501(c)3 Corporation

[Edit by Molly Carmody: This post was written by Michael, the original author of the Declaration. Current status of corporate identity WILL BE up for debate once the new website gets rolling. Until then, please know that this post was written "in the heat of the moment" and should not be taken as gospel.]

If you oppose this concept you should leave the group now.

We are not against corporations, only corporate influence and money in politics. We are especially not against not for profit corporations.

I am not going to take personal responsibility for the money we raise and personally pay taxes on the money we raise. Would you like to pay the taxes on the money we raise and accept personal responsibility for all 700 members of this group?

Thought Not.

There are people in this movement who need to grow up and get real! This group is about real PRACTICAL action to non-violently remove the current corrupt government. If you disagree, you are in the wrong place.

Michael

Michael

I may be wrong... and if I am please let me know... I have an understanding (only thru hearsay ) that under a 501(C) the government at any time can step in a wrestle away control ie, appointing a new board..

something maybe to think about... is it true ?

Brad, that is absolutely not true. The gov't can intervene if they're doing something illegal or misappropriating funds, but otherwise, no, that's not true.

Unfortunately, a 501c3 can't be used to influence legislation, which is what we want. About 10 years ago, people said that they didn't want non-profit organizations (specifically 501(c)3) to be able to do this. We shot ourselves in the foot, there, LOL. A 501(c)4 is used for community organization, and is tax exempt. It, however, cannot accept tax deductible donations. I'm guessing most people will want to deduct donations from their taxes. 527 is a political organization used to elect people, but it may be able to do some political action. More research is needed.

Molly Carmody wrote:Unfortunately, a 501c3 can't be used to influence legislation, which is what we want. About 10 years ago, people said that they didn't want non-profit organizations (specifically 501(c)3) to be able to do this. We shot ourselves in the foot, there, LOL. A 501(c)4 is used for community organization, and is tax exempt. It, however, cannot accept tax deductible donations. I'm guessing most people will want to deduct donations from their taxes. 527 is a political organization used to elect people, but it may be able to do some political action. More research is needed.

Are you saying the 501(c)(3) idea has been abandoned?

As I recall, a 501(c)(3) can offer education to the general public. If we were offer our ideas for public policy to the public without supporting any particular candidate, we'd be OK.

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.

I think it is probably the best thing to be done, as we do not want to get the IRS involved in a negative manner. I support this decision. Have you talked to the IRS about your options?

Well, it's a thin line, I think. If we say "Our sole purpose is to collect people into a convention and work out the logistics of said convention" then I think we'll be fine with a 501(c)3. If, however, we give the delegates the Declaration, they ratify it, and then we bring it to Congress, we'll be violating the law. It's funny, isn't it, that the 501(c)3 was barred from attempting to influence legislation by people like us who saw it as an abuse of the system.

I posted a story on the Yahoo group on 10/18 about walking into a corner store and hearing five different strangers erupt, spontaneously, about how horrible our government and current economic system is. My point then was, this is a time where just about everyone wants change and they want it now. It's exploding out of people.

Because we are all so eager for this, and there are so many things we need to change, I think we're almost getting ahead of ourselves. But that's not a bad thing.

First, the reason I connected with Michael P's concept when I first read it was, for month's now I'd been thinking the same thing. I'm sure many of us have. I had already written a draft declaration. But Michael's concept was much better formed and articulated than mine. And he created a place where I could go to take part in it.

Once the forum here was established, there was no need for me to continue any further with a separate project, because it had already formed itself, organically, right here, right in front of my eyes. And I and hundreds of others were already taking part in it. This is the beauty of the internet. Ideas can be exchanged and movements can take hold almost instantly. Especially if the driving principles are shared and concrete. All that is needed is the energy to move it. Along with a desire to organize it and manage it effectively.

I see this as different pieces of the same puzzle right now. One is the original concept, to organize a body of people's representatives, separate from our current government, to articulate their grievances, to write a list of demands, ratify it and present it to our elected officials. There would be no need to do this if they were doing their jobs in the first place. But they're not, and we, the majority, know that.

Second, as this forum has so quickly evolved, we all realize that there is a way now, to put these ideas down in front of us, for all to see, discuss them and to shape them into concrete, well-articulated demands. This is pure democracy in action. If anyone has a say, they have a say, right here. For that reason, regardless of what happens with the delegation or later a political party forming, we have still created an excellent tool for bringing people together and allowing them to express their opinions. To debate and shape well-formed statements which can be presented to our elected officials. What they choose to do with them decides the next move for us.
This project can exist separately as a polling and petition tool. It's only purpose is to gather information and publish results. That's all.

A separate group is then formed as a political party, which WILL take these results seriously, if the government does not. We meet and ratify these results as the platform of the party. We present it to our elected government. If they do not take action, we move to the next phase of running for those positions with the goal of enacting legislation that IS representative of the true opinion of the public, which we gather from the results of this tool.

This project here, must continue forward. Design and implement an internet-based tool for all people to voice their opinions to their government, for all to see in plain view. We can worry about the rest later.

-Cheers!, Paul

So eloquently stated, Paul! I agree 100%.

First off:
I think the correct language is: "a 501 (c) corporation is being formed to support this community"

Anyone can start a 501(c) anytime. The point is some folks here want such a corporation to support this community.

Now, how it is set up, how it is governed will determine its connection to "this group".


That said, I think there is room for _both_ a 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 corporation.

A political party, lobby entity that directly endorses candidates has to be c4.

However, there are real advantages to having entities around that take tax deductible donations-and do stuff like non-partisan polling, policy analysis, general political education, soup kitchen charity for indigent community members and such.

The same people can govern and control both entities for different purposes.
Example The GOP is a political party-I'd guess it is a C4

Heritage Foundation, hoover institute and Cato foundation are all 501 c(3) corporations.

They have strongly intersecting support bases.

PDT wrote:...to organize a body of people's representatives, separate from our current government, to articulate their grievances, to write a list of demands, ratify it and present it to our elected officials...

We should remain focused on that idea.

We already are empowered to do what we all know must be done.

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This must remain the guiding principle of anything we do.

I agree that they are two projects, but I think they must be tied together in order to survive. People are interested in the forming of a national assembly, backed by the seriousness of the coalesced issues declaration, and theyre interested in a final national declaration backed up by a national assembly. Take either one away and people lose interest and you're building just another forum.

Personally I'm not here to be building just another forum.

We should build it big with a democratic structure, but it's gotta be tied to forming a national assembly that can bring in the public interest and desire to participate.

Let's discuss our ideas for the democratic structure of our work groups and move on. This silliness is holding us back, this is what we have to do, now, so let's do it. Get our priorities straight, get organized and get started.

Submit ideas on how we will structure our democratic work groups, vote on which we all like best, and go! Our window of opportunity is shrinking..

Honestly at this point start one (1) new thread - proposals for democratically structured work groups, and ignore everything else till we work it out in that one (1) thread.

Joe Steel wrote:

PDT wrote:...to organize a body of people's representatives, separate from our current government, to articulate their grievances, to write a list of demands, ratify it and present it to our elected officials...

We should remain focused on that idea.

We already are empowered to do what we all know must be done.

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This must remain the guiding principle of anything we do.

I agree with you Joe, on both points. However, I think it is important to do all of these things as effectively as possible, in order to insure we get results.

That is why we need to define them as separate parts of a working goal. The end result; the majority of people determine their government, as opposed to some smaller group, like the 1%.

The first part is the development of a democratic "petition" tool, which we have the beginnings of here, right now. It's refinement is essential to taking us closer to the end result. As such, I believe we need to make it work as effectively as possible.

Second, organize as a group whose goal is to take the next step and deliver the petition to our elected officials. The ball is then in their court.

Finally, if they do not respond to the people's will, "the consent of the governed", we use our already established party, with platform, to run for those offices, as we are all entitled to do, and honestly represent the people.

-Paul

An online open forum consisting of a double set of the issue topics and the other work group topics. One set would be used by the organized work groups, kept to a limited number, and be fully visible to all. The second set would be for the public commentary. The organized groups will submit decisions or final drafts to the public groups for approval, and members of both groups will be able to vote. Membership in the organized groups will start with whoever volunteers, be capped at a manageable number, and anyone can call for a vote to remove someone which would need like 80% to pass. New members can be voted in only when there's an opening.

In this way there is no one in charge, no positions of even implied power, every decision is democratically checked, the entire process is open to the public, and streamlined, we all know our jobs, there can be no tyrants or dictatorships, and maybe we can begin to make some progress, democratically.

PDT wrote:

Joe Steel wrote:We should remain focused on that idea.

We already are empowered to do what we all know must be done.

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This must remain the guiding principle of anything we do.

I agree with you Joe, on both points. However, I think it is important to do all of these things as effectively as possible, in order to insure we get results.

That is why we need to define them as separate parts of a working goal. The end result; the majority of people determine their government, as opposed to some smaller group, like the 1%.

The first part is the development of a democratic "petition" tool, which we have the beginnings of here, right now. It's refinement is essential to taking us closer to the end result. As such, I believe we need to make it work as effectively as possible.

Second, organize as a group whose goal is to take the next step and deliver the petition to our elected officials. The ball is then in their court.
...

Excellent!

You put succinctly a very important idea. We are group, an entity, which is trying to do something.

The document we call the US Constitution, technically, is two documents, a compact and a constitution. The Preamble is a compact, an agreement of individuals to bind themselves together. Everything after the Preamble "constitutes", or forms, the government of the country created in the Preamble. I think we should use that as the model for our document. Our preamble would create the national assembly and establish its purpose. Then we would declare our grievances.

I think we should model ourselves after the tea party. Their national group is a 501(c)(c4) which is a social welfare corp. But they are really a spider web of small fractions and un official groups that are declared in all kinds of separate ways. This insulated them from audits, law suits, and others things that might bring them down. They are modeled after the structure in "the Starfish and The Spider; The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations"

This is a very good article on the structure of the Tea-Party. http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3866%3Athe-cohen-report-the-starfish-and-the-tea-party&Itemid=281

It appears that we have the 501c3 creation under control. If that is ever not the case, I have experience in this field. I'll focus my attention in other areas unless otherwise informed.

DJequalityNash wrote:An online open forum consisting of a double set of the issue topics and the other work group topics. One set would be used by the organized work groups, kept to a limited number, and be fully visible to all. The second set would be for the public commentary. The organized groups will submit decisions or final drafts to the public groups for approval, and members of both groups will be able to vote. Membership in the organized groups will start with whoever volunteers, be capped at a manageable number, and anyone can call for a vote to remove someone which would need like 80% to pass. New members can be voted in only when there's an opening.

In this way there is no one in charge, no positions of even implied power, every decision is democratically checked, the entire process is open to the public, and streamlined, we all know our jobs, there can be no tyrants or dictatorships, and maybe we can begin to make some progress, democratically.

I like that idea.

Molly Carmody wrote:Well, it's a thin line, I think. If we say "Our sole purpose is to collect people into a convention and work out the logistics of said convention" then I think we'll be fine with a 501(c)3. If, however, we give the delegates the Declaration, they ratify it, and then we bring it to Congress, we'll be violating the law. It's funny, isn't it, that the 501(c)3 was barred from attempting to influence legislation by people like us who saw it as an abuse of the system.

This is a quest for an attorney familiar with 501(c)3 law.

a 501(c)3 can legally:
produce open source software relevant to polling Americans on policy issues
publish policy analysis on what the consensus is among americans-and in each congressional district about policy issues.

It cannot
endorse candidates for election
attempt to influence policy directly


There are many "think tanks" that testify before congress on a variety of issues. Cato, Heritage, Center for Immigration Studies, Southern Poverty Law Center. All are 501(c)3 non-profit organizations. Some go right up to the line about what is legally permissible. SPLC is an example of a very narrowly controlled non-profit that has been accused of being the personal fief of its founder Morris Dees.


All of the below the stuff a 501(C)3 might do.
The intent of the 99Declarations is to somehow reflect a broad will of the 99%
No scientific polls have been done on each passage or the document as a whole
No analysis of how various voting groups react to each passage of the document has been done.
The assemblies have not had a chance to react to the above feedback

There are ramifications around election of delegates by district that need to be understood by the assemblies and the 99%. Some of this is just mathematics and not personal opinion. Election by districts can give us a lot of voices of regions within the US. We need to do something different if we want to look at the voice of the American people as a whole and get any sense of what the consensus is, or can be when given accurate information on facts.

A 501(c)3 could create a voting system that any community organizing group could use for its purposes. It could publish open source software. Create an analysis of practices and protocols.

Now, what a 501(c)3 corporation CANNOT do:
is use the software and analysis created by think tanks to actually elect delegates, house whichever of those are going to a central location. Ratify what has been indicated to be public consensus or the consensus of an organization and demand congress act on it.

Any real political community splits tasks between 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 organizations to contain costs and achieve their ends. A 501(c)4 organization can do anything. A 501(c)3 can do some things but has the privilege of accepting tax exempt donations and being exempt from paying taxes on earnings from investments and property it acquires.

I don't think there are really any existing c4 and c3 organizations that are directly chartered to do what this group wants,though there may be some that could do aspects of that under their charter.
The question is :
is there a desire to have one or more c4 and c3 organizations that are directly under the control and influence of the community gathering around/inpired by occupy wall street?

Molly Carmody wrote:Well, it's a thin line, I think. If we say "Our sole purpose is to collect people into a convention and work out the logistics of said convention" then I think we'll be fine with a 501(c)3. If, however, we give the delegates the Declaration, they ratify it, and then we bring it to Congress, we'll be violating the law. It's funny, isn't it, that the 501(c)3 was barred from attempting to influence legislation by people like us who saw it as an abuse of the system.

Molly, that's not necessarily the case (I'm the Executive Director of a non-profit). A 501(c) can opt to take the (h) election which allows for a certain percentage of the agency's resources to be spent on lobbying activities. Also, there are important distinctions to note about what is and is not defined as lobbying.

Guest wrote:[Edit by Molly Carmody: This post was written by Michael, the original author of the Declaration. Current status of corporate identity WILL BE up for debate once the new website gets rolling. Until then, please know that this post was written "in the heat of the moment" and should not be taken as gospel.]

If you oppose this concept you should leave the group now.

We are not against corporations, only corporate influence and money in politics. We are especially not against not for profit corporations.

I am not going to take personal responsibility for the money we raise and personally pay taxes on the money we raise. Would you like to pay the taxes on the money we raise and accept personal responsibility for all 700 members of this group?

Thought Not.

There are people in this movement who need to grow up and get real! This group is about real PRACTICAL action to non-violently remove the current corrupt government. If you disagree, you are in the wrong place.

Michael

I just wanted to say that.

I desire a General Assembly block on creating a 501(c)3 corporation.