I think Larry was making the point that a 501(c)(3) cannot make campaign contributions. I am quite confident given Larry's background that he knows what a 501(c)(3) group can and cannot do.

I am not discrediting Larry or his background. But I thought I did an adequate job explaining that c3 can contribute money. Like anything tax related there are loopholes.

If that wasn't the case, even with a friendly Administration, the CF wouldn't be able to give Pryor cash in 2014.

From the previously quoted publication:

Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC provides federal tax exemption to a charitable organization so
long as it “does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing
of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for
public office.”

Can you answer how the CF gives contributions to candidates? You can look at their Open Secrets page and track the money.

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:
Can you answer how the CF gives contributions to candidates? You can look at their Open Secrets page and track the money.

With all due respect, who gives a damn? Your whole purpose in posting on this thread is to piss on the efforts made on behalf of the NRA and those supporting it to battle anti-hunting and support our right to hunt. Find something else to argue about.

Jeff

Jeff - Not my intention at all - as a member I would expect their PAC/lobbyists to be more influential than CF. From my understanding the difference between c3 and c4's wasn't that drastic. Clearly I was wrong and I can admit that. Larry and Mike were able to clearly explain their positions backed by regs.

Things I am confident of:

1. I am confident that regardless of what their tax exempt status is, Conservation Force and the NRA both strictly comply . . . there are too many eyes looking for issues.

2. I am confident that the NRA's influence in Washington goes well beyond "limited". Despite events of the last decade they have been able to not only hold ground but in some cases (Heller) actually gain ground on Second Amendment issues.

3. I am confident that the fight on hunting issues will be stronger, better organized and more effective with the NRA actively engaged in that fight than it is today.

4. I am confident that without the NRA, the existing organizations like SCI and DSC simply do not have the moxie to do what needs to be done to preserve sport hunting.

As far as 501(c)3 organizations go, there is clearly a complete prohibition against supporting candidates for election to public office. This is NOT lobbying.

On the other hand, there is a LIMITED amount of lobbying that can be done by a 501(c)3. As I recall, and I have not looked on a long time, there is not a clear definition on what is permissible.

Lobbying and influencing political campaigns for public office are NOT the same.

I have no idea about Conservation Force. I don't know what section of the Code they are exempt under nor do I know any of the details of any such contributions. That is an interesting question. I SUSPECT that someone made a contribution to CF with an express purpose of what the money can be used for. Again, I SUSPECT. I do not know.

Something tells me that a certain entity might just get a rude awakening over these issues and it isn't CF.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Things I am confident of:

1. I am confident that regardless of what their tax exempt status is, Conservation Force and the NRA both strictly comply . . . there are too many eyes looking for issues.

2. I am confident that the NRA's influence in Washington goes well beyond "limited". Despite events of the last decade they have been able to not only hold ground but in some cases (Heller) actually gain ground on Second Amendment issues.

3. I am confident that the fight on hunting issues will be stronger, better organized and more effective with the NRA actively engaged in that fight than it is today.

4. I am confident that without the NRA, the existing organizations like SCI and DSC simply do not have the moxie to do what needs to be done to preserve sport hunting.

Could not have said it any better.

Sorry, CF in my posts were for Clinton Foundation not Conservation Force.

I should have figured that out.

Maybe I will put one of my minions on this to see what they find.

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:
Can you answer how the CF gives contributions to candidates? You can look at their Open Secrets page and track the money.

I looked at the Open Secrets page for the Clinton Foundation. What I saw was that all donations were made by INDIVIDUALS affiliated with the Clinton Foundation. Therefore, the foundation made no such contributions.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:
Can you answer how the CF gives contributions to candidates? You can look at their Open Secrets page and track the money.

I looked at the Open Secrets page for the Clinton Foundation. What I saw was that all donations were made by INDIVIDUALS affiliated with the Clinton Foundation. Therefore, the foundation made no such contributions.

Now maybe we can move along.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Things I am confident of:

1. I am confident that regardless of what their tax exempt status is, Conservation Force and the NRA both strictly comply . . . there are too many eyes looking for issues.

2. I am confident that the NRA's influence in Washington goes well beyond "limited". Despite events of the last decade they have been able to not only hold ground but in some cases (Heller) actually gain ground on Second Amendment issues.

3. I am confident that the fight on hunting issues will be stronger, better organized and more effective with the NRA actively engaged in that fight than it is today.

4. I am confident that without the NRA, the existing organizations like SCI and DSC simply do not have the moxie to do what needs to be done to preserve sport hunting.

(I hope that was ok?)


.

So can anyone give an update on what the NRA is planning to do in regards to hunting?

quote:

Originally posted by 7MMNut:
So can anyone give an update on what the NRA is planning to do in regards to hunting?

I second this request.

In November, the NRA said that they were working on a communication plan . . . indicated that it would take approximately sixty days to start to roll out. That said, it took time for us to get ourselves into this hole, it will take time to work our way out, if we even can. As the NRA properly noted, this is more akin to a long battle, not something that is going to get fixed overnight.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
In November, the NRA said that they were working on a communication plan . . . indicated that it would take approximately sixty days to start to roll out. That said, it took time for us to get ourselves into this hole, it will take time to work our way out, if we even can. As the NRA properly noted, this is more akin to a long battle, not something that is going to get fixed overnight.

Certainly, thank you for the update.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Things I am confident of:


2. Despite events of the last decade they have been able to not only hold ground but in some cases (Heller) actually gain ground on Second Amendment issues.

Correction Counselor

While the NRA had tried unsuccessfully to get various Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court, here the NRA did almost NOTHING for the Heller case.

As a matter of fact the NRA tried unsuccessfully to torpedo Catos case and undermine Catos efforts in the Heller case.

Further the NRA's contribution to the Heller case was a mere filing of an amicus brief in support when it was likely that Cato was going to win the case.

Cato gets all the credit for that victory on our behalf as they fought that entire battle and the NRA to get that win.

I am an NRA member and supporter. The NRA has done a lot of good at a lot of things. This isn't one of them. I asked Wayne LaPierre himself and he said we didn't handle that right.

While I too want the NRAs support in broad hunting aspects , what I am illustrating is that solid and effective efforts are made, and have been made, by much smaller and determined entities.

Thanks, I did not realize that. All that said, of the choices out there to take on the fight on hunting, I am confident that there is no group I would personally rather have at the forefront of that fight than the NRA. They have the membership, the moxie and infrastructure to take on the fight . . . no other group even comes close.

I fully agree with that too Mike.

At the same time, while the NRA has significant clout, and I absolutely want them on our side, there are others that do a good job too. We need all the allies we can get.

Heck get Cato in with us too when we need a legal fighter.