclamation. Perhaps she did not know it was in there, but once it was called to her attention, she removed it. Not knowing this, the Gallegos camp executed the next phase of this deception, issuing a Press Release stating that HE had been recognized by the Board of Supervisors for creating this program. FALSE.
PAUL GALLEGOS’ BALLOT STATEMENT READS:
“…I established the Criminal Investigations Bureau, the Consumer and Environment Protection Unit, the Child Abuse and Adult Sex Crimes Unit, the Worker’s Compensation Fraud Unit, the Domestic Violence Unit and Bad Check Program….” and in his responses to candidate questionnaires he claims: “… I taught the United States Constitution when I was a professor at Humboldt State University,…”
Here is the paragraph from his employee Joyce Moser’s My Word:
“…The District Attorney Domestic Violence Vertical Prosecution Team was created under the leadership of District Attorney Paul Gallegos to reduce the amount of trauma that victims/survivors experience when navigating through the criminal justice system…”
And here is the paragraph he tried to have slipped through in the Board proclamation:
“WHEREAS., the Humboldt County District Attorney Domestic Violence Vertical Prosecution Team was created under the leadership of District Attorney Paul Gallegos to reduce the amount of trauma victims/survivors experience when navigating through the Criminal Justice System; and WHEREAS…”
AND, HERE’S HIS PRESS RELEASE:
Gallegos praised for leadership on domestic violence
District Attorney Paul Gallegos was officially commended today for his leadership in the fight against the epidemic of domestic violence. The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution expressing their appreciation, noting that the District Attorney Domestic Violence Vertical Prosecution Team was created under Gallegos’ leadership.
***
ONLY HE WASN’T COMMENDED. BECAUSE HE DIDN’T CREATE THE UNIT.
Almost flawlessly executed. Orwell would be proud. And people are already lining up to excuse him.
Oh, and he did not create the Bad Check program either, unless he is a time traveler, there was a grand jury status report back in 1995, predating him by many many many years…
Are you going to stand for this?
October 20, 2010 at 10:07 am
un-named nobody
Thank you. But you only answered one aspect of my questions. So I looked up the “United Irish Cultureal Center in SF” and guess what, they are not a 501c3. Only a California Mutual Benefit nonprofit. Just because you are a “nonprofit” doesnt make you a 501c3 (as in the United Irish Cultureal Center in SF). The other NPO you listed don’t own or claim their property or f as assets, but Beginnings does. I thought you were a past Mateel “Grand Poobah” could you allow political campaign fundraiser events at the MCC? The Garberville Rotary is a nonprofit, are they 501c3?
October 20, 2010 at 10:25 am
ED Denson
Just got a robo-call for the Beginnings Benefit. It must be a big deal to go that far to drum up support. Too late for me however, I’ve already voted for him.
October 20, 2010 at 10:34 am
Eric Kirk
I just got that call too. I am also voting for him, but that call was annoying.
October 20, 2010 at 10:42 am
Eric Kirk
unnamed nobody – I did not look up all of these locations, but is there a law which states that a non-profit may host a campaign event only if it does not claim the property as an asset? That would be a very odd law. Of course, you haven’t provided any law which states that they can’t rent to a campaign under any circumstances.
I don’t know what the Rotary status is, but they do host candidates to speak to them on a regular basis. In fact, Allison Jackson recently addressed them at a luncheon at the Healy Senior Center, which is also a nonprofit, and probably a 501c3.\.
If the law is really as you suggest, it is completely irrational and unduly cumbersome.
October 20, 2010 at 10:51 am
Natalynne
I’d like to clear a few things up for the readers:
The HGA is paying for the use of Beginnings, they are not giving us anything for free.
I do not like or want to engage Rose in any discussion, but I will on BoS, resolution:
While she may argue about who created the team, what is absolutely apparent is that the BoS unanimously agreed that the District Attorney Vertical Prosecution Team is doing excellent work and are to be commended.
The only person that on the Board of Supervisors that refused to include that line was Jill Geist, who is working on Allison Jackson’s campaign. Anyone of you or the media could call Bonnie Neely or Cliff Clendenen and ask about what really happened (as opposed to just taking Jackson’s campaign manager, Rose’s, word for it).
Facts are facts, the DA’s office is doing great work and it is killing Rose to hear it so she is trying to spin the story into discrediting Paul for the work he’s done. All of the people (the team) working on the DVVPT were hired by Paul Gallegos, they were commended by the BoS for their hard work and that is a positive reflection on Paul’s leadership.
FYI: Joyce Moser (who’s worked for the DA’s office for 20 years) wrote that MyWord on her own accord and has stated in her own words that Paul Gallegos created the team that exists today and that it is doing great work. She was not coerced into writing that letter.
October 20, 2010 at 11:16 am
un-named nobody
You use words like “probably”, you don’t look up the facts. And yes, the law is really as I stated, word for word. Does it really matter what you think of Federal law. If by your own definition, its not what I suggest, its what our Goverment has put into law. If you don’t like it, then change it for what you think is the greater good. But until that time, have a great and wonderful day, OK…….
FYI, Rotary is a 501c4 nonprofit. And you should “propably” check out the Healy Senior Center again. Why cant you answer my question about the MCC? Cow got your tongue?
October 20, 2010 at 11:32 am
Eric Kirk
Well, I can remove one “probably.” According to the United Irish Cultural Center, it is in fact a 501c3. I received it in an off forum email in which the individual tells me that SF political candidates, particularly those of of Irish descent, often hold campaign events there. What did you look up exactly?
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=57182290317
I remember the Hallinan event well. Green beer and corned beef sandwiches on St. Patrick’s Day, and Terrence’s brother Patrick had just been acquitted of bogus federal charges, so it was a double celebration. And I met Alex Cockburn.
October 20, 2010 at 11:33 am
Eric Kirk
As for the MCC, if a campaign wants to have an event there and it’s okay with the Center, then I see no problem with it. You’ve certainly cited no law to the contrary.
October 20, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Richard
Non-profits can rent their hall to anyone they want.
Paul is a hero in this community and folks like — “no more mosques in America”– Rose Welsh, and Teabaggers like Capdiamont are so not representative of Humboldt in general and of SoHum in particular, that their objections only serve as endorsements to the sane among us.
Please tell us more of what we should believe, you who support Meg Whitman, Virginia Bass and Carly Fiorina. Should we also vote for Jackson because the prison guard’s union endorses her (hell, why wouldn’t they? She’ll be so good for business when she locks us all up!)?
I’m looking forward the great party at Beginnings this Saturday night. As it will a fun time, I will not be expecting either of these two sourpusses to be in attendance! And say what you want about the opening act, but Blue Rhythm Revue rocks with great R&B sounds. Expect a full crowd on the dance floor.
October 20, 2010 at 12:58 pm
un-named nobody
You just dont want to get it, and thats ok for you, but dont omit the facts. Yes the “The Irish Cultural Centre of California” is a 501c3, but the “United Irish Cultural Center” (you named) is not. Quit being so chrome with your answers. As for the MCC, one would think the MCC has the best location, location, location of any rentable hall for political campaign fundraisers in all of SoHum, but no, nobody I know running for public office has their political fundraiser at the MCC.????
It was a nice try, at best…………………..
October 20, 2010 at 1:23 pm
un-named nobody
Natalynne, the point of order and law is not about “who paid for what”. The fact is that a political campaign fundraiser is not allowed to be held or conducted on or in an asset or facilities of a 501c3. I thought this issue and law was clear. Maybe you have something in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that states its OK for Beginnings to allow this campaign fundraiser because someone else is paying for it? How come the HGA didnt use a big grow up in the hills to have this fundraiser?
October 20, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Eric Kirk
The MCC is much larger and more expensive.
I don’t see anything in 501c3 which bans the nonprofit rentals to campaigns. If there’s a provision in there which forbids it, then let me know. Otherwise, this thread is getting to sound like a Monty Python skit.
October 20, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Anonymous
If the law is there, the Jackson campaign can use it against Paul. It’s as simple as that.
October 20, 2010 at 3:48 pm
the reasonable anonymous
FYI, the People’s Front of Judea is 501 (c) (3), but the Judean People’s Front is 501 (c) (4). Just wanted to clear that up.
October 20, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Eric Kirk
I was also thinking of the one where the guy is trying to order cheese.
October 20, 2010 at 4:15 pm
the reasonable anonymous
Maybe not relevant here, but one of my all-time favorite MP sketches was the “Upper-Class Twit of the Year” contest.
October 20, 2010 at 4:21 pm
the reasonable anonymous
But on the topic at hand…I don’t know the law, but it certainly is very common for political campaigns to hold events in spaces owned by non-profits. If that turns out to be illegal, I’ll be very surprised.
My nonlawyer understanding of this is that the non-profits are not allowed to make any donations to political campaigns, so they cannot donate the use of the space — the campaign (or someone else) has to pay them for it, at the same rate that the non-profit would charge anyone else. Again, this is just my recollection of what I’ve been told about this in the past.
October 20, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Paint your wagon II
Eric is that an open question or just for “un-named nobody”, which has been making perfect sense of all of this so far. Until you pecked out this cheap remark; “I don’t see anything in 501c3 which bans the nonprofit rentals to campaigns”, well lets just say that went down as smooth as a half eroded urinal cake. Hello, you never saw it, because your wording doesn’t exist in it. You didn’t read the link from the IRS, did you? FYI, your answers and questions change and go on about nothing, how do you expect anyone to answer you, sorry I forgot that is your point.
So after reading the 501c3 CC&R’s, the question would be; will Beginnings Inc be directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office when; Beginnings Inc knowingly rents to the Humboldt Growers Association the Beginnings Inc (501c3) asset and facilities (aka Beginnings Octagon) for a political campaign fundraiser!
That is the question. Is there an nonprofit law attorney in the house?
October 20, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, let me ask then. What in 501c3 bars a nonprofit from renting a hall to a campaign? Specifically.
October 20, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Eric Kirk
Incidentally, the Irish Cultural Organization which is in SF, is a 501c3, whatever its name. And campaigns hold events there all the time, including Terrence Hallinan.
October 20, 2010 at 5:09 pm
the reasonable anonymous
If Beginnings charged their normal rent, I don’t think that would count as intervening in the DA race, unless they refused to allow his opponents’ campaign to rent the hall for the same amount (and I haven’t heard any allegation of that). I suspect this is all “much ado about nothing.”
October 20, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Paint Your own dam Wagon
“Well, let me ask then. What in 501c3 bars a nonprofit from renting a hall to a campaign? Specifically”, Now that is rich, I mean you asking a specific question. It don’t matter what anyone else thinks, says or shits, its only what Peter Ryce thinks that counts, don’t you think?
But if I could take a stab at answering your specific question; (D) All of the above
My best liked MP sketches:
October 20, 2010 at 8:13 pm
ED Denson
So a major candidate in a very important race which has implications for many in the community is having an event in Briceland and the comments here are all about whether he should be allowed to rent the hall? What about some comments on what kind of DA we will have if Paul gets re-elected, or if Allison gets elected?
Speaking for myself I voted for Paul despite not being 100% happy about his marijuana prosecutions because 1) I don’t think Allison would be as good in the office as Paul, and 2) Paul has shown the courage to take on cases such as those against PL for fraud, and the Police for killing someone. I appreciate those charging decisions even if, in the end, the cases were not won. They put the powerful on notice that they too face legal scrutiny and shakes their apparent belief that they are not subject to the law.
October 20, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Eric Kirk
I’m sorry PYODW, but I’m still not getting it. It’s been asserted in this thread that there is law in section 501c3 which prohibits a non-profit from renting a hall to a campaign. Which specific provision? Cite the wording so that each of us can judge for ourselves the application of the wording to the assertion. I find nothing in the statute to support your argument, so educate me.
October 20, 2010 at 10:29 pm
No Name City
“I’m not interested in what sounds “valid” to you. I’m just telling you why I’m no longer engaging you in these threads”. How does that sound.
Nobody said anything like “It’s been asserted in this thread that there is law in section 501c3 which prohibits a non-profit from renting a hall to a campaign”. You are the one spreading that allegation. Lean to live with it. You don’t know a good non-profit law guy? Maybe Terrence Hallinan knows someone.
October 20, 2010 at 10:38 pm
Eric Kirk
It’s a pretty straightforward question. An accusation has been leveled against Beginnings that it has somehow violated the law. I’m just asking for clarification.
October 21, 2010 at 11:12 am
Eric Kirk
Since nobody has stepped up to cite any law on the subject, out of curiosityI spoke to a corporate law attorney acquaintance this morning. When I described the issue, she laughed out loud before commenting as follows:
“Unfortunately people often throw common sense to the wind when they interpret law. Even some lawyers do that. Renting a hall to a campaign doesn’t constitute ‘involvement’ in the campaign any more than a campaign buying a used stapler from a nonprofit rummage sale.”
October 21, 2010 at 11:49 am
tra
Some time ago, I read an anonymous comment on a post about the “birthers” and the commenter summed up my feelings so well that I copied it down. Here’s the quote:
“There are a lot of people out there who think that the law is a game of “magic phrases.” They think that if someone simply chants the correct phrase at the correct time, the courts will be struck powerless to disagree with them. You see it with tax protesters, and you see it with the birthers. It’s a twelve-year-old’s notion of how the world works.”
October 21, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Sally
“Unfortunately people often throw common sense to the wind when they interpret law. Even some lawyers do that. Renting a hall to a campaign doesn’t constitute ‘involvement’ in the campaign any more than a campaign buying a used stapler from a nonprofit rummage sale.”
Love it. All of the “off-topic” attacks were really perplexing me. I failed to see the Monty Python humor in it… All of the BS on this thread (and several others in recent months) made me think that “he who must not be named” (who often hijacked topics on your old blogspot) was masquerading under a different handle on your new wordpress blog.
Something that particularly bugged me a few months back, was when you posted that song video about adoption, and a bunch of anonymous hacks tried to attack you for adopting your kids. WTF is up with that?
It’s not about who you love… it’s all about *do* you love!
October 21, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Glib Glum
I guess everyone will live happily ever after now. You da man Eric. By the way, who was your “acquaintance” a Co-Personal Injury Attorney? I’m glad she found the section 501c3 and you quoted it use book and verse. Thanks for sharing her opinion.
http://www.councilofnonprofits.org/citizens-united-decision
October 21, 2010 at 7:58 pm
money95542
There has been AT LEAST one Gallegos campaign event at MCC. Non-profits are not allowed to take sides when candidates are vying for office. BUT …
Organizations that have spaces for rent are allowed to do business with political campaigns, so long as do so in a businesslike fashion, at their customary rates, and they are willing to rent to other candidates on the same basis.
The IRS has issued at least one ruling to clarify what activities tax-exempt orgs may or may not do. One such is Revenue Ruling 2007-41. I have excerpted it below–it starts with a statement of the general prohibition on campaign activity, then goes through many examples. I have included Situation 17, which I believe speaks to the issue at hand. If you’re really a glutton for punishment, feel free to look up the whole damn ruling–I’m sure any half competent search engine will allow you to find it on the internet. Most of it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Rev. Rul. 2007-41, 2007-25 I.R.B. (June 18, 2007)
Organizations that are exempt from income tax under section 501(a) of
the Internal Revenue Code as organizations described in section 501(c)(3) may not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
*
*
*
Situation 17. Museum K is a section 501(c)(3) organization. It owns an
historic building that has a large hall suitable for hosting dinners and receptions.
For several years, Museum K has made the hall available for rent to members of the public. Standard fees are set for renting the hall based on the number of people in attendance, and a number of different organizations have rented the hall. Museum K rents the hall on a first come, first served basis. Candidate P rents Museum K’s social hall for a fundraising dinner. Candidate P’s campaign pays the standard fee for the dinner.
Museum K is NOT involved in political campaign intervention as a result of renting the hall to Candidate P for use as the site of a campaign fundraising dinner.
October 21, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Eric Kirk
Love it. All of the “off-topic” attacks were really perplexing me. I failed to see the Monty Python humor in it… All of the BS on this thread (and several others in recent months) made me think that “he who must not be named” (who often hijacked topics on your old blogspot) was masquerading under a different handle on your new wordpress blog.
I think there are some who were really thinking they were going to take Gallegos out of office this time around. It doesn’t look like it’s going to happen that way, so they’re throwing tantrums. It’s a pattern.
October 21, 2010 at 8:26 pm
tra
Bingo.
October 22, 2010 at 8:22 am
tra
Paint Your Wagon II said “So after reading the 501c3 CC&R’s, the question would be; will Beginnings Inc be directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office when; Beginnings Inc knowingly rents to the Humboldt Growers Association the Beginnings Inc (501c3) asset and facilities (aka Beginnings Octagon) for a political campaign fundraiser! That is the question.”
And it seems that the answer is a big, fat NO. So your attempted smear of the Gallegos campaign, and of Beginnings, falls flat on it’s face.
Next time, how about before you make the allegation, do your homework. That way you won’t waste so much time and verbiage over a non-issue, and as a bonus you won’t end up looking like such a schmuck.
October 22, 2010 at 10:55 am
schmuck
In your opinion the answer is a “big, fat NO”. No one on this thread is attempting to smear anyone about the 501c3 question, it points out an opinion and asks the question. Smear, what smear. like someone is setting a trap? Now in my opinion you are using spin? We have all learned something on this blog, being accountable for your actions, something SoHum has lost track of since the late 70′s and in very short supply now.
Look around, people conduct activities and business all the time, does that fact alone make it legal? That’s why you have lawyers and attorney, no matter what you have done to break the law, you still get the right to a fair and speedy day in court, to argue your case, right or wrong. You have your opinion and I have mine. If that makes me a schmuck in your opinion, then that is OK by me……….
October 22, 2010 at 5:06 pm
tra
“You have your opinion and I have mine.”
And the IRS has its opinion, as quoted above, and for your convenience is copied below:.
“Situation 17. Museum K is a section 501(c)(3) organization. It owns an
historic building that has a large hall suitable for hosting dinners and receptions.”
“For several years, Museum K has made the hall available for rent to members of the public. Standard fees are set for renting the hall based on the number of people in attendance, and a number of different organizations have rented the hall. Museum K rents the hall on a first come, first served basis. Candidate P rents Museum K’s social hall for a fundraising dinner. Candidate P’s campaign pays the standard fee for the dinner.
“Museum K is NOT involved in political campaign intervention as a result of renting the hall to Candidate P for use as the site of a campaign fundraising dinner.”
So yes, we both have our opinions…the difference is that my opinion is in agreement with the opinion of the IRS, yours is not.
Next time try looking up the facts before you get your knickers in such a twist.
October 22, 2010 at 6:20 pm
knickers with a twist
tra (???)
May eye suggest you should read what money95542 left out of his cut & paste job you copied from her post. There has got to be a name for someone like you, thats OK it will come to me later, will you be at the Mateel tonight? Maybe at Beginning tomorrow night? Here is what money95542 forgot to include:
Business Activity
The question of whether an activity constitutes participation or intervention in a political campaign may also arise in the context of a business activity of the organization, such as selling or renting of mailing lists, the leasing of office space, or the acceptance of paid political advertising. In this context, some of the factors to be considered in determining whether the organization has engaged in political campaign intervention include the following:
• Whether the good, service or facility is available to candidates in the same election on an equal basis,
• Whether the good, service, or facility is available only to candidates and not to the general public,
• Whether the fees charged to candidates are at the organization’s customary and usual rates, and
• Whether the activity is an ongoing activity of the organization or whether it is conducted only for a particular candidate.
October 22, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Eric Kirk
And?
October 22, 2010 at 11:24 pm
tra
And…nothing. Zero evidence that either Beginnings or the Gallegos campaign has done anything wrong.
But, since you’re so concerned, Knickertwist, go ahead and call up the IRS and ask them yourself. Oh, and when you get to the part where they ask you if you have any actual evidence of illegal behavior…
October 23, 2010 at 3:35 am
money95542
I don’t want to get my knickers in a twist, but I thought I covered your objection in my post with this part that summarized your own cut and paste job from the IRS ruling I cited (and linked to). Sorry for trying to put it in plain English. Next time (???), I’ll leave it in IRS-ese, and force all readers to slog through it.
Organizations that have spaces for rent are allowed to do business with political campaigns, so long as do so in a businesslike fashion, at their customary rates, and they are willing to rent to other candidates on the same basis.
Seems to me from the descriptions above that Beginnings could easily rent to the Gallegos campaign without jeopardizing their 501c3 status, so long as Ms. Jackson, and all candidates for dog-catcher, had the same rental opportunity. Now if the Jackson campaign could show that Beginnings had said “NO, you can’t rent the Octagon,” that might be a problem. I’d be surprised.
October 23, 2010 at 9:17 am
Knickertwist
So why does…..
Have you seen the……
Will you be………………
P U N K E D ?
October 24, 2010 at 8:27 am
longwind
If only they’d opened with a Billy Joel cover band, everything might be different.
October 24, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Liz
It was an unfortunate turnout, but a great dinner and good schmooze. I’m really happy to see a 30-something generation step forward into organizing. Thanks, gentlemen.
October 24, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Anonymous
$50 grand given to the park people last night. town will be broke for awhile. too bad, so sad for paul g. wonder how kmud will do during the upcoming fundraiser.
October 24, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Eric Kirk
50 grand? Really? That’s like five times higher than the anticipated net, but but that’s excellent news! Where did you hear it?