Net earnings must be exclusively used for charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[38]
According to The Washington Post, 501(c)4 organizations:[39]
...are allowed to participate in politics, so long as politics do not become their primary focus. What that means in practice is that they must spend less than 50 percent of their money on politics. So long as they don't run afoul of that threshold, the groups can influence elections, which they typically do through advertising
Bold mine.
I'd argue that their main focus is politics, but as that is not what the NY attorney general is currently addressing.
The DC attorney general does mention it:
Charitable organizations function as public trusts — and District law requires them to use their funds to benefit the public, not to support political campaigns, lobbying or private interests,"
Technically not-for-profit organizations must show no profit at the end of the fiscal year. Not really enforced, though.
Aren't we getting into the weeds here? As I recall, the question was how can the NRA be considered a charitable organization--or at least that was the one I was addressing.
Here, not-for-profit would mean no money flowing to the shareholders etc at the end of the year; all money must go towards the charitable purposes of the organisation at some point or other.
Net earnings must be exclusively used for charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[38]
According to The Washington Post, 501(c)4 organizations:[39]
...are allowed to participate in politics, so long as politics do not become their primary focus. What that means in practice is that they must spend less than 50 percent of their money on politics. So long as they don't run afoul of that threshold, the groups can influence elections, which they typically do through advertising
Bold mine.
I'd argue that their main focus is politics, but as that is not what the NY attorney general is currently addressing.
The DC attorney general does mention it:
Charitable organizations function as public trusts — and District law requires them to use their funds to benefit the public, not to support political campaigns, lobbying or private interests,"
We shall see how this plays out.
This is a really interesting case ... Waaaay back in 1961 I took the NRA-sponsored firearm safety classes and qualified at a local rifle range ... Back then the NRA was a legitimate sporting organization dedicated to rifle sports in general -- hunting and target shooting ... I was briefly then a member of the NRA, receiving a monthly copy of "American Rifleman" ... I in turn taught firearm safety and basic marksmanship to my own children and some of my grandchildren ... That was *then* ... This is NOW ..
The great turning point for the NRA was in 1977 during their national convention when the second amendment advocates took over the governance of the body. It was called the Cinncinati Revolution. en Up until that time, the NRA had published its annual operating budget and accounts. After 1977, those annual reports were not made public. And it has been downhill since.
The great turning point for the NRA was in 1977 during their national convention when the second amendment advocates took over the governance of the body. It was called the Cinncinati Revolution. en Up until that time, the NRA had published its annual operating budget and accounts. After 1977, those annual reports were not made public. And it has been downhill since.
Yes ... Apparently the organization has become so mired in the corruption of its managers that the Prosecutor claims that the members have been so cheated, the only serious remedy is to dismantle it entirely ... IF that happens -- and I doubt that it will -- the aggrieved members are FREE to start up a New Improved NRA ...
The great turning point for the NRA was in 1977 during their national convention when the second amendment advocates took over the governance of the body. It was called the Cinncinati Revolution. en Up until that time, the NRA had published its annual operating budget and accounts. After 1977, those annual reports were not made public. And it has been downhill since.
Yes ... Apparently the organization has become so mired in the corruption of its managers that the Prosecutor claims that the members have been so cheated, the only serious remedy is to dismantle it entirely ... IF that happens -- and I doubt that it will -- the aggrieved members are FREE to start up a New Improved NRA ...
My bet is that the court will order an overseer to make sure the books are kept clean and will order all financial records to be published on a timely basis. The ones that allegedly embezzled the organization should face criminal charges IMHO.
The great turning point for the NRA was in 1977 during their national convention when the second amendment advocates took over the governance of the body. It was called the Cinncinati Revolution. en Up until that time, the NRA had published its annual operating budget and accounts. After 1977, those annual reports were not made public. And it has been downhill since.
Yes ... Apparently the organization has become so mired in the corruption of its managers that the Prosecutor claims that the members have been so cheated, the only serious remedy is to dismantle it entirely ... IF that happens -- and I doubt that it will -- the aggrieved members are FREE to start up a New Improved NRA ...
My bet is that the court will order an overseer to make sure the books are kept clean and will order all financial records to be published on a timely basis. The ones that allegedly embezzled the organization should face criminal charges IMHO.
I would not be surprised to see a court ordered period of supervision a la the probation imposed on The Teamsters Union years ago ... Unfortunately, corrupt leadership over significant time tends to corrupt the whole bit ... A couple of rotten apples have nasty influence over the entire barrel ...
In any case I am guessing they will not be contributing to Trump's reelection campaign.
ISTM, there biggest contributions to Trump have not been directly giving money, but in wielding the influence they have in his favour. That influence is still intact.
In any case I am guessing they will not be contributing to Trump's reelection campaign.
ISTM, there biggest contributions to Trump have not been directly giving money, but in wielding the influence they have in his favour. That influence is still intact.
All the more so -- "SEE ... !!! ... I told you so ... !!! ... *THEY* are still trying to take away your Second Amendment RIGHTS ... !!! ... So you must re-elect The Emperor ... !!!"
Bumping this up because I did not want to start a new thread on another shooting.
As you no doubt heard, there has been yet another mass shooting in the US in two weeks. This one is the third mass shooting in the Boulder CO area (Columbine, Aurora and now this shooting at King's). About a week ago, the NRA was bragging that it had just won a case against the city of Boulder which had tried to limit gun possession within its city limits.
Technically not-for-profit organizations must show no profit at the end of the fiscal year. Not really enforced, though.
Aren't we getting into the weeds here? As I recall, the question was how can the NRA be considered a charitable organization--or at least that was the one I was addressing.
At least under England & Wales law, our equivalent non-profits (usually charities but other forms exist) can make a surplus (or deficit), but not profit (or loss). A surplus is often necessary to invest in services for the future or to provide reserves for years of deficit (such as 2020-2021, I expect). Nothing goes to shareholders at any point.
So at the end of any financial/fiscal year, a not-for-profit can have made more money than it spent. In another organisation this would be called a profit, but here (in this jurisdiction, at least) is called a surplus.
More on the Boulder shooting. The gunman bought the gun four days after the Boulder law was declared unconstitutional.
Just a small correction. What the Court struck down was a Boulder ordinance, and it was not on Constitutional grounds, but because the local ordinance violated the State Preemption law. Source. In other words, it was not a ruling that Colorado couldn't pass such an ordinance, but that a local government within the State did not have the authority to do so.
Technically not-for-profit organizations must show no profit at the end of the fiscal year. Not really enforced, though.
Aren't we getting into the weeds here? As I recall, the question was how can the NRA be considered a charitable organization--or at least that was the one I was addressing.
At least under England & Wales law, our equivalent non-profits (usually charities but other forms exist) can make a surplus (or deficit), but not profit (or loss). A surplus is often necessary to invest in services for the future or to provide reserves for years of deficit (such as 2020-2021, I expect). Nothing goes to shareholders at any point.
So at the end of any financial/fiscal year, a not-for-profit can have made more money than it spent. In another organisation this would be called a profit, but here (in this jurisdiction, at least) is called a surplus.
Yes, Gramps's interpretation may be correct in his State, but it's not so anywhere else that I know of.
More on the Boulder shooting. The gunman bought the gun four days after the Boulder law was declared unconstitutional.
Just a small correction. What the Court struck down was a Boulder ordinance, and it was not on Constitutional grounds, but because the local ordinance violated the State Preemption law. Source. In other words, it was not a ruling that Colorado couldn't pass such an ordinance, but that a local government within the State did not have the authority to do so.
Several states have this language - it saves the craziness that ensues when (fictional example) Minneapolis outlaws all firearms excepting black-powder muzzleloaders and St. Paul outlaws only black-powder muzzleloaders. In that instance, forgetfully crossing the street could land one in jail.
The problem, of course, comes when the state does the Wrong Thing as seen by the locals; there's precious little they can do about it at the local level.
Comments
I'd argue that their main focus is politics, but as that is not what the NY attorney general is currently addressing.
The DC attorney general does mention it: We shall see how this plays out.
Here, not-for-profit would mean no money flowing to the shareholders etc at the end of the year; all money must go towards the charitable purposes of the organisation at some point or other.
This is a really interesting case ... Waaaay back in 1961 I took the NRA-sponsored firearm safety classes and qualified at a local rifle range ... Back then the NRA was a legitimate sporting organization dedicated to rifle sports in general -- hunting and target shooting ... I was briefly then a member of the NRA, receiving a monthly copy of "American Rifleman" ... I in turn taught firearm safety and basic marksmanship to my own children and some of my grandchildren ... That was *then* ... This is NOW ..
Yes ... Apparently the organization has become so mired in the corruption of its managers that the Prosecutor claims that the members have been so cheated, the only serious remedy is to dismantle it entirely ... IF that happens -- and I doubt that it will -- the aggrieved members are FREE to start up a New Improved NRA ...
My bet is that the court will order an overseer to make sure the books are kept clean and will order all financial records to be published on a timely basis. The ones that allegedly embezzled the organization should face criminal charges IMHO.
I would not be surprised to see a court ordered period of supervision a la the probation imposed on The Teamsters Union years ago ... Unfortunately, corrupt leadership over significant time tends to corrupt the whole bit ... A couple of rotten apples have nasty influence over the entire barrel ...
All the more so -- "SEE ... !!! ... I told you so ... !!! ... *THEY* are still trying to take away your Second Amendment RIGHTS ... !!! ... So you must re-elect The Emperor ... !!!"
As you no doubt heard, there has been yet another mass shooting in the US in two weeks. This one is the third mass shooting in the Boulder CO area (Columbine, Aurora and now this shooting at King's). About a week ago, the NRA was bragging that it had just won a case against the city of Boulder which had tried to limit gun possession within its city limits.
Now, this happens.
It is sad they still are around.
At least under England & Wales law, our equivalent non-profits (usually charities but other forms exist) can make a surplus (or deficit), but not profit (or loss). A surplus is often necessary to invest in services for the future or to provide reserves for years of deficit (such as 2020-2021, I expect). Nothing goes to shareholders at any point.
So at the end of any financial/fiscal year, a not-for-profit can have made more money than it spent. In another organisation this would be called a profit, but here (in this jurisdiction, at least) is called a surplus.
Yes, Gramps's interpretation may be correct in his State, but it's not so anywhere else that I know of.
Several states have this language - it saves the craziness that ensues when (fictional example) Minneapolis outlaws all firearms excepting black-powder muzzleloaders and St. Paul outlaws only black-powder muzzleloaders. In that instance, forgetfully crossing the street could land one in jail.
The problem, of course, comes when the state does the Wrong Thing as seen by the locals; there's precious little they can do about it at the local level.