501(c)3 Corporation

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.