[EL] why seek c4 recognition?

[Mark Schmitt]

I guess this raises a further question then (a real question, I promise):
If groups don't need to file a 1024, or wait for IRS approval before
operating as (c)(4)'s, then what was the harm done to them by the delay in
the IRS approval of their (unnecessary) 1024s?

I understand that there may have been harm done by some of the questions
asked by the IRS, which do seem unnecessary and in some cases more
appropriate to (c)3s. I'm just asking about the harm caused by the delay
itself.


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 5:37 PM, John Pomeranz
<jpomeranz at harmoncurran.com>wrote:

> There is no per se requirement that 501(c)(4)s "register" with anyone
> (unless you count getting a federal EIN "registration," which I don't).
>  Assuming that they are organized and operated in accord with the
> requirements of section 501(c)(4), they're exempt from federal income tax.
>
> 501(c)(4)s are required to file an annual Form 990 federal "information
> return" (due by the 15th of the fifth month after the close of each fiscal
> year, but extensions are available and often used).
>
> Those that engage in certain types of political activity (e.g. independent
> communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates)
> are likely to have to report those expenditures to federal or state
> election authorities and may have to report certain donors as well (e.g.
> donors who gave to support such communications).
>
> Some jurisdictions are still trying to require groups that engage in
> independent expenditures or other specific types of political advocacy to
> register as political committees.  Those are the jurisdictions that haven't
> had their laws challenged in federal court in the wake of Citizens United
> and related cases.
>
>
> John Pomeranz
> Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP
> 1726 M Street, NW, Suite 600
> Washington, DC  20036
> office: 202.328.3500
> mobile: 703.597.7663
> fax: 202.328.6918
> e: jpomeranz at harmoncurran.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Frank Askin
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:08 PM
> To: Mark Schmitt; Bill Maurer; law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] why seek c4 recognition?
>
> Maybe a naive question. Don't groups that raise money for political
> advocacy have to register either with the IRS or the FEC?  If they do
> neither, don;'t they have to pay taxes on the money they bring in?
> FRANK
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Frank Askin
> Distinguished Professor of Law       and Director
> Constitutional Litigation Clinic
> Rutgers Law School/Newark
> (973) 353-5687>>> Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com> 5/14/2013 4:59 PM
> >>> 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> 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] *On Behalf Of *Mark
> Schmitt
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:43 PM
> > *To:* 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
> > gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
> > twitter: mschmitt9 ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:19 PM, <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 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
> > www.harmoncurran.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: 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
> > 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 - office
> > 949.824.0495 - fax
> > 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
> > http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> > _______________________________________________
> > Law-election mailing list
> > 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
> > http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > ** **
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> 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/20130514/9ffddb2b/attachment.html>