[EL] why seek c4 recognition?

Tue May 14 14:18:32 PDT 2013

I'm speaking of small Tea Party groups.  You asked why so many decided to file that way-if you meant just those represented by counsel, then I can't answer why those groups would do this and I don't have any insight into what percentage of the groups targeted by the IRS had representation.  The Tea Party groups I know that are (c)(4)'s don't know Cleta Mitchell and couldn't afford to hire the local solo practitioner, much less Ms. Mitchell.  Despite numerous attempts by various actors to portray of Tea Party groups as Astroturf agents of Karl Rove, many of these groups are very small, unsophisticated, and independent.  I think you are probably onto something with the word-of-mouth, though.

And many small organizations do look at the Code and at the campaign finance laws and try to figure them out on their own.  That's why they get in trouble-neither set of regulations are compatible with grassroots participation by small, unsophisticated groups.

Bill

From: Mark Schmitt [mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 1:59 PM
To: Bill Maurer; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] why seek c4 recognition?

I take it you are saying that lawyers like Cleta Mitchell, who say they represent several dozen of these organizations, only got involved later?
That may well be -- it would be interesting to learn more.
I'm not sure that "looked at the Code" is really what most amateur organizations do, but they may operate by word-of-mouth about what they need to do. I know that I've encountered any number of c(3) groups that are convinced that they need to launch a c(4) in order to do any lobbying at all, which is a huge and expensive misconception.

Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute<http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/>
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Bill Maurer <wmaurer at ij.org<mailto:wmaurer at ij.org>> wrote:
You're assuming that many Tea Party groups have advisors at all.  In my experience, they are small, dedicated political amateurs who don't realize the breadth and scope of regulations governing both nonprofit status and what is necessary to participate in political and ideological discussions in this country.  They likely sought (c)(4) status because they looked at the Code and that designation seemed to fit them best.

Bill

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Mark Schmitt
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:43 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] why seek c4 recognition?

I'm curious, then: Does anyone know why so many local Tea Party groups did decide to file 1024's? I recall that long before last Friday, a number of lawyers on this list, esp. Mr. Zall, had said that they discourage (c)4 clients from filing. Were the Tea Party groups just poorly advised? Was Cleta Mitchell's advice on whether groups should file different from other lawyers?

Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute<http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/>
202/246-2350<tel:202%2F246-2350>
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: mschmitt9

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:19 PM, <JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>> wrote:
Beth is absolutely right, IMHO.  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 5/14/2013 12:04:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bkingsley at harmoncurran.com<mailto:bkingsley at harmoncurran.com> writes:
For some groups the question is why seek recognition, not why not.

The form takes time and energy to complete. If you don't know the lingo you risk saying something that raises a red flag and triggers further scrutiny, so you'll spend time and energy responding to further IRS inquiries. To avoid that you can hire a lawyer and spend thousands on legal fees. Plus it costs $850 just to file the application, for all but the very smallest groups.

And what are the benefits? If the IRS ever happens to audit your group, you can rely on the determination to avoid retroactive revocation, provided there have been no material changes in operations. If you're pretty confident where you fit in the tax code, that benefit is pretty slim, and it can be easier just to start operating.

Many groups do file a 1024, and of course my experience tends to be with those who decide to do so, since they've probably come to me for help. There are some ancillary benefits -- being able to provide assurances to funders and other supporters that you're operating within the law, or in some cases eligibility for local tax exemption. But for many the plusses are not worth the hassles.

Beth

Elizabeth Kingsley
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP
1726 M St., NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
202-328-3500<tel:202-328-3500>
www.harmoncurran.com<http://www.harmoncurran.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:50 AM
To: law-election at UCI.edu<mailto:law-election at UCI.edu>
Subject: [EL] why seek c4 recognition?

Over on Twitter the NYT's Nick Confessore is tweeting about the question
why only some groups seek c4 recognition status. Apparently the
Democratic-oriented Priorities USA has not.

Can someone shed some light on the reasons why a group would not seek
such recognition from the IRS and what the risks are?

Thanks!

Rick

--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072<tel:949.824.3072> - office
949.824.0495<tel:949.824.0495> - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130514/a30c7c1e/attachment.html>