Is this a violation via AFAUSSS???

http://themoveright.com/2010/06/29/bob-hislop/

Did the former president of the AFAUSSS place the association in violation of losing its non-profit status? See above story of the smoking gun via Bob Hislop and the move right.

http://themoveright.com/2010/06/29/bob-hislop/

Did the former president of the AFAUSSS place the association in violation of losing its non-profit status? See above story of the smoking gun via Bob Hislop and the move right.

The answer is "No."

The AFAUSSS Foundation is a 501(c)3 corporation, which must not participate in politics.

The Association itself is separately incorporated and is not a 501(c)3 corporation and is not prohibited from a moderate level of political activity, to include actually lobbying in congress. This was discussed at great length on the AFAUSSS Message Board years ago.

Even if this were not the case, the Association did not endorse Hislop's candidacy. But, it is the case, so the story you reference is in error.

:roll:

The author of the article which incorrectly says that Hislop's post on the message board is a violation of the IRS code has been notified of the mistake he has made.

He has been invited to verify that AFAUSSS (unlike the Foundation) is NOT a 501(c)3 corporation. We went all through this years ago.

He refuses (so far) to acknowledge that he is wrong. It is starting to look like intellectual dishonesty.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf

So what I see is that AFAUSSS is a 501c(6) which is the same as a chamber of commerce. So if I follow the logic here then a candidate can go to a chamber of commerce and ask the president to mass email their entire database of members to contribute to this particular candidate? I will call one and get back after answered to this discussion.

From what I have read on a 501c(6) is that the organization can lobby for legislation related to the business activity of the 501c(6) but if they campaign or contribute for just one candidate or any activities are not tax exempt.

The last question I have is that on the AFAUSSS & FAFUSSS both list the oldstar.org website on both 990's, so how would one know which email list the political campaign funding request for Hislop was sent out to?

This seems to at the least an ethical violation that still needs investigated!

When did an ethical violation ever bother Bob Hislop? If he is elected to state office in Colorado, I feel for his clients.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf

So what I see is that AFAUSSS is a 501c(6) which is the same as a chamber of commerce. So if I follow the logic here then a candidate can go to a chamber of commerce and ask the president to mass email their entire database of members to contribute to this particular candidate? I will call one and get back after answered to this discussion.

From what I have read on a 501c(6) is that the organization can lobby for legislation related to the business activity of the 501c(6) but if they campaign or contribute for just one candidate or any activities are not tax exempt.

The last question I have is that on the AFAUSSS & FAFUSSS both list the oldstar.org website on both 990's, so how would one know which email list the political campaign funding request for Hislop was sent out to?

This seems to at the least an ethical violation that still needs investigated!


What a massively incoherent posting.

First: You are "following logic" that makes no sense. The Association made no mailing, so it is of no consequence what a Chamber of Commerce might do.

Second 501 c 6 organizations CAN participate in political activity. But again that isn't an issue here since the Association neither campaigned nor contributed to any candidate.

Third there was no e-mail list that a political campaign funding request was sent to. The Association and the Foundation are entirely separate entities with different corporations.

Your conclusion is both illogical and incorrect.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p557.pdf

So what I see is that AFAUSSS is a 501c(6) which is the same as a chamber of commerce. So if I follow the logic here then a candidate can go to a chamber of commerce and ask the president to mass email their entire database of members to contribute to this particular candidate? I will call one and get back after answered to this discussion.

From what I have read on a 501c(6) is that the organization can lobby for legislation related to the business activity of the 501c(6) but if they campaign or contribute for just one candidate or any activities are not tax exempt.

The last question I have is that on the AFAUSSS & FAFUSSS both list the oldstar.org website on both 990's, so how would one know which email list the political campaign funding request for Hislop was sent out to?

This seems to at the least an ethical violation that still needs investigated!


What a massively incoherent posting.

First: You are "following logic" that makes no sense. The Association made no mailing, so it is of no consequence what a Chamber of Commerce might do.

Second 501 c 6 organizations CAN participate in political activity. But again that isn't an issue here since the Association neither campaigned nor contributed to any candidate.

Third there was no e-mail list that a political campaign funding request was sent to. The Association and the Foundation are entirely separate entities with different corporations.

Your conclusion is both illogical and incorrect.

Political campaign activities. All activities that support or oppose candidates for elective federal, state or localpublic office. It does not matter whether the candidate is elected. A candidate is one who offers himself or is proposed by others for public office. Political
campaign activity does not include any activity to encourage participation in the
electoral process, such as voter registration or voter education, provided that the
activity does not directly or indirectly support or oppose any candidate.

On AFAUSSS 990 forms they have never checked the box for political expenditures directly or indirectly. This violation is clearly an indirect expenditure. It appears you haven't looked at the emails sent out from the association or the one sent to Ike requesting the association to send out a broadcast email to all members. Can you advise if this is common practice in the association? If so they must advise the IRS and file another form 1120-POL.

Can you advise how the foundation and association are different entities since they both list oldstar.org as their website? I will follow up later on the chamber of commerce clarification.

.
.
Please pay close attention because your posts are becoming disjointed and illogical.

The Association is NOT a 501c3 corporation. It is NOT prohibited from Political Activity. But more to the point it has NOT participated in political activity, so has nothing to report to IRS. The owner of a message board is not supporting or opposing a political candidate who makes a posting on the message board.

If you think there has been a violation of the IRS Code, report it to the IRS. They will tell you that you are wrong.

As to the fact that the Association and the Foundation are on the same web site, I refer you to the National Rifle Association. They have three entities on their web site:

The NRA
The NRA Political Action Committee
The NRA Foundation - A 501c3 corporation.

NRA dues are not tax-exempt.
Donations to the Foundation are tax-exempt.
Donations to the PAC are not.

How confusing is that?

Actually, not at all confusing.

.

.
.
Please pay close attention because your posts are becoming disjointed and illogical.

The Association is NOT a 501c3 corporation. It is NOT prohibited from Political Activity. But more to the point it has NOT participated in political activity, so has nothing to report to IRS. The owner of a message board is not supporting or opposing a political candidate who makes a posting on the message board.

If you think there has been a violation of the IRS Code, report it to the IRS. They will tell you that you are wrong.

As to the fact that the Association and the Foundation are on the same web site, I refer you to the National Rifle Association. They have three entities on their web site:

The NRA
The NRA Political Action Committee
The NRA Foundation - A 501c3 corporation.

NRA dues are not tax-exempt.
Donations to the Foundation are tax-exempt.
Donations to the PAC are not.

How confusing is that?

Actually, not at all confusing.

.

Regardless of who is correct in this discussion; you have taken the normal position of the former AFAUSSS BOD i. e. attack the messenger. But let me give you credit, at least unlike them you attack the message as well. Why can't you just state your position without making personal comments towards other postings that disagree with your position? You lose creditability with others only too familiar with the tactics of the former BOD members of AFAUSSS unless of course you are one of them.

Regardless of who is correct in this discussion; you have taken the normal position of the former AFAUSSS BOD i. e. attack the messenger. But let me give you credit, at least unlike them you attack the message as well. Why can't you just state your position without making personal comments towards other postings that disagree with your position? You lose creditability with others only too familiar with the tactics of the former BOD members of AFAUSSS unless of course you are one of them.

No, you have not been attacked or called any names.

An observation has been made regarding your obstinate refusal to acknowledge the facts. This leads to the conclusion that either you are being deliberately obtuse or that you have cognitive difficulties.

You have been told the same thing several different ways, with supporting facts; there is no IRS Code violation in Hislop's solicitation for support on the Association message board because the Association is not a 501(c) 3 organization.

Your attempt to commingle the Association with the Foundation, which is a 501(c) 3 organization, simply because they occupy the same web site is evidence of your faulty reasoning. That was demonstrated with the NRA web site example.

Another example of your faulty reasoning process is the last sentence of your posting, above. You say I lose creditability with others who are familiar with the tactics of the former BOD members unless I am one of them. That is like saying I don't lose creditability if I AM one of them. You see, you say my creditability remains intact if I am a former BOD member. This is incorrect and quite simply illogical. If the "others" distrust the former BOD members they would also distrust me if I were one of them. Unfortunately, much of your reasoning runs along such lines.

I suspect that by now you realize that there was no IRS Code violation. If so, good for you.

Now........... why don't you just go ahead and admit that you don't want to see Hislop elected in Colorado simply because he has demonstrated that he is an arrogant, dictatorial, power-hungry egotist who would not be a good choice for the position he seeks.

.

Sorry, you have me confused with another poster. I have not made any postings regarding any IRS violation(s) by either AFAUSSS nor FAFAUSS. I was merely commenting on your tendency to consider any postings other than yours as illogical; the same as you did with my last posting and the same as you did with the other poster's comments re: the IRS violations. You are making some wrong assumptions when it comes to various posters on this thread. My point was if you are a former AFAUSSS BOD member, you have no creditability to lose, you lost it long ago. I have previously posted my thoughts re: Hislop running for state office, on this forum as well as others and they pretty much coincide with your statements regarding him.

My point was if you are a former AFAUSSS BOD member, you have no creditability to lose, you lost it long ago.


I have previously posted my thoughts re: Hislop running for state office, on this forum as well as others and they pretty much coincide with your statements regarding him.


That may have been the point you were trying to make, but your awkward sentence construction demonstrated a certain noteworthy ineptness, if not in logic then in expression of thought.

It was the kind of sentence that people explain away by saying, "You know what I meant."

However, putting all that aside, it is pleasant that our views merge with regard to the unsuitability of Hislop for elective office (or any other kind.)

Cheers on our agreement.

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f351/charonn0/cheers.gif