Novemt Hand-D Internal . ATTN: 1 1 1 1 Cc Washing Dear Ms Internal recognit copy of response I gives authority to Thomas J. Jose?ak, Michael Bayes, Jason Torchin AnewP representin GPS. Append] This is the protest statement (this ?Protest?) of Crossroads I 1 er 8, 2013 Revenue Service Karen Schiller and'Patricia L. Thomas Tax Law Specialists Exempt Organizations Technical Group 1 nlstitution Avenue NW DC 20224-0002 .. iSchiller and Ms. Thomas: to the proposed adverse determination letter (the ?Adverse Rlevenue Service (the ?Service?) on September 6, 2013, reg. iqn of exemption under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Re\ the Adverse Letter is attached as Exhibit 1.) Although the A within 30 days, the Service graciously granted extensions 1 previously ?led Form 2848 (Power of Attorney and Decla orm 2848 is enclosed herewith adding Alvin Dunn and Step ?Penalty of Perjury Statement? signed by Steven Law, Pre xl A. rassroots Policy Strategies Letter?) issued by the 1rdng application for 'enue Code (the ?Code?). (A .dverse Letter required a 0 November 8, 2013. ration of Representative) sky, and Jeffery L. Yablon. hen Asay to the attorneys sident of GPS, is included as is contemplated by the Adverse Letter, GPS requests a conference of right. This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) II. IV. i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .. 1 I BACKGROUND .. 4 A. The Structure and Operations of GPS .. 4 E. GPS Did Its Best to Understand and Follow Service Guidance in Differentiating Between Its Social Welfare Activities and Its Campaign Intervention Activities .. 5 i 1. GPS Followed Service Guidance for Classifying Advertising 5 2. GPS Followed Service Guidance for Classifying Grant-Making Activity .. 11 . GPS Carefully Tracked Its Activities to Ensure that It Would Engage Primarily in Social Welfare Activities .. 12 1. GPS Closely Scrutinized and Categorized Each Activity .. 12 2. GPS Tracked Its Activities at All Times .. 13 D. GPS Submitted an Application for Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status .. 14 HE PROPOSED ADVERSE DETERMINATION SHOULD BE REVERSED UNDER THE SERVICES OWN STANDARDS .. 18 A. The Service?s Determinations Regarding Television Advertisements Are in Error under the Service?s Standards .. 18 B. The Service?s Determinations Regarding Direct Mailings and Telephone Communications Are in Error under the Service?s Standards .. 21 1. The Service Mischaracterized Features of Direct Mailings and Telephone Communications .. 22 2. The Service Used Selective Quotes to Change the Meaning of Direct Mailings and Telephone Communications .. 24 C. Grant-Making Activities Complied with Available Service Guidance 26 D. The Service Should Have Extended Its Inquiry beyond First Year of Operations .. 27 THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TEST IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE OF VALIDITY AND DEFERENCE ACCORDED TO THE CODE AND TREASURY REGULATIONS .. 31 THE SERVICES STANDARDS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL .. 32 A. The Facts and Circumstances Test Is Void for Vaguemess .. 32 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) VI. THE THE POL EXHIBI EXHIBI EXHIBI 1. The Facts and Circumstances Test Fails to Pro Predictability Required by Applicable Constiti 2. The Facts and Circumstances Test Imperrnissibly Bur 1. The Supreme Court Has Struck Down Multi-F Protected Speech .. The Supreme Court Has Held that Intent Cami Differentiating Issue Advocacy and Campaign Activities .. The Facts and Circumstances Test?s Reliance Communications Is Questionable .. The Facts and Circumstances Test?s Reliance Questionable .. IONCLUSION .. A: PENALTY OF PERJURY STATEMENT .. DIX B: ANALYSIS OF TELEVISION SERVICE .. C: TABLES OF TELEVISION ADVERTISEIV SERVICE .. DIX D: GRANTS MADE IN 2010 .. DIX E: STATEMENT OF STEVEN DUFFIELD, .. 1: PROPOSED ADVERSE DETERMINATION 2: VOTE AID FORM 1023 .. 3: LETTER TO LOIS LERNER RE: VOTE AID (DEC. ii vide the Clarity and 1tiona1 Standards .. 33 The Service Applies the Facts and Circumstances Test 34 dens Free Speech .. 37 actor Tests Restricting .. 37 ot be a Factor for Intervention .. 39 on the Timing of .. 39 on Contextual Factors MISCLASSIFIED BY .. 48 PROVIDED TO .. 75 .. 109 PRESIDENT FOR .. 133 (SEP. 6, 2013) .. 139 .. 155 14, 2007) .. 188 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecretsorg) NTRODUCTION organizati referendur basis sin question Expecting great car 501 engage does not Exempt Service pages 01 noti?ed 1 DO is a Virginia non-pro?t corporation that was formed on ce its formation and expects to be active for years to come. ed its tax-exempt status and suggested that the Service take 'e to comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, include ?campaign intervention activities.? on Under Section 501(a)) and thereafter in response to an lune 2, 2010. Unlike some ons that are created in connection with a particular event such as an election or a and may exist for only a short period of time, GPS has been active on a continuous mm the outset, GPS has been publicly maligned by opponents, many of whom have actions against it.I this intense scrutiny from both the media and the Service, GPS has consistently taken including Code section which, pursuant to Treasury Regulations, requires that social welfare organizations ?primarily? in ?social welfare activities,? a term of art that includes ?issue advocacy? but on after its creation, GPS ?led its Form 1024 (Application for Recognition of information request from the received by GPS on February 16, 2012 provided the Service with more than a thousand ~documents, describing its many activities in detail. On September 6, 2013, GPS was by letter that the Service had analyzed some of this material under the facts and circumstances test established by Rev. Rul. 2004-6, 2004?1 CB. 328, and Rev. Rul. 2007-41, 2007-1 3 See, (Oct. 1 706f0cb?cb99 (last visited Oct. 30, 2013); Letter to Hon. Douglas H. Shulman 2012), reprinted in Cong. R., Vol. 158, Issue 127 (Sept. 19, 2012); Letter to Hon. Douglas H. Shulman and Lois Lerner Center Fred Wertheimer, President, Democracy 21 (Sep. 27, 2012), B. 1421, which present criteria for distinguishing between issue advocacy and Letter to Hon. Douglas H. Shulman, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, from Sen. Richard J. Durbin 2010), [D=833d8f1e-bbdb-4a5b-93ec- from Sen. Carl Levin (July 27, Director of Exempt Organizations Division, from J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director, Campaign Legal S_GPS_Sept_27.pdf (last visited Oct. 3 0, 2013). This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) campaign intervention activities. GPS was further noti?ed that the Service had concluded that, measured in dollars, 54.1% of activities during the ?rst year cf its existence should not be characterized as social welfare activities and therefore GPS did not qualify for recognition under KK Code se :tion 501(c)(4). AS 15 demonstrated below, the Service misinterpreted and mi sapplied the facts and circums1ances test and, as a result, misclassi?ed certain issue advocacy activities as campaign intervention activities. Under a proper application of the facts and appreciably more than half of expenditures in its ?rst year qu activitie s. activitie informai ion on all of activities from its inception in June of 2 In this case, the Service is bound by law and its own procedures to l( If the Service looks beyond start?up year by even a few montl circums :ances test precisely as it applied it in the Adverse Letter, the tax-exempt status. policies an does not strenuous own facts and circumstances test by, among other things, misclassif} Moreover, the Service based its adverse determination on an GPS has established a multi-year track record of effective ad only in its ?rst year of existence, even though the Service I ,xtend recognition to GPS under the facts and circumstance 2 On Fe ruary 16, 2012, the Service made its only request for detailed additional ctivities through that time. GPS responded to that request in full, provi operat' through April of 2012, yet the Adverse Letter only addressed a fract rcumstances test, alify as social welfare examination of equested and was provided 010 through April of 2012.2 )ok beyond ?rst year. is and applies the facts and . Service would recognize vocacy on critical national legislative issues, and GPS is committed to continuing irts mission. If the Service as test, GPS would ly challenge that decision in court. GPS would show that the Service has misapplied its ling certain activities of GPS information regarding all of ding information regarding its ion of the information provided. This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) and in considering the activities of only initial start-up year. Moreov the facts and other light oft 501(c)(4 instituti+ and to the administration of the tax laws governing tax-ex: believes Service. on Octol: GPS is Werfel, GovemrTe CD violation of the law and the Service?s own established proce ules of constitutional law. 17 new guidance that the Service is reportedly developing i. 11 nt Entities Division Michael Julianelle. 3 See Casiey? Wooten, New Guidance for 5 01 (4): on Measuring Primary Activin Bloomb er?g BNA Money Politics (Sept. 20. 2013): i '0 This docume :7 drigal, attorney-adviser in the department?s of?ce of tax policy, said. art by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration on the tr o'b?wa ups for review of their applications for tax exemption. and circumstances test itself is unconstitutional under the vo uch a court action would have profound rami?cations beyon Therefore, because of the potential importance of this car i that the issues presented herein should be considered at the er 23, 2013, between Ms. Patricia L. Thomas and GPS legal ding copies of this Protest to Acting Commissioner of Inte he Internal Revenue Service is working on new guidance for Code sectit ups relating to the measurement of an organization?s primary activity 2 anization operates primarily to promote social welfare, a Treasury De}: er political groups, showing that the IRS has used inappropriate criteri: iures erroneously er, GPS would assert that id-for-vagueness doctrine this matter, particularly in 1th respect to Code section ie to the Service as an :mpt organizations, GPS rery highest levels of the Accordingly, With express and 1n accordance With a telephone conversation counsel Jeffery L. Yablon, rnal Revenue Daniel I. Chief Counsel William J. Wilkins, and Acting Commissioner of Tax Exempt and in the Works, O?icial Says, 501(c)(4) tax-exempt ind whether the artment of?cial said. guidance would include information relating to political campaign intervention as well, Ruth She referenced a May 14 eatment of Tea Party and it when identifying nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) II. CKGROUND therea?e important legislatic depth iss surveys, issues and primary planned and othe GPS asm extreme] Service? be engag A. The Structure and Operations of GPS PS ?led Articles of Incorporation on June 2, 2010, and bega r. GPS focuses primarily on issue-based research, education national policy and legislative issues, including health care n, energy policy, immigration, government spending, and de me research, makes grants to further social welfare purposes, al to urge lawmakers to take speci?c legislative actions.4 rom its inception, GPS planned to engage in (1) ?social weli purpose, and (2) a limited amount of ?campaign intervention to engage in some campaign intervention activity, and becau similar, newly-formed organizations were already the subje weed that its own activities would also be the subject of sub: important for GPS and its trained advisers to examine care a guidance for social welfare organizations to make certain ti :1 ?primarily? in social welfare activitiesadvertis creates page, Code 5: and Tre Electio FEC in operations shortly and advocacy related to reform, cap and trade :bt. GPS also engages in in- conducts public opinion ?ld distributes advertising and other communications to shape public opinion on these ?are activity,?5 activity.?6 Because it se American Crossroads act of substantial scrutiny, ;tantial scrutiny. It was thus fully and understand the wt GPS would at all times re ated to American Crossroads which focuses on candidate?ha initially formed as a Code section 527 political organization. AC later Commission as an independent expenditure-only committee, per Social welfare organizations and political action committ kind of ?complex structure.? witter account, YouTube channel), holds public events, and communica oi as ion 501(c)(4) organizations are permitted to engage in campaign inter? ury Regulations. d, independent political activity egistered with the Federal ecoming one of the ?rst so-called 5 across the political spectrum ocial welfare activities have taken many forms, primarily issue advocac (in large part through the use of ring in different media) and grant-making. GPS also conducts research, ngages in public education, policy platforms, interacts with the news media, maintains a robust onli presence (website, acebook es with legislators. rention activity under the Code This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) B. GPS Did Its Best to Understand and Follow Service Guidance in I Differentiating Between Its Social Welfare Activities and Its Campaign i Intervention Activities 1. GPS Followed Service Guidance for Classifying Advertising Activityl or the purpose of classifying communications as either issue advocacy or campaign interven ,ion activities, the Service has set forth only one bright-line rule: ?When an advocacy communication explicitly advocates the election or defeat of an individual to public of?ce, the expenditure clearly is for [campaign intervention activity].? Rev. Rul. 2004-6. Advocacy communications that do not explicitly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate for of?ce may be classi?ed as either issue advocacy or campaign intervention activities depending upon ?all the facts and circumstances? of the communications. Rev. Rul. 2004-6 provides that, in addition to any other relevant facts and circumstances, six factors ?tend to show? that an advocacy communication is a campaign intervention activity, each of which GPS and this Protest refer to as a ?Campaign Intervention Factor? or The communication identi?es a candidate for public of?ce; (bl The timing of the communication coincides with an electoral campaign; The communication targets voters in a particular elect ion; (d)I The communication identi?es that candidate?s position on the public policy issue that is the subject of the communication; The position of the candidate on the public policy issue has been raised as distinguishing the candidate from others in the campaign, either in the communication itself or in other public communications; and 7 advocacy communications ?advertising activity? included numerous forms of communication with the public: television advertisements, radio advertisements, print media, direct mailings, and telephone commL mcations. 5 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) advocacy communications by the organization on the The communication is not part of an ongoing series 01 ?substantially similar same issue. On the titer hand, again in addition to any other relevant facts and rcumstances, Rev. Rul. 2004~6 sis ?ve factors that ?tend to show? a communication is not for a campaign intervention activity -- the communication quali?es as issue advocacy each of which GPS and this Protest :fer to as a ?Social Welfare Factor? or 00? The absence of any one or more of the factors listed above; The communication identi?es speci?c legislation, or a speci?c event outside the control of the organization, that the organization hopes to in?uence; (c)i The timing of the communication coincides with a speci?c event outside the control of the organization that the organization hopes to in?uence, such as a legislative vote or other major legislative action (for example, a hearing before a legislative committee on the issue that is the subject of the communication); (i)I The communication identi?es the candidate solely as a government of?cial who I is in a position to act on the public policy issue in connection with a speci?c event 1, (such as a legislator who is eligible to vote on the legislation); and The communication identi?es the candidate solely in the list of key or principal I sponsors of the legislation that is the subject of the communication. Rev. Rul. 2007-41 lists seven factors that help to determine whether a communication quali?es as issue advocacy or campaign intervention GPS and t?his Protest refer to as a ?Factor?: (1)1 Whether the statement identi?es one or more candidai 6 This docume activity, each of which :es for a given public of?ce; nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) (55) (D advertise welfare ac v. Rul. 2004-6, Situation 5, describes facts and circumstan tivity: Whether the statement expresses approval or disappro candidates? positions and/or actions; val for one or more Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election; Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election; Whether the issue addressed in the communication ha distinguishing candidates for a given of?ce; 3 been raised as an issue Whether the communication is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organization on the same issue that are made independent of the timing of any election; and Whether the timing of the communication and identi?cation of the candidate are related to a non-electoral event such as a scheduled vote on speci?c legislation by an Of?ceholder who also happens to be a candidate fo lent by a Code section 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization S?s advertisement identi?es Governor F, appears shor which Governor is a candidate, targets voters in that Governor F?s position as contrary to 8?5 position. Ho part of an ongoing series of substantially similar advo on the same issue and the advertisement identi?es an the organization . . . that the organization hopes to inf of the advertisement coincides with this speci?c eveni to in?uence. The candidate identi?ed is a govemmen public of?ce. :es under which an vould constitute social tly before an election in election, and identi?es wever, the advertisement is cacy communications by event outside the control of uence. Further, the timing that the organization hepes of?cial who is in a This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) involve GPS and i1 rulings 1: other com] communications mentioned an Of?ceholder who was running for ree different 0 long as the following applied: advertisements is not an exempt function expenditure therefore, is not subject to tax under 527(f)(1). of?ceholder?s legislative record or policy positions, the incumbent of?ceholder?s character, quali?cations Generally speaking, such an advertisement would ide policy;8 would identify an individual as a governmen1 Second, the advertisement could urge citizens to adop legislation or policy and contact their elected represer take some of?cial action on that legislation or policy. 8 Rev. R11. 9 Rev. R11. 10 See Rev. 2004?6 SWF 2004-6 SWF Situation 5. Rul. 2004-6 CIF Rev. Rul. 2007-41 Factor (5). position to take action on the public policy issue in connection with the speci?c event. Based on these facts and circumstances, the amount expended by on the under 527(c)(2) and, me of advocacy communications on federal policies and legislative issues could ferences to Members of Congress, and occur both before and during an election year. ts trained advisers therefore relied on the standards established in these two revenue articularly Rev. Rul. 2004-6, Situation 5 to conclude that advertisements and munications would properly be classi?ed as issue advocacy, even if the such lection (or election to a f?ce), and even if the communication occurred at some point prior to an election, as First, the advertisement could identify an incumbent of?ceholder and discuss that ut should not comment on or ?tness for of?ce. ntify speci?c legislation or of?cial in a position to act on the legislation or policy;9 and would not identify an electoral opponent.10 a certain position on that itative to urge him or her to Generally speaking, such This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) an advertisement would identify speci?c legislation or policy;? would coincide with a non-electoral event, such as a legislative vote, outside of the organization?s control;12 would identify the of?cial as someone in a position to act on the legislation or policy;13 and would urge the of?cial to take action rather than simply approve or disapprove of the of?cial?s past actions.14 0 Third, the advertisement should not reference any candidacy, electoral opponent, political party, election, or voting in an election. Generally speaking, such advertisement would not make reference to voting or an election; 15 would not identify the government of?cial as a candidate for of? cc;16 and would not identify an electoral opponent.17 0 Finally, the legislative and policy issues discussed in the advertisement should be part of an ongoing series of communications by GPS that advance goals set forth in established legislative and policy agendas (the 2010-11 ?7 in?ll National Action Plan? and the 2012-13 ?New Majority Agenda?). Generally speaking, such an advertisement would not simply comcide with an electoral campaign18 and would be part of an ongoing series of communications that addresses substantially similar topics.19 1.2004-6 SWF I. 2004-6 SWF Situation 5. 1. 2004-6 SWF Situation 5; Rev. Rul. 2007-41 Factor (7). ?4 Rev. R1 I. 200741 Factor (2). 1. 2007-41 Factor (4). l. 2004-6 CIF Rev. Rul. 2007-41 Factor (1). 17 See Rei . lRul. 2004-6 CIF Rev. Rul. 2007?41 Factor (5). ?8 Rev. Rul. 2004-6 CIF Situation 5; Rev. Rul. 2007-41 Factor (3). ?9 Rev. Rul. 2004-6 CIF Situation 5; Rev. Rul. 2007-41 Factor (6). This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) commun commun factor wou during eiectoral campaign periods, Rev. Rul. 2004-6 states that, even appears 5 each situat identi?e. is a candid be categor'zed as issue advocacy. Moreover, the Service?s guidance does not specify what is me PS was well aware that one of the Service?s factors tending cation is a campaign intervention activity is that the organiz [cation during an electoral campaign.20 However, because a 1d effectively prohibit any communications on important 1 hortly before an election, ?the remaining facts and circumst I an incumbent Of?ceholder, appears shortly before an electi ate, and is distributed to individuals who may also be vote to show that a ation distributes the rigid application of that one egislative and policy issues when a communication ances must be analyzed in ion.? Rev. Rul. 2004?6, Situation 5, also establishes that an advertisement which on in which the incumbent rs in that election, may still :ant by the ?timing of the communication coincides with an electoral campaign? or by ?close in time to the election.? The Adverse apparent to the 20 it would Service? to perioc time could Letter received by GPS applied an 11-week pre-election per basis for this time period is that it encompasses all of 10 general election. If the Service had established a not ?close in time to the election? GPS concluded that cc qualify as issue advocacy, regardless of whether an electi 20 Rev. RI 2' GPS organimt prior to commu guidanc il. in 2004-6 CIF Rev. Rul. 2007-41 Factor (3). id note that the Service has now created an ?optional expedited proces ons seeking recognition of exemption. This new process adopts a per general election or 30 days prior to a primary election, which parallels cations? periods. Letter 5228 (6-2013), Catalog No. 64005T, at page i issued by the Service that references such periods for any regulatory a ni 10 iod. However, the only issue advertisements prior shorter pre-election period, ave reached a different conclusion about tax-exempt status. Based on the 3 established guidance and the lack of any de?nitive statement limiting issue advocacy )mmunications made at any 3n was close in time.21 for certain social welfare se pre-election period of 60 days the ?electioneering i. GPS is unaware of any prior urpose, and these periods apply This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) 2. GPS Followed Service Guidance for Classifying Grant-Making Activity The Service has made clear that organizations that are tax-exempt under Code sections 501(c)(3 and 501(c)(6) may generally make grants to other tax-exempt organizations in furthe time of their purpose and without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. Indeed, Service guidelines provide that tax-exempt organizations may even make grants to organizations that are not that there is a mechanism known as ?earmarking? - that ensures the grant fur ds are used for an appropriate purpose. See, e. Rev. Rul. 68-489, 1968-2 CB. 210. For exanle, a charity may transfer funds to a foreign organization that is not quali?ed under Code section 501(c)(3), provided that appropriate safeguards are in prlace to ensure that the funds will be used for charitable purposes. See generally Frances R. Hill 84. Douglas M. Mancino, axatior of Exempt Organizations (hereinafter Hill Mancino) 1] 36.03[4] These safeguards usually entail providing the recipient organization with a written grant letter that contains express restrictidnL regarding how the funds may or may not be used. elcause the inappropriate use of grant funds can jeopardize a grantor organization?s tax- exempt stdtus and/or trigger penalty taxes, grants from a tax-exempt organization are commonly earmark both positively and negatively; the grantor may require that the money be used for certain purposes or may require that the money not be used for certain purposes. Such restrictic ns are generally though not always contained in a letter, which functions as a bilai ei-al contract. The Service has approved earmarking as a way to ensure that a tax- exempt (organization may make grants withoutjeopardizing its tax-exempt status.22 only to sqlect organizations and only in the context of this optional expedited process. See id. at page 3. Moreox such a safe harbor, by de?nition, is more stringent than applicable le gal standards. 22 Public rities are allowed to lobby to a limited extent, but private foundations cannot lobby at all. Treas. Reg. section provides that a private foundation may make a grant to a lobbying public charity provided {that the grant is not ?earmarked? for in?uencing legislation. See also Virginia G. Richardson John 1 ll This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) GRS fully understood and followed these rules when engaging in grant-making activities. GPS viewed its grant-making activity as a means of furthering its so :ial welfare purpose by empowering other organizations with substantially similar policy agendas and complementary i . organizational such as grassroots networks, lobbying resources, and widely-recognized subj ect- atter expertise. Speci?cally, GPS and its trained advisers determined that a grant would be classi?ed as social welfare activity as long as the grant included the proper restrictions on its use by the recipient organization. These restrictions were, in early all instances, included i in a transmittal letter to the grantee organization; the grantee would be required to use the funds for activities consistent with Code section 501(c)(4) social we fare activities. l3ecause the Service has approved of earmarking, which is commonly used by organizations across the political spectrum, GPS was con?dent that could make grants to other organizations in furtherance of its social welfare purpose without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status, provided it imposed appropriate limitations on the grantee?s use of the funds, and that this conclus on would not be altered if those organizations also engaged in campaign intervention activities using other funds obtained from other sources. C. GPS Carefully Tracked Its Activities to Ensure that It Would Engage Primarily in Social Welfare Activities 1. GPS Closely Scrutinized and Categorized Each Activity From its inception, GPS planned to advance substantive poli :y and legislative goals through aiivertising, research on issues and public attitudes, and public education, as well as some campaign intervention. GPS subsequently decided to engage in a signi?cant amount of Franci Reilly, Public Charity or Private Foundation Status Issues under 4942(1) (3), and 507, 2003 CPE Text, at page B-93. Similarly, dues paid to a labor union or a tr ade association are not deductible to the xient that the funds are used for lobbying or for campaign intervention activities; earmarking will be respec ed. See Treas. Reg. section Congress has also approved of earmarking. See H. R. Rep. No. 213, 103d Cong. Sess. 607, n. 64 (1993) (allows ?special assessments 3r grass roots lobbying or campa gn expenses?). .2 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) grant-makiing activities to other organizations with similar policy agendas and complementary and activities. GPS knew that its planned research and public education activities, based or the Service?s guidance, would qualify as social welfare activities without question. GPS also) knew that its planned grants, based on the Service?s guidance, would qualify as social welfare activities as long as the ?Jnds were appropriately restricted. However, GPS also knew that its planned advertisements could be classified as either issue adv ocacy or as campaign interven :ion activities, depending upon the facts and circumstances. Again, GPS and its trained advisers took great care to understand and apply the Service?s guidance and to classify each advertisement as either issue advocacy or campaign intervention activity. GPS then tracked all of its aciiyiities on a continual basis to ensure that, overall, GPS would be engaged primarily in social airfare activities and would not jeopardize its tax-exempt stat us. A and its trained advisers carefully examined each planned communication in advance to detern'ne whether GPS should categorize the communication as i ssue advocacy or campaign intervention activity. If GPS and its advisers had any doubts regardi I ic:ular communication, GPS would either categorize the comrmunication as campaign mg the proper classi?cation of a part interven the categ complet grants. that, in This docume :ibn activity or substantially alter the communication so that gory of issue advocacy. GPS worked and reworked all of its BlLy comfortable with the classi?cations it made for each acti i i 2. GPS Tracked Its Activities at All Times continuously tracked all of its activities: advertising, re 13 l?o ensure that its tax-exempt status would not be placed in jr aith of its years of operation since inception, at least 60% of it would ?t squarely within communications until it was vity. ;earch, education, and :opardy, GPS made certain its total range of activities, nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) measured in dollars spent, constituted social welfare activities.23 Bec means more than 50%, GPS believed that its tax-exempt status woulc ensured that at least 60% of its expenditures were for social welfare 3 In 'fact, over time, social welfare aetivity expenditures more than 60% of its total expenditures: For the taxable year ending May 31, 2011, GPS spent Service guidelines, GPS determined that it spent $15,4 campaign intervention activities and $26,879,867 (or I activities. From its inception in 2010 through December 31, 201 $64,720,514 on its various activities: $17,106,362 (01 intervention activities and $47,614,152 (or 73.6%) on GPS Submitted an Application for Recognition of organizations typically ?le Form 1024 before they beco Accordingly, the contents of Form 1024 applications are generally pi i I lieved that management time, overall time, and effort would track spend 24 See ErikalK. Lunder L. Paige Whitaker, Cong. Research Serv., R40183, 5 0] Analysi Under Tax and Campaign Finance Law (May 17, 2013) (hereinafter GPS els that the Service?s new ?optional expedited process? establishes a 60?} whethe tb recognize the tax-exempt status of social welfare organizations, thou select glanizations and only in the context of this optional expedited process. 25 GPS dd its calculations on the ?gures identi?ed in Form 990?s for 20 uses a1 vlter ?gure for the year ending May 31, 2011 ($40,365,792) than what i ($42,3 ,884). 26 GPS ged from a ?scal year to a calendar year when it made its Form 990 31, .201 1. 27 In respc of 2012 . regardii 23 GPS be The majority of these activities constituted social welfare activities an: 1g. its expenditures through the end of 201 1. 14 ause ?primarily? commonly I be safe if it conservatively Lctivities.24 increased to appreciably a total of $42,344,884 on its various activities.25 Based on the classi?cations it made by carefully following 165,017 (or 36.5%) on 53.5%) on social welfare 1,26 GPS spent a total of 26.4%) on campaign social welfare activities.27 Tax-Exempt Status ne fully operational. ospective and aspirational mg. c) and Campaign Activity: under Whitaker), at page 5. 6 threshold for determining gh this threshold applies only to .etter 5228, at pages 3-4. 10 and 2011. The Adverse Letter 5 listed on the Form 990 .ing for the year ending December se to the Service?s request, GPS provided information regarding its activities from January through April 1 support arguments This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) This docume in nature lie, the application may focus almost exclusively upon what the organization says that it intends to do in the future. If an organization delays in ?ling its Form 1024, however, it will have established a history of activities that the Service can review, thereby transforming the process rito an audit of sorts. The same transformation can occur if the Service receives a Form 1024 but fails to review it until a substantial period of time has elapsed. A )Ii September 3, 2010, GPS submitted Forms 1024, 2848, ard 8718 (User Fee for Exempt Qrganization Determination Letter Request), along with all necessary attachments. asplication described GPS as a non-pro?t public advocacy organization and laid out three 1 primary activities: research, public education, and activity to in?uence legislation and policym aking. The application also stated that GPS would develop find/or distribute independent i political cbmmunications but that such activity would not constitute the organization?s primary purpose The Service confirmed receipt of application on Sepitember 20, 2010, but then i did not cor-nmunicate with GPS for nearly a year and a half.28 On February 16, 2012, GPS received a request for additional information from the Service. The Service?s request did not focus on the information GPS provided in its Form 1024 applicat on, which was a forward-looking statement of the organizaton?s intended activities. Instead, the Service sought from GPS detailed records of operations since its inception. The Service requested, and on May 21, 2012, GPS provided: I I I . A more detailed description including time and ?n 4nces of research, public education, and activities to in?uence legislation and policymaking; 23 It appeu?s that during this time period, the Service was targeting the applications of speci?c organizations for extrem: clays and unusually intensive scrutiny. See, e. Statements by Lois Lerner, Director of the Exempt Organiia ions Division (May 10, 2013); Treasury Inspector General for Tax Acministration, Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identl? Tax-Exempt Applications for Review, Ref. No. 2013-10-053 (May 14, 2013) (?nding that beginning early in 2010, the Service identi?ed organizations for inappropriate review based upon their names or policy positions, rather than upon objective indicators of campai gn intervention activities). 15 I I nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) consider application.29 1 I Policies and controls to track expenses related to GPS ?3 primary activities; 0 Descriptions of sources of income; Actual ?nancial data for 2010 and 2011 and a proposed budget for 2012; A description of employees, paid consultants, and volunteers; 0 Descriptions of news media activities, including press releases, interviews, letters to the editor, and op?ed pieces; 0 Printouts of website, Facebook page, and Twit1 er account; and All advocacy communications prepared and ?nanced by GPS, including a copy or communication was disseminated; whether the comm and the expenses used to prepare and disseminate the 29 During this time, Form 1024 was disclosed online with an accompanying sent 3Sl?s] application to ProPublica in response to a public?records request.? Money Group Promised IRS It Would Spend 'Limited Money on Elections, Pro transcript of the communication and information regarding the dates the communication was aired or available; the geographic area in which the unication was part of an ongoing series of communications; whether the communication identi?ed speci?c legislation or issues; considerations in?uencing the timing of the communication; communications. From that point forward, the Service made no further requests for information while it was article stating that ?[t]he IRS Kim Barker, Karl Rove ?s Dark Publica (Dec. 14, 2012, 11:19 told-the?irs. ProPublica later applying for tax-exempt status in if conservative groups to ted Tea Party Also Disclosed PM), :d-con?dential-docs. Service of?cial told GPS that they were looking into the matter, but GPS has heard nothing more. Subsequently, on er 17, 2013, USA Today published a 2011 list of organizations that rep: advocacy cases.? GPS was included on this list. These disclosures 16 thedly originated from the Service uecause the Service labeled them ay constitute a violation of federal This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) September 6, 2013 more than three years after GPS submitted its application - the 5 Service issued the Adverse Letter to GPS. To support its decision, the Service limited its assessment to ?rst taxable year ending May 31, 2011; determined that virtually all of televisions advertisements, and all of telephone contacts and direct mailings, were campaign intervention activities; and thus found that more than half of activities for its ?r st year of operations constituted campaign intervention aetiV ities. PS requested and received permission to ?le this Protest on November 8, 2013 and now submits Ihis Protest for the Service?s consideration. 17 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) This docume PROPOSED ADVERSE DETERMINJ XTION SHOULD BE Hl'i LEVERSED UNDER THE SERVICES OWN STANDA separate that one for I advertise advertise interven to have 1 determineld that any advertisement that aired during the 11 weeks pr: and identi?ed a candidate for of?ce would be classi?ed as a campaig Service Service? advocac L. Are in Error under the Service?s Standards 11,659.75 of expenditures from its inception through cment before determining whether it should be classi?ed as Lion activity. There is no indication that the Service did so. were modi?ed for each state to accurately re?ect the Each television advertisement discussed one or more 18 The Service?s Determinations Regarding Te ili?S?s issue advocacy activities during the ?scal year ending I television advertisements at a total cost of $6,020,463.33these advertisements was issue advocacy. The remaining :onsidered television advertisements as a single grou] nischaracterized many features of each of these advertiseme 5 facts and circumstances test, require that the advertisement Among the features that the Service ignored or mischarac The television advertisements did not target voters. policy positions of the incumbent of?ceholders in tho legislative debate and was timed to coincide with bot] in those matters and pending or upcoming considerati Congress, and not to simply coincide with an election. :levision Advertisements May 31, 2011, included 11 "he Service agreed with GPS 10 advertisements account May 31, 2011. Jnder the facts and circumstances test, the Service was required to examine each :ment individually, considering all of the facts and circumstsinces related to that issue advocacy or campaign Rather, the Service appears 3 of communications and :ceding the general election gn intervention activity. The that, according to the be classi?ed as issue .terized were the following: be television advertisements legislative records and se states. matters of current policy or 1 heightened public interest on of those matters in nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Rul. 20( ?Calendar August Bennet Coloraqo, actions advertis While the television advertisements may have named candidates for of?ce, each of those candidates was also an incumbent Of?ceholder ?in a position to act on the public policy issue.?30 No advertisement identi?ed the Of?ceholder as a candidate or otherwise referenced a campaign, electic n, or electoral opponent. The television advertisements did not express disapproval of candidates for of?ce. Rather, the advertisements criticized an incumbent of?ceholder?s legislative and policy positions in order to educate viewers and encourage them to contact the Of?ceholder in hopes of changing the of?ceholder?s positions on important issues. Each television advertisement identi?ed a speci?c piece of legislation or current policy issue and urged of?cial action on that legislati on or policy issue. No Service guidance requires that legislation must be described in any particular amount of detail. Nor does any Service guidance require that legislation be referenced in both on-screen text and audio. x/l'oreover, GPS did its best to adhere to and rely on Service guidance particularly Rev. 4-6, Situation 5 when it created each of its television advertisements. For example, .1331 identi?ed incumbent Senator Michael Bennet. The advertisement aired from 17 to August 23, 2010, between 10 and 11 weeks before an election in which Senator was a candidate for reelection; was distributed to Senator Be nnet?s constituents in some of whom are also Colorado voters; and identi?ed Senator Bennet?s legislative 3n government spending and debt as contrary to posit ions. However, the CI ment was part of an ongoing series of substantially similar communications by GPS on 30 Rev. 31 See contained in Appendix correspond to the codes used in May 21, 2012 for adc ul. 2004-6 SWF pendix C, Television Advertisement Table A, Exhibit Code The exhibit codes used in the tables response to the Service?s request it onal information. 19 This docume nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) the same issue of government spending and speci?c, pending legislation (Senate Amendment 4594). The advertisement identi?ed an event outside the control of GPS a vote on Senate Amendment 4594 that GPS hoped to in?uence. The communication was made close in time to a floor vbte scheduled for September 14, 2010. Senator Bennet was a government of?cial who was in a osition to vote against that legislation. The advertisement provided Senator Bennet?s phone number and encouraged viewers to contact Senator Bennet and tell him to vote against the legislation. The advertisement did not reference any election, campaign, or opposing candidate; did not advocate the election or defeat of any candidate; and did not encourage viewers to take any action in connection with a campaign or election. This advertisement presents exactly the ts. and circumstances as Rev. Rul. 2004?6, Situation 5, and 11 same fat must be classi?ed as issue advocac not campaign intervention activity. addition, ?Calendar? and the other nine television advertisements in dispute closely paralleled the structure of the one advertisement the Service did classify as issue advocacy. All of these on partic the of?c particulz key distln Service as issue certain arr classi?e advertisements identify an incumbent Of?ceholder, describe ular issues, express disagreement with that record, an eholder to tell him or her to take a speci?c of?cial action. legislative or policy issue may differ from advertisement t4 ction is the time at which the advertisement was aired. It tl imposed a per se pre-election rule, under which the same advocac lount of time apparently 11 weeks prior to an election. ,7 detailed assessment of each of the other nine television ad\ :1 by the Service as campaign intervention activities leads to 20 that of?ceholder?s record ld urge viewers to contact fhile the Of?ceholder and 3 advertisement, the only ierefore appears that the advertisement is classi?ed if aired after an election but as campaign intervention activity if aired within a rertisements inappropriately the same conclusion: the This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Service as campaign intervention activity any advertisement that of?ceho There is circumst applied. and that it is dist] direct 'sapplied, or disregarded, its own facts and circumstances ider who was also a candidate for of?ce and aired within 11 i The Service?s own guidance on the subject makes clear tha a 'ibuted.33 iPS?s issue advocacy during the ?scal year ending May 31, nfo legal basis for the Service to apply any per se test in plac ances test and certainly not without ?rst disclosing to taxp The Service?s Determinations Regarding Di Telephone Communications Are in Error under th ailings at a total cost of $876,5 14, and 47 different telephone cost of 1: 8,942. Together, these activities accounted for $1,055,45 social welfare activities. The Ad\ months it they mu not consistent with the Service?s facts and circumstances test, which I i 32 A detaileiE analysis of the ten television advertisements that are the primary sou and the rv adverti . l'nents through May 21, 2012 are included as Appendix C. 33 While Service?s new expedited process does adopt a 30-day pre-primary or framework which applies only to select organizations and only in the context GPS 21 i This docume ?lie Service conducted only a cursory examination of these 7 erse Letter simply concludes that because the communicatic all be classi?ed as campaign intervention activity. This c2 ice is included as Appendix B. Detailed tables of information regal :unaware of any such de?nitive time periods offered in any relevant co est by automatically mentioned an incumbent weeks prior to an election.32 of the facts and ayers that a new test is being no per se timing test exists communication may qualify as an issue advocacy communication regardless of when rect Mailings and Service?s Standards 2011, included 30 separate communications at a total 6 of expenditures on 7 different communications. ns occurred during the two rim to the 2010 general election and identified Speci?c candidates for public of?ce, Ltegorical, per 32 approach is requires a detailed cc of the dispute between GPS ding all of television 50-day pre-general election of this optional expedited process ntext by the Service prior to 2013. nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) consideration of the facts and circumstances regarding each commu treat any Tile factor such as timing as determinative. linication, and which does not 1. The Service Mischaracterized Features of GP 3?s Direct Mailings and Telephone Communications The Service mischaracterized many of the same features of these communications that it mischaraciterized for television advertisements (discussed above), including: The communications coincided with heightened awareness of speci?c legislative and policy issues and pending or upcoming consideration of those issues in Congress; The communications identi?ed of?ceholders in a position to act on those issues; they did not identify any Of?ceholder as a candidate or reference an upcoming election; The communications criticized past legislative records and policy positions; they did not express disapproval of candidates; and The communications identi?ed a speci?c piece of legislation or current policy issue and urged of?cial action on that legislation or policy issue. Flirthermore, as always, GPS paid careful attention to Service guidance when creating its direct mailings and telephone communications. Indeed, if the Service had actually considered each cori'lmunication, it would have concluded that many, if not most, of them parallel Rev. Rul. . 2004-6, Situation 5. For example, telephone communication identi?ed incumbent Senator arry Reid. The telephone calls were made on October 15, 2010, three weeks before an election it? which Senator Reid was a candidate for reelection; were inade to Senator Reid?s 34 This id errtifying number and any similar identi?ers for telephone communic corresp orids with the exhibit code used in the telephone messaging table that response. 0 the Service?s request for additional information. 1 22 ajions and direct mailings ?8 created and submitted in This documth was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) constituents in Nevada, some of whom are also Nevada voters; and identi?ed certain of Senator Reid?s legislative and policy positions as contrary to positions. However, the telephone call was part of an ongoing series of substantially similar communications by GPS on the same issues oftiontrolling government spending, keeping taxes low, and creating jobs. The call identi?edlan event outside the control of GPS a vote on the Tax Hike Prevention Act of 2010 (S. 3773) that GPS hoped to in?uence. The timing of the call was close in time to this vote; the exisTing tax cuts were scheduled to terminate on December 31, 2 310, and Congress intended to address the matter shortly after the 2010 general elections during :1 ?lame duck? session in Novemi: er and December of 2010. (In fact, GPS continued to advocate against tax increases during the lame duck session that followed the general election.) Senator Reid was a governn e?pt of?cial who was in a position to vote in favor of that legislation. The call provided Senator Rieid?s phone number and asked recipients to contact Senatoi' Reid and tell him to support :he legislation at issue. This telephone communication mirrors the facts and circums1ances in Rev. Rul. 2004-6, Situation 5, and therefore must be classi?ed as issue advocac y. The Service apparently concluded that the fact that a number of of?ceholders were mentioned in more than one type of communication television advertisements, telephone commur ications, and direct mailings) weighs against classifying the communications as issue advocac 51.335 In so doing, the Service ignored its own guidance under the facts and circumstances test. Re v. Rul. 2004-6 states that a communication is more likely to be classi?ed as campaign 35 See Adi/arse Letter, at page 6 (?More than half of the candidates you identi?ed your direct mail communications were also identi?ed in your television advertisements?); id. at page 7 (?All but one of the candidates you identi?ed in your telephone messages were also identi?ed in yo 1r television communications, your di "e;ct mail communications, or both.?) i 23 I I This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) intervention activity if it is not part of an ongoing series of similar co I that certs of advertisements overlap demonstrates that GPS I mmunications.36 The fact was in fact engaged in distributing an ongoing series of similar communications. These communications are properly treated a cc direct me policy pt candidat I . . the actual meaning of communications. ?11 ?[Candic stated th mailing Identi?ed as stated that ?Senator Bennet?s Recor Problem these sta positions 36 Rev. R1 commu commu made in 37 Accord a specific candidate,? and ?[a]ll of the [telephone] calls that named US. Senate of the i1 conclud the sele 2. The Service Used Selective Quotes to Change l1 I I .6 Iilings and telephone communications concerned past votes i of incumbent of?ceholders; they did not express dis: i i or example, not one of mailings asserts that ?[State] i . ate] made the problem worse.? Rather, the direct mailing id i I it ?New Hampshire Can?t Afford Paul Hodes? Big Spending Worse.? The Adverse Letter?s selective quotes fundamenta teinents. These mailings included extensive reviews of the i (rm ?scal matters of continuing interest and concern to GPS i CIF ?The communication is not part of an ongoing series iications by the organization on the same issue.? See also Rev. Rul. 20C iication is part of an ongoing series of communications by the organizat dependent of the timing of any election.? ng to the Adverse Letter, ?[s]ubstantially all of the [direct mail] dlividual candidate named in the call.? With respect to direct ma es that ?substantially all? of them expressed disapproval of a candidate :tively quoted language appearing in the Adverse Letter. 24 issue advocacy under the Service?s standards and guidance. Immunications ?expressed disapproval of a speci?c candidat the Meaning of Direct Mailings and Telephone Communications Adverse Letter contains lists of quotations in support of fihe Service?s assertion that e.?37 However, and current legislative ipproval of a speci?c 3. Furthermore, the quoted language is incomplete and taken out of context, changing :an?t afford [Candidate]? or enti?ed as DM-NH-02 Plans,? and the direct Has Made The Spending lly change the meaning of If?ceholders? legislative The mailings also urged of substantially similar advocacy 7-41 Factor (6): ?Whether the on on the same issue that are iications expressed disapproval of :andidates expressed disapproval lings, the Service impossibly Iecause one-third of them contain This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) recipieni slto call the of?ceholders and encourage them to support the Tax Hike Prevention Act of 2010. Neither mailing referenced a candidate, campaign, election, or electoral voting. Both mailings are therefore consistent with Rev. Rul. 2004?6, Situation 5. Similarly, not one of telephone communications asseits that ?[Candidate] has failed.? The telephone communication identi?ed as PH-23 stated that ?Harry Reid has failed to create and he promised that spending billions of dollars on the stimulus bill would save our jobs.? Again, the Service?s selective quote changes the meaning of ibis statement. This telephone communication discussed jobs again, an issue of continuing interest and concern to GPS and Nevada?s high unemployment rate. The communication told recipients to call Senator Reid and tell him to support the Tax Hike Prevention Act of 2010. It did not reference a candidate, campaign, election, or electoral voting. It is therefore con sistent with Rev. Rul. 2004- 6, Situation 5. The Adverse Letter also entirely ignores most of telephone communications. For example, the telephone communications identi?ed as PH-20 through PH-24: (1) identify Senator Harry (2) discuss a speci?c portion of Senator Reid?s legislative or policy record; (3) explain why the call recipient should adopt view of that legislative or policy matter; and - (4) urge the recipient to contact Senator Reid to deliver messages to him on speci?c legislative or policy matters. Not one of these ?ve telephone communications contains an electoral or campaign reference and each is consistent with Rev. Rul. 2004-6, Situation 5.38 33 Similar telephone communications that identify Senator Patty Murray (PH-25 through PH-30), Repres4ntative Joe Sestak (PH-31 through PH-35), and Senator Michael Bennet (PH-36 through PH-47) are all substantially similar to the communications regarding Senator Reid?s positions 3n legislative and policy issues and are cTnsistent with Rev. Rul. 2004-6, Situation 5. 25 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) organiz. GPS dei by empowering other organizations with substantially similar policy organiz La- 1 itional However, GPS also knew that inappropri Grant-Making Activities Complied with A1 Zode section 501(c)(4) organizations are free to make grants itions, subject to the general rules applicable to social welfai ei'mined that limited grant-making would enable the organiz railable Service Guidance to other tax-exempt 'e organizations. To repeat, :ation to broaden its impact agendas and complementary grants could jeopardize its tax-exemiat status and therefore made every effort to comply with the Service?s guidance and restrict by expr purpose October 501(c)(t campaig The fact sources 1, 2010, GPS made a grant of $1,300,000 to Americans for intervention or other non-exempt activity: 39 A copy materi This docume (if this transmittal letter is included in Appendix D, along with detailed 11; for, grants during the ?scal year ending May 31, 2011. ts grants to activities consistent with social welfare 3 grant transmittal letters appropriately earmarked or re assly stating that the funds could only be used for the grante: 5, and/or could not be used for campaign intervention activit l) organization. In the transmittal letter, GPS earmarked the Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies is pleased to Americans for Tax Reform in support of your organi purposes . . . . In keeping with its own tax exempt sta donating to your organization with the understanding that some grantees may have engaged in campaign interven ctivities. stricted the use of its grants 2?s exempt function ies. For example, on Tax Reform, a Code section grant to prohibit its use for donate $1,300,000 to zation ?s tax exempt tus, Crossroads GPS is that its donation will not be used in connection with any non-exempt activity. (Emphasis added.)39 tion activities using other of funding is irrelevant here. As noted, tax-exempt organiziitions across the political information about, and supporting nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) spectrurr earmark grants, and the Service has never questioned the appropriateness of earmarked grants by social welfare organizations. The Adverse Letter also raises ?the possibility of a circular 3w of funds.? Nothing in the law I rilevents two or more tax~exempt organizations from making otherwise proper grants to each oth er in a single ?scal year. Moreover, even if the allegedly circular grants should be disregarded for purposes of calculating activities, GPS would still qualify as tax-exempt under Code section 501(c)(4). D. The Service Should Have Extended Its Inquiry beyond First Year of Operations '1 he Adverse Letter is based on a single year ?rst start-up taxable year ending May 31, 2011. The Service, however, requested and obtained information on extensive social alfare activities after May 31, 2011. The Service?s decision to ignore these additional activities deviated from the Service?s normal procedure: a multi-year analysis that considers all of the fa :ts and circumstances concerning the organization?s activities. Because the Service delayed in reviewing Form 1024, it effectively converted what uld have been a review of the Form 1024 a consideration of proposed activities) into a defacto audit a review of past actions). This kind of defacto audit does not comply with the policies and procedures that the Service applies to audits of tax-exempt organizations, nor does it comply with the tests and analysis that courts typically apply when reviewing adverse detenni 3 ion letters. By de?nition, audits are for a speci?c taxable year. But when the question on audit is whether an organization is tax?exempt, the Service considers more than one year of activities if 27 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) This docume information regarding such activities is available.40 This approach is consider page 7 campaig pre-elec1 contribu $1,000,0 campaig this org campaig under Ctide section 501(c)(4). It would not qualify, however, if the consider review ti ?7 requires . . . . . 42 Servrce ?o select a particular year of an organization?s operations. 1 ll probative and possibly determinative evidence. See, lintervention activity] by looking solely at a group?s big ad ion activity?) onsider a hypothetical social welfare organization that recei 00 on social welfare activities. In Year Two (an election ye +1ization?s existence, it would have spent $510,000 out of $3 gYear Two. 1 i the Service to limit its inquiry to an organization?s ?rst year 4? The Set occurre 4? And if $510,0( 42 rulil docume Exempt detail tc which further activitie planned I a political endorsement by a charity. 0.0m of $2,000,000 only 25.5%. is not possible to make the determination [whether a .ions of $1,000,000 for three years. In Year One and in Yea] ?intervention activities and $490,000 on social welfare actii qintervention activities.41 Logically and rationally, this org, atlion of the organization?s Form 1024 application for three I . . . . Io?thmg the Servrce?s rules or guidance suggests that the fa necessary to properly e. Lunder Whitaker, at up has engaged in too much buy or several months of ves and spends total annual Three, it spends ar), it spends $510,000 on rities. Over the course of ,000,000 only 17% - on anization should qualify lervice delayed ears and then limited its Lots and circumstances test of existence or permits the indeed, by stating that the vice always considers more than one year unless the issue is whether a s'ngle disqualifying event {ear One and Year Two are considered and Year Three is ignored, the ganization would have spent gor determination letter will be issued to an organization provided its a plication and supporting establish that it meets the particular requirements of the section und which exemption is claimed. status will be recognized in advance of operations if proposed operatic can be described in suf?cient permit a conclusion that the organization will meet the particular requi ments of the section under emption is claimed. A mere restatement of purposes or a statement th proposed activities will be in ce of such purposes will not satisfy these requirements. The organizat' must fully describe the in which it expects to engage, including the standards, criteria, proced 28 for carrying out the activities; the anticipated sources to receipts; and th res, or other means adopted or nature of contemplated at was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Service not ignc ?lill consider ?all the facts and circumstances? of each case, the Service states that it will re any relevant information. ?Where the Service considers it warranted, a record of actual alp rations may be required before a ruling or determination will be issued.? Treas. Reg. section than a (emphasis added). When an organization has been operating for more ear and a half before the Service even contacts it about its Form 1024 application and has been operating for more than three years before the SerVice issues its determination logic, fairness requeste facts an as part of the determination process. and law require the Service to consider the entire record of the organization?s operations The Service has historically considered all evidence in its possession when applying the i circumstances test even evidence developed after it makes its initial determination. For example, while evaluating the tax-exemption application at issue in Big Mama Rag, Inc. v. United 1 year. In hates, 631 F.2d 1020 (DC. Cir. 1980), the Service con dleed, although the Service issued an adverse determination sidercd more than a single taxable letter on October 17, 1974, the admiilistrative record presented to the court what the Service agreed was relevant includeT a story published by the organization nine months after the Service had issued its adverse and ind: Service a more th informa determination letter. Id. at 1038, 1038 n. 15. pressly requested such a signi?cant amount of additional 3y filing a Form 1024, an organization seeks recognition of :ax-exempt status generally :?nitely, not recognition for a particular year. GPS presumed that this was the reason the nformation concerning 0 ivities subsequent to May 31, 2011. GPS provided all of the information requested a thousand pages of documents but the Service ignored nearly all of this additional tilm. If the Service had considered the additional information and made its determination This docume expend ruling itiires. Where the Service considers it warranted, a record of actual opei ations may be required before a Jr determination letter will be issued.? Treas. Reg. section nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) IV. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TEST IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE OF VALIDITY AND DEFERENCE ACCORDED TO THE CODE AND TREASURY REGULATIONS lni developing and reviewing its communications on legislative and policy issues, GPS carefully observed and relied upon the facts and circumstances test, which is the product of two published letter rulings. But published letter rulings are not the equivalent of the Code, which is enacted ileiw. Indeed, Judge Holcomb Hall of the United States Tax Court herself a former liltigator in the Tax Division of the US. Department of Justice has noted that when the Service stands before a judge, published letter rulings are merely the opinion of one of the litigants {Browne v. Commissioner, 73 TC. 723, 731 (1980) (Hall, J., concurring). Nor are letter rulings ihp equivalent of Treasury Regulations, which enjoy a presumption of validity because they are developed pursuant to a public notice-and-comment rulemalcing process. See Lunder Whitaker, at pages 3-4. (Ell?S recognizes that the Service is charged with administering the Code. However, because the Service?s interpretation of Code section 501(c)(4) is not embodied in Treasury Regulat ons, that interpretation is entitled to little, if any, deference. If this matter were to be litigated even in a court willing to give the Service some deference, GPS would easily overcome that defe r(::nce by demonstrating that the facts and circumstances test (1) was not applied correctly to GPS, discussed above, and (2) is unconstitutional, discussed below. 1 31 This docume it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) This docume constitu is uncon 1 followin While could be void for 44 A large agree t] J. John Regara political-speech- (last visited Oct. 13, 2013). 45 Hynes (1926)]. ?6 47 For the Vaguer Regent. 495 (15 48 The tax (declar STANDARDS ARE UNCONSTITUHO \llthough this matter can and should be easily resolved in fav ihnal issues, the facts and circumstances test of Rev. Rul. 2C stitutional because it violates the void?for?vagueness doctrin llilaw, regulation, or administrative pronouncement is uncon PS 81 determine the test?s ?meaning? and ?guidance,? the facts 1 the facts and circumstances test is unconstitutional. See, Laura? so Legislative Counsel, ACLU Letter to the IRS Expressing Concerns to Political Speech and the De?nition of What Is or Is Not an ?Exempt 2. ayor of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610, 620 (1976) (quoting Connolly v. Gen Button, 371 U.S. 415, 466 (1963) (Harlan, ., dissenting). seminal historical overview of the void-for-vagueness doctrine, see Am e$s Doctrine in the Supreme Court(1960); see a 385 U.S. 589 (1967); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964); Joseph 52). laws are subject to the void-for-vagueness doctrine. See, Big Mam a long-standing Treasury Regulation void due to vagueness). i 32 1 nl lag. vagueness under each factor of the void-for-vagueness doctr NAL The Facts and Circumstances Test Is Void for Vagueness or of GPS without reaching )04-6 and Rev. Rul. 2007-41 44 e. stitutional if either of the giapplies: It is so dif?cult to understand that ?men of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning.?45 2) It provides so little objective guidance to of?cials that enforcement is inconsistent i and contains ?language calling for the exercise of sulijective judgment, unaided by objective norms.?46?47 . . . endeavored 1n good faith to hew carefully to the facts and Circumstances test, as GPS and circumstances test is ine.48 number of knowledgeable observers including many who disagree with GPS on most other issues N. Murphy, Director, and Marvin (bout Revenue Ruling 2004?6 with Function (Jan. 26, 2004), :nue-ruling-2004-6-regard- Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 sterdam, ?The Void-For- lso, Keyishian v. Bd. of Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. aRag, 631 F. 2d at 1040 was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) most inhol'ms readers what considerations might be important given certain highly-specific facts and leav es readers to guess at the ruling?s meaning in anything but the exact same circumstances. The facts and circumstances test also fails to set forth the ext ant to which an organization may eng age in campaign intervention activities without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status. Rev. Rul. 81-9i5, 1981-1 CB. 332, provides that a social welfare organizaiion may engage in campaign intervention activities if it remains ?primarily? engaged in the promotion of social welfare. Yet the Service has never made clear if ?primarily? has its common meaning ?more than half.? The Service also has never made clear how it measures the quantity of an organization?s campaign intervention and social welfare activities, leaving social welfare I organizations to guess as to whether they should track their activities based on the amount of dollars spent, the amount of time spent, or any of a number of other measures.50 Rev. Rul. 2004-6 and Rev. Rul. 2007-41 essentially establish the Service?s position with respect to?campaign intervention activity as ?we know it when we see it.? The Constitution does not allow jthis degree of vagueness, particularly when First Amendment rights are involved. The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires the law to be so clear that ?men of common intelligence? need not ?lguess as to its meaning.? Hynes, 425 U.S. at 620. The facts and circumstances test does not meet that standard. 2. The Service Applies the Facts and Circumstances Test Inconsistentlv The facts and circumstances test is also unconstitutionally vague because it provides so little objective guidance to government of?cials that enforcement which will necessarily require tire exercise of subjective judgment is inconsistent. For example, the Service has stated that subjebtive intent should not be considered but that manifestations of intent must be 50 See Lundler Whitaker, at page 6; Judith E. Kindell John Francis Reilly, Election Year Issues (hereinafter Kindell Reilly), 2002 E0 CPE Text, Ch. 1, Sec. C, Question 1, at pages 350-5 2. 34 This docume ht was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) considei e?d.51 No objective standard can accurately determine intent; the Service?s employees are there fiJre forced to exercise their own subjective judgment, unaided by objective norms. In practice the Service considers intent in some cases, but not in others. When the Voter Alliance to Improve Democracy (?Vote applied for recognition of exempti min under Code section 501 a status inconsistent with any political campaign interveniipn its application unambiguously stated its intent to elect liberal or progressive candida1es for public of?ce by registering voters who would vote for such candidates.52 By issuing a favorable determination letter to Vote AID, the Service demonstrated that even a clearly-stated intent did not matter at least in that case.53 Here, however, the Service has considered intent and concluded that most of advertis ng activities were campaign intervention activities not because of the advertising itself, in rather because of intent: i We also note that after the [2010] general election, your advertising expenditures in [taxable year ending May 31, 2011] dropped off shiarply, which supports the conclusion that most of your advertising activities in '2010] were campaign related. Adverse Letter, at page 13. The Service apparently believed that relative inactivity after the 2010 general election was an indicator of intent instead of other potential factors such as 5? Kindell Reilly, at page 350 (determining whether a Code section 501(c)(3) origanization has violated the campai intervention prohibition). 52 See Vo AID Form 1023 (Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Se :tion 501(c)(3) of the Internal Reven Code) (attached as Exhibit Letter to Lois Lerner, Director of Exem'ot Organizations Division (Dec. 14, 200 (noting the favorable determination letter issued to Vote AID on May 31, 2007, and requesting further guidan e) (attached as Exhibit 3). The Se ice?s decision to recognize Vote AID was not a fluke. Vote stated activities and the identity of its of?cer its directors, and its legal counsel all indicate that the decision to issue the favorable determination letter was at the highest levels of the Service and after careful deliberation. Moreover, after the organization received its favorable determination letter, the results were highlighted in the December 14, 2007, letter to Ms. Lerner. See Exhibit 3. 53 i 35 This docume it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) This docume cyclical and thep weighed that intent heavily in order to conclude that GPS social vs questio campaig Adverse COHCCITI not be tli inforrna evaluati at all, at applical cash ?ow, legislative sessions, or natural periods of heighte fare activities. But any test that allows the Service to con: el t s GPS) and ignore the intent of other applicants void for vagueness. SiT?milarly, the Service appears to use inconsistent factors to gn: intervention activities. The Adverse Letter states as folloi You did not provide suf?ciently detailed information measures, such as the amount of time and effort that time devoted to your activities, your statements suppi are not primarily engaged in promoting social welfar based our conclusion that you are not exempt under ?nancial expenditure information that you provided. Letter, at page 14. The Service implies that, had GPS prov .n case that an adverse determination is reached in part becal :ion when the Service never requested that information.54 SI 1g application demonstrates that the facts and circum dz makes the tax status of charitable organizations and their 5? Thougl Duffiel activiti demon I II ned public interest in issues vas not engaged primarily in sider the intent of some Vote AID) is without alculate an organization?s NSC regarding other possible was expended for each activity, and, to the limited extent that you did on the relative amount of art our conclusion that you . Accordingly, we have 501(c)(4) principally on the ded additional information time and effort, the analysis might have resulted in a different outcome. Yet it should 1se of an absence of Job an ad hoc approach to stances test ?is no standard ionors a matter of the whim the Service never speci?cally requested this information, Appendix d, Vice President for Policy, explaining some of policym trates that GPS spent signi?cant time and effort on social welfare activi '36 cludes the Statement of Steven ing efforts and social welfare aii: as that would not be obvious from an examination of expenditure . This additional information ies. it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) of the United Cancer Council, Inc. v. Comm ?r of Internal Revenue, 165 F.3d 1173, 1179 i (7th Cir 1999) (Posner, The Facts and Circumstances Test Impermissibly Burdens Free Speech Rev. Rul. 2004-6 and Rev. Rul. 2007-41 were both issued be fore the United States Suprem: 2Court decided FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. 551 US. 449 (2007), and Citizens United v. FEC, 558 US. 310 (2010). While these cases involved the FEC and the rules restrjicting ?electioneering communications,? their holdings are relevant because the Service?s iburdens on protected speech raise the same constitutional :oncerns at issue in those 03865.55 1 1. The Supreme Court Has Struck Down Multi-Factor Tests Restricting Protected Speech "he Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibits ?any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication? that ?refers to a clearly identi?ed candidate for Federal of?ce? i made hin 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election ?electioneering commur ications?). 2 U.S.C. 434(t)(3). In WRTL, the Supreme Cc urt rejected a subjective, ?open-eitded rough?and-tumble of factors? approach instead adopt ng an objective ?appeal to vote? tes for determining whether a potential electioneering comrr unication was the ?mctional equivalen?i of express advocacy. WRTL, 551 US. at 469-70 (internal citations omitted). In response to WRT L, the FEC created a two-part, ll?factor balancing test, which allowed 1 the EC ??to select what political speech [was] safe for public consumption by applying 55 The Service has recognized that it is subject to the same First Amendment obligations as the FEC. See Josh Hicks, Republicans say IRS e-mailsfrom Lois Lerner show ?abuse of power ashington Post Federal Blog (Sept. DJ 2013, 6:00 AM), irs-e-m In due message, IRS of?cial Lois Lerner told her staff: ?Tea party matter very dangerous. This could be tl e,vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether [Citizens United] overturning the ban on corporate >ending applies to tax-exempt rules.? 37 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Politics (OpenSecrets.org) ambigui factor te judgme US. at I only tw speak. it burden gin and an ?unprecedented governmental intervention into? violatiod unclear, faces ev only sa? interven factor fapts and circumstances test of Rev. Rul. 2004-6 and Rev. Rul the Serv Service? Constituiion does not allow the Service to create and implement sucl >us tests.? Citizens United, 558 US. at 336; see 11 CPR. 1 st required government of?cials to ?pore over each word of it accord[ed] with the ll-factor test they [had] promulgati lbptions to avoid litigation and penalties: refrain from spea. i?e?e id. at 335. The Supreme Court struck down the multi?fai of the First Amendment. Id. at 336.56 Titizens United applies here. Because the Service?s facts anc ap organization that wants to maintain tax-exempt status um I in greater restrictions on its speech than one facing the FEC course for a 501(c)(4) organization is to engage in only de :icbn activities. Otherwise, the organization will face the ?r01 0 cc to pore over each word of an organization?s communicat 56 ?[T]he scheme compel matter, liability permis FEC practice adopted a two-part, ll?factor balancing test to implement by law to seek an advisory opinion from the EC before the speech ?wever, given the complexity of the regulations . . . a speaker who wa wer analogous to licensing laws implemented in 16th- and 17th-century pf the sort that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit.? Citizens 3 8 I judgment, those communications accord with the Service?s rriay not be a prior restraint on speech in the strict sense of that term, for 114.15. The multi- a text to see if, in their Citizens United, 558 36. Because of the test?s complexity and uncertainty, spealiers were essentially left with king or request permission to :tor test as an impermissible protected speech in circumstances test is :ler Code section 501(c)(4) multi-factor test. The minimis campaign and tumble,? multi- . 2007-41, which requires ions to see if, in the standards. But the I an in terrorem regime. ruling . . . . This regulatory prospective speakers are not es place . . . . As a practical t. a: to avoid threats of criminal ahd the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a 'oh to speak . . . . These onerous restrictions thus function as the equival ovemmental agency for prior ent of prior restraint by giving the England, laws and governmental United, 558 US. at 335. This was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) 2. The Supreme Court Has Held that Intent Cann ot be a Factor for Differentiating Issue Advocacy and Campai ?he Supreme Court has ?long recognized that the distinction Intervention Activities between campaign advocacy and issue advocacy ?may often dissolve in practical application.? WRTL, 551 US. at 454 (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US. 1, 42 (1976)). The Court has also long recognized that distingu shing between of issues and of candidates cannot be based on an intent?ar di-effect test without jeopardizing free political discourse. See id. at 467. The First Amendrpent is meant to protect uninhibited and robust public debate on issues of national importance; a test that focuses on the intent of the speaker does not ?remotely? re?ect the country? profound national commitment? to that principle. Id. at 4i67-68. Ari intent-based test is inherently uncertain and unpredictable. Intent-based tests ?open[] the door to a trial on every ad . . . on the theory that the speaker actually intended to affect an election, no matter how compelling the indications that the ad concerned a pending legislative or policy Id. at 468. Such tests also ?lead to the bizarre result that identical ads aired at the same time could be protected speech for one speaker, while leading to . . . penalties for another.? Id. Reng?ations of speech therefore require objective standards that focus on the substance of commuer ations rather than ?amorphous considerations of intent and 3. The Facts and Circumstances Test?s Reliance Communications Is Questionable 39 effect.? Id. at 469. on the Timing of hb Service?s facts and circumstances test relies heavily upon the timing of commun?ations in determining whether those communications are issue advocacy or campaign This docume ?It was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) interverition activities,? and the Service appears to have reached its conclusions in the Adverse Letter based primarily on the timing of advertising rather thaT its content.58 The Supreme Court has held that the timing of a communication is at best unpersuasive in determining whether that communication is the functional equivalent of express advocacy. WRT L, 551 US. at 472. In WRT L, the organization planned to air its advertisements near electionis but not near actual legislative votes, and it did not run the ads after elections. Id. To the exte it this evidence went to the organization?s subjective intent, it was entirely irrelevant because subjective intent cannot be a factor when regulating protected speech. See id. Moreove the Supreme Court emphasized that ?a group can certainly choose to run an issue ad to coincide with public interest rather than a ?oor vote.? Id at 473. 6 'It is well known that the public begins to concentrate on elections only in the weeks immediately before they are held. There are short timeframes in which speech can have influencel? Citizens United, 558 US. at 334. It is to be expected that organizations will engage in issue a? vocacy during electoral campaigns, when citizens are most engaged and most receptive to issue advocacy and when public of?cials are most to their constituents.59 An orgai?iization?s choice to engage in issue advocacy during an electoral period or its decision i i I 57 Five of ?le Service?s factors expressly reference the timing of communications. See Rev. Rul. 2004-6 CIF Rev. Rili 2004-6 SWF Rev. Rul. 2007-41 Factor Rev. Rul. 2007-41 actor Rev. Rul. 2007-41 Factor 58 See, e. g. ,lAdverse Letter at pages 12-13 (?nding that pre-election television adv ertisements constituted campaign interve ition activities and that the single post-election television advertisement constituted issue advocacy); id. at page 12 r?nding that direct mailings and telephone calls constituted campaign intervention activities because they were c? mmunications during the period leading up to the election). 59 See, e. gt, Saul Zipkin, The Election Period and Regulation of the Democratic recess, 18 Wm. Mary Bill Rts. J. 533, 5 4 (2010) (?The pre-election period is a time of heightened engagement with the democratic process: a time ien both voters and political actors are more attentive to one McConnell v. FEC, 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 793-94 (D.D.C. 2003) (discussing interest groups? belief ?that the perio 3 immediately preceding electionsiare the most effective times to run issue advertisements discussing pe ding legislation because the public? interest in policy is at its pea 40 This docume it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) to cease isSue advocacy following an election ?does not support the inference that the ads were the functibnal equivalent of electioneering.? WRT L, 551 US. at 473. 4. The Facts and Circumstances Test?s Reliance on Contextual Factors Is Questionable Some of the factors in the Service?s facts and circumstances test focus on the context in which communications are made rather than on the content of the cqmmunications themselves. Such co itilextual factors ?should seldom play a signi?cant role in the inquiry? into whether an advertis arlnent is the functional equivalent of express advocacy. Id. at 473-74. While the Service reviews communications for a different purpose than the FEC, both regulatory agencies review protected political communications that may be the equivalent of express advocacy for or against a political party or candidate for of?ce. \then an agency reviews a communication, it does not need to ?ignore basic background information that may be necessary to put an ad in context such as whether an ad ?describes a . legislative Issue that is either currently the subject of legislative scrutiny or likely to be the subject of such scrutiny in the near future.m Id. at 474 (quoting WRTL v. FEC, 466 F. Supp. 2d 195, 207 (1D.D.C. 2006)). However, the consideration of basic background information ?should not becomle an excuse for discovery or a broader inquiry of the sort . . . [that] raises First AmendrTeint concerns.? Id. Under that standard, several elements ofthe facts and circumstances test are questionable. irst, the facts and circumstances test asks whether the communication is part of an ongoing series of similar communications by the organization on the same issue.60 These factors fail to consider the content of the communication itself and rely instead upon an organization?s past course of conduct. To the extent these factors examine the organization?s subjective intent, I 6? Rev. RI 1. 2004-6 CIF Rev. Rul. 2007-41 Factor (6). 41 I This docume it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) they are conside by an es same cornmunication made by a newly-formed or broad-based advo classi?e track rec speaker circums organize purpose organize consequ and can commur See WR cannot Therefor circumsparlices 61 Rev. RI 62 In WRZ tactic. reelecti electior activitir This docume l'li V-H questionable, as discussed above. To the extent these factor ration, they are a questionable consideration of context. For tdblished, single-issue interest group might be classi?ed as i dlas campaign intervention activity, simply because the sing ,ances test. These factors are therefore questionable under tl lecond, the facts and circumstances test asks whether a parti these factors serve. Indeed, they would seem simply to disc tions from discussing national issues under debate. The mo rlitial policy and legislative issues generally involve matters itlates disagree; the fact that they may disagree on an issue 1 ication can have no bearing on whether that communication 551 US. at 470.62 The First Amendment embraces all is suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinen these factors are suspect under the First Amendment. inally, by its nature, the facts and circumstances test will co 0 the Service ?nds relevant. This is likely to include a i 11. 2004-6 CIF Rev. Rul. 2007?41 Factor (5). the organization?s issue-advocacy advertisements focused on the use The FEC argued that, because the organization and its associated PAC an and identi?ed ?libusters as a campaign issue, the issue advocacy corr eering communications. The Supreme Court rejected the argume :to be irrelevant. 42 tion has been raised as distinguishing candidates in a camparig examine any other example, a communication ssue advocacy while the :acy organization might be le-issue group would have a 0rd of communications regarding a speci?c issue. The ideritity of the speaker and that lpast conduct should have no bearing on a determination under the facts and First Amendment. :ular issue identi?ed by the It is not clear what ourage social welfare st important and upon which of?ceholders aised in an advocacy constitutes issue advocacy. sues; ?[d]iscussion of issues in an election.? Id. at 474. ?lSidCI' any facts and rariety of contextual or of ?libustering as a political id opposed one candidate?s munications were actually nt and found this overlap in it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) external considerations. The Supreme Court has established that regulations of political speech must focus on an objective inquiry into the content of the communications themselves. See Citizens United, 558 US. at 336. Because the Service?s facts and circumstances test incorp01 ates other contextual considerations, it is constitutionally suSpect under the First Amendment. 43 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) This docume v1. 1 organize 1 activitie its revie not soci ultimate Protest therefor informa1 2012. 11 that a sig welfare particulz I 2004?6 2 in the and fair vague in IONCLUSION Ltion in any one of three different ways. rly information that it itself requested. ii'rst, the Service could fairly and objectively apply the facts 5 of GPS during its ?rst taxable year ending May 31, 2011. leimonstrates (1) that the Service misclassi?ed at least 4.2% This is not a hard case. The Service could conclude that GPS quali?es as a social welfare and circumstances test to the The Adverse Letter limited wl to this period and concluded that 54.1% of activities, measured by dollars, were il?welfare activities. Although the facts and circumstances test does not lend itself to conclusions that are measured in tenths of a percent, GPS respectfully submits that this of activities and i(2) at least 50.1% of activities were social welfare alctivities. Recond, the Service could follow its own guidance and practice and analyze all of the ion it requested and received from GPS, which covers activities through April the Service tests all of activities from inception through April 2012, it will ?nd gnii?cant majority measured in dollars or in any other manner qualify as social activities. The Service should not refuse to consider inform?tion in its possession, inally, the Service could conclude that the facts and circumstances test of Rev. Rul. mid Rev. Rul. 2007-41 is unconstitutional. The facts and circumstances test is not found ade or even in Treasury Regulations and is signi?cantly more vague than the ?full exposition? test of the Treasury Regulation that was struck down as unconstitutionally I Rig Mama Rag, supra. Moreover, recent Supreme Court cases cast doubt on the constituTicinality of subjeCtive, multi-factor analyses like the facts ani circumstances test. "1 44 he Service should issue a favorable determination letter to GPS. 11 was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) This documer lilespectfully submitted this 8th of November, 2013. lt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp Jeffery L. Yablon Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pitt] 2300 Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: 202-663-8441 Facsimile: 202?663-8007 Tom Jose?ak Jason Torchinsky' Michael Bayes Vogel ose?ak PLL 45 North Hill Drive, Suite 100 Warrenton, VA 20186 Telephone: 540-341-8808 Facsimile: 540-341-8809 Alvin Dunn Stephen S. Asay Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittr 230.0 Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: 202-663-8000 Facsimile: 202-663-8007 45 nan LLP nan LLP hnsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) APPENDIX A: PENALTY OF PERJURY STATEMENT 46 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecretsorg) gt;ng of Periurv Statement I ider penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this protest statement, including acCompanying documents, and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the statement contains all the relevant facts,.and such facts 'are trite, correct,fand COanlete46% aw, PreSIdent of ssroads'GPS Dated 47 i This documeritiwas obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) i APPE DIX B: ANALYSIS OF TELEVISION ADVERTISE ENTS MISCLASSIFIED BY THE SERVICE A s?explained in this Protest, the primary point of contention between GPS and the Service is the Service?s misclassi?cation of 10 advertisements as carppaign intervention activities rather than issue advocacy communications. Combined, these advertisements account for $5,241,659.75 worth of misclassi?ed activities. This Appendix contains a detailed analysis of each Tdivertisement and explains why it is properly classi?ed as issue advocacy under the Service?: own guidance. The following are the 10 television advertisements at issue: I Title Exhibit Code? Associated Expenses ?Calendar? 402,160. 0 ?Thanks Harry/10b5,, Combined expenses: ?Thanks A Lot? TV-22 928539-37 ?Lawsuit? Combined expenses: ?Baby? .00 ?Debt Clock? -b 781,924.0 ?Hurting? 518,422.41 i ?wrong way? TV-06 Combinec expenses: ?Bad Sign? ?Worried? TV-07 63 The exh bit codes referenced in this table correspond to the codes used in response to the Service?s request for addiJio'nal information. These codes are also used to identify the television advertisements in the tables include Appendix (Tables of Television Advertisements Provided t3 the Service). 48 This docume ht was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) i Misclassi?ed AdvertiS?rent 1: ?Calenda Aired: 08/17/2010 to 08/23/2010 in Colorado Cost: 4 Overview f. record in failed sti Bennet 02,160.00 identi?ed lhe speci?c pieces of legislation referenced and referred to screen, viewer was urged to ?Tell Senator Bennet Stop the Spen 4594 Legislati i rial government spending programs as ?Michael Bennet?s s] all: (866) 455-9866.? vi: and/or Policy Context of Advertisement a Calendar? included a review of legislation for which Senator Slalendar? began with a review of incumbent Senator Michal ?scal matters. The advertisement informed viewers that Se millus,? ?billions in government pork,? and ?cash for clunke voted twice in 35 days to increase the national debt? limit. r? (TV-01) :1 Bennet?s recent voting nator Bennet supported ?the rs.? In addition, Senator )n screen, the advertisement this series of votes in favor bending spree.? The cut closed by telling viewers to ?Call Senator Bennet. Stoip the Spending.? On ding Vote No on S. Amdt. Bennet voted. This legislatianlauthorized both signi?cant government spending in response to the ?nancial crisis of 2009 and reference This docume increases to the debt limit from late 2009 through early 201 Senator Bennet?s votes in favor of: HR. 1 (02/13/2009), the stimulus bill; $1 billion ?cash for clunkers? program; 49 HR. 1105 (03/10/2009), the 2009 Omnibus Appropria HR. 2346 (06/18/2009), the supplemental war funding HR. 3435 (08/06/2009), the ?cash for clunkers? exten ht was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp 0. Speci?cally, ?Calendar? tions Act; a; bill, which included the sion; onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) . HR. 4314 (12/24/2009), to raise the federal debt limit by $290 billion; Res. 45 (01/28/2010), to raise the federal debt limit by $1.9 trillion; 0 HR. 4213 (03/10/2010), the extension of unemployment insurance; 0 HR. 2847 (03/ 17/2010), the $18 billion job-creation bill; and HR. 4899 (05/27/2010), the 2010 Supplemental Bill. qalendar? characterized this series of votes as a government ?spending spree? that amounted to $2.5 billion for every day that Senator Bennet had been t5 member of the Senate. 1 The advertisement educated viewers on Senator Bennet?s ?scal record and encouraged them to tell him to ?stop the spending.? This position was part of ?7 in ?11 National Action Plan,? which called for ?stop[ping] Congress? reckless waste of taxpayer Inc ney.? ?calendar? urged a ?no? vote on Senate Amendment 4594. Senate Amendment 4594 was introduced as a substitute amendment to House Bill 5297 (the ?Small Business and Credit Act of 20 110?). According to the Congressional Budget Of?ce, Senate Amendment 4594 would have increased the Fiscal Year 2011 de?cit by $85.38 billion and would have caused a net increase n! the de?cit over the next decade. House Bill 5297 was projected to increase the Fiscal Year 2011 de?cit by $10.1 billion and also cause a net increase in the de?cit over the next decade. At ihe time ?Calendar? aired, Senate Amendment 4594 was scheduled for a vote on the Senate ?oor on September 14, 2010 (which did occur). A ?no? vote on Senate Amendment 4594 was part Jt? an effort to reduce federal spending because the legislation was viewed as another stimulus Dill]. GPS hoped to engage Senator Bennet?s constituents in an effort to persuade Senator Bennet to vote ?no? on Senate Amendment 4594. 50 This docume it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) i of the Facts and Circumstances Test 1 Applicai 6? Calendar? was the ?rst television advertisement distributed drawn directly from announced legislative advocacy program Action Money,? I demonstl communications by the organization on the same issue.? the upcoining vote on Senate Amendment 4594. ?The timing of the with a sp in?uence ?Calende ?in a position to act on the public policy issue in connection with the legislatm \livho is eligible to vote on legislation).? constitue advertisement did not reference candidates opponem or electoral voting. 51 This docume lain?): (1) ?End the Bailout Culture;? (2) ?Stop Congress? (3) ?Aggressively Attack the National Debt.? Subsequc ated that ?Calendar? was ?part of an ongoing series of subst flendar? identi?ed ?Speci?c legislation . . . that the organiz such as a legislative vote?: the September 14, 2010, vote Calendar? identi?ed an incumbent Of?ceholder and was dist} nis in Colorado, some of whom were also voters in the upco campaigns, political partile Lit was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp by GPS. Its content was (the ?7 in ?11 National :ckless Waste of Taxpayer :nt advertising antially similar advocacy .ation h0pe[d] to in?uence?: communication coincide[d] elzi?c event outside the control of the organization that the organization h0pe[d] to Senate Amendment 4594. r? identi?ed Senator Bennet ?solely as a government of?cial,? and Senator Bennet was speci?c event (such as a 'ibuted to Senator Bennet?s ming election. The 5, elections, electoral onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) M_isclassi?ed Advertisement 2: ?Thanks Harr /Jobs? Aired: (+3l20/2010 to 09/09/2010 in Nevada Cost: 928,639.37 (with TV-22) Overviejw -: Tlianks Harry/Jobs? began with the statement that ?ObamaCare is bad for health care in America . . and worse for Nevada.? The advertisement then explair ed the assertion by reviewinF lthe methods that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used to secure the votes needed to pass tirel Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the Senate. The advertise ment then noted that Nevada continued to suffer from ?record foreclosures and the highest rate in the nation.? Next the advertisement informed the viewer that Senator Reid was ?still pushing for even more government control of your health care.? The advertisement closed with the following message: ?Really Harry, how about some help for Nevada? On screen, the viewer was urged to ?Tell Harry Reid Nevada Needs Jobs Not Governrr elm-Run Healthcare Call: 775-882-7343.? Legislative and/or Policy Context of Advertisement 0 Thanks Harry/Jobs? educated the Viewer about Senator Reid?s legislative priorities by contrastipgI the Senator?s efforts to pass the PPACA in the Senate with his lack of action on basic ?scal anc economic matters that directly impacted his constituents in Nevada. The advertise m'ent urged viewers to tell Senator Reid that they opposed his efforts to supplement the existing TPACA with the so-called ?public option.? Viewers were a so urged to tell Senator Reid to rec-focus his efforts in the Senate onjob creation and improving the Nevada economy. fliranks Harry/Jobs? re?ected judgment that ?Obamacare is bad for health care in America . . and worse for Nevada.? GPS explained this judgment by referencing deals that 52 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Senator Reid made with Senators from Nebraska, Louisiana, and Florida to obtain their votes in favor of tlie PPACA. GPS noted that Senator Reid did not demand or obtain special considethion for his home state of Nevada, even though he agreed to such deals for other states. Nevada was faced with the ?highest unemployment rate in the nation? 14.3% and ?record I foreclosr res Atthe time ?Thanks Harry/Jobs? aired, Senator Reid was pursuing additional government involvemeznt in health care. The advertisement?s reference to ?even more government control of your hea th care? was a reference to the ?public option,? a proposal to create a government-run health in ;u'rance company. Senator Reid was a strong proponent of the public option and was seeking p'portunities to advance the proposal in mid-2010. 1 Thanks Harry/J obs? encouraged viewers to call Senator Reid and urge him not to try to enact the p'ublic option. The advertisement ?irther urged viewers to tell Senator Reid to re-focus his legislatiive priorities because Nevada still had ?record foreclosures and the highest unemployrhent rate in the nation.? Applica 'on of the Facts and Cirgimstarlges Test ?f on Thanks Harry/Jobs? was one of the ?rst television advertisements distributed by GPS. The advertisement addressed two items in ?7 in ?11? agenda: ?Stop Congress? Reckless Waste of Taxpayer Money? and (2) ?Reform Health Care Responsibly, not Ideologically.? One of proposals was to end congressional earmarks, such as the deals Senator Rdid made to secure passage of the PPACA. The advertisement also opposed the public option; th is' was consistent with policy agenda, which called ?refocus[ing] on patient- centered adlicies that will lower costs and improve quality through technological innovations? rather government control over health care. Subsequent advertising in Nevada 53 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) and elsewhere demonstrated that ?Thanks Harry/Jobs? was ?part of Tin ongoing series of substant ally similar advocacy communications by the organization on the same issue.? ?Thanks Harry/Jobs? was directed to Senator Reid?s constitu ants in Nevada, some of whom were also voters in the upcoming election. The advertisement was aired barely three weeks after Senator Reid reiterated his support for ?more sweeping? health care legislation and the public Option at the Netroots Nation convention on July 24, 2010. In fact, ?Thanks Harry/Jobs? was a direct response to Senator Reid?s stated goal of working advance the public option. The advertisement urged viewers to contact Senator Reid and tell to abandon those legislative plans and instead focus his efforts on measures that would improve economic conditions in Nevada. i 54 i This documentiwas obtained and uploaded by the Center for Politics (OpenSecrets.org) . Advertisement 3: ?Thanks A Lot? (TV-22) Aired: 09/01/2010 to 09/10/2010 in Nevada Cost: 928,639.37 (with TV-02) 0vervie1w_? franks A Lot? addressed Senator Harry Reid?s support for, and role in securing passage of, the stirrliulus bill. The advertisement informed the viewer that the stimulus bill cost $814 billion, iicluding expenditures for ant studies; chairlifts and snowma king equipment in Vermont; and weatrier studies on Venus. The advertisement informed the viewer: ?Meanwhile, back in Nevada, wie still have the highest unemployment and record foreclosures.? The advertisement closed by asking, ?Really Harry, how about some help for Nevada?? Viewers were told to contact Senator Reid to tell him that ?Nevada needs jobs not more Spending. Vote No on S. Amdt. 4f 94 Call: 775-882-7343.? Legislativb and/or Policy Context of Adverti_semen_t Thanks A Lot? referenced HR. 1 (02/13/2009) the stimulus bill. The advertisement focused on Senator Reid?s support for the stimulus bill and the fact tl at the legislation had not improved the economic situation in Senator Reid?s home state of Nevada. The purpose of the advertisemlent was to educate viewers on the failure of the 2009 stimulus to improve economic conditior s, as a basis for urging opposition to a new legislative proposal that was regarded as another stimulus measure. Fhanks A Lot? urged a ?no? vote on Senate Amendment 4594. Senate Amendment 4594 was i?ntroduced'as a substitute amendment to House Bill 5297 he ?Small Business and Credit Act of 2010?). According to the Congressional Budget Of?ce Senate Amendment 45 94 would have increased the Fiscal Year 2011 de?cit by $85.38 billion and would have caused a net 55 This docume it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) 1 increase in the de?cit over the next decade. House Bill 5297 was projected to increase the Fiscal Year 20] 1? de?cit by $10.1 billion and also cause a net increase in the de?cit over the next decade. A 'the time ?Thanks A Lot? aired, Senate Amendment 4594 was scheduled for a vote on the Senai el?oor on September 14, 2010 (which did occur). A ?no? vote on Senate Amendment 4594 rep reisented an effort to reduce wasteful and ineffective federal spending because the legislaticn?was generally viewed as another stimulus bill. GPS hoped to engage Senator Reid?s constituenis in an effort to persuade Senator Reid to vote ?no? on Senate Amendment 45 94. Application of the Facts and Circumstances Test The content of ?Thanks A Lot? was based on ?7 in ?11? agenda: (1) ?End the Bailout (,iilturef? (2) ?Stop Congress? Reckless Waste of Taxpayer Money;? and (3) ?Aggressively Attack the National Debt.? The advertisement was ?part of an ongoing series of substanti illy similar advocacy communications by the organization or the same issue.? ?Thanks A Lot? identi?ed ?speci?c legislation . . . that the organization hope[d] to in?uence?i the upcoming vote on Senate Amendment 4594. ?The timing of the communication coincide[dil with a speci?c event outside the control of the organization that the organization hope[d] t3 Iin?uence, such as a legislative vote?: the September 14, 2010, vote on Senate Amendmient 4594. ?Thanks A Lot? identi?ed Senator Reid ?solely as a government official,? and Sena 0 Reid was ?in a position to act on the public policy issue in connection with the speci?c event (such as a legislator who is eligible to vote on legislatic Th'anks A Lot? identi?ed an incumbent Of?ceholder and was distributed to Senator Reid?s copstituents in Nevada, some of whom were also voters in the upcoming election. The advertisement did not reference candidates, campaigns, political parties, elections, electoral 56 This documeliit was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) opponerds, or electoral voting. Its discussion of Senator Reid?s prior support of the stimulus, and its failure to improve economic conditions in Nevada, helped support the advertisement?s urging of a ?no? vote on yet another stimulus measure soon to be considered by Senator Reid. 57 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Misclassi?ed Advertisement 4: ?Lawsuit? (TV-03) Aired: 08%20/2010 to 09/09/2010 in Missouri Cost: 1,093,723.00 (with TV-27) Overvieil; Lawsuit? focused on Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carr ahan?s support for the i Patient Pr tection and Affordable Care Act and her refusal to support a lawsuit brought bj Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder challenging the implementation of the PPACA Missouri. ?Lawsuit? discussed Missouri?s Proposition oallot measure on August 3, 2010; 71 1% of Missouri voters had approved the measure, which wc uld bar implementation of the ?indi Vi?dual mandate? in Missouri. The advertisement educated the viewer on provisions of the PPACA and urged viewers to ?Tell Camahan to get in touch with Missourians . . . and support me health care challenge.? On screen, the viewer was urged to ?Tell Robin Carnahan Get in to idh with Missourians Support the health care challenge Call (5 73) 751-4936.? Legislative and/or Policy Context of Advertisement Ir May of 20 1 0, the Missouri legislature approved legislation that would bar the federal governm :nt from requiring Missourians to purchase health care insurance and prohibit the federal ghvernment from punishing those who did not do so a rejection of the ?individual mandate. The legislation was made a ballot measure Proposition so that voters could directly approve or reject the legislation. Vatliing ?yes? on Proposition would have approved the amen dment of state law to deny the federal government?s authority to ?penalize citizens for re?ising to purchase private health insurance dr infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare 58 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Politics (OpenSecrets.org) i I A ?no? vote on Proposition would have rejected that pr< I round the same time, various states and state of?cials had services. 71.1% oters cast ?yes? ballots. A validity pi various provisions of the PPACA. Missouri Lieutenant lawsuit the .11 states joi health fled this lawsuit. i and seem I efforts in 1+1 Applica+on of the Facts and Circumstances Test explained Secretary of State Carnahan?s position on the PPACA and Lieutena+1Governor Kinder?s lawsuit. ?Lawsuit? encouraged the vi State Carri han and tell her to support the lawsuit. The Secretary of support ft consistenf pending lla+vsuit by Lieutenant Governor Kinder against the PPACA. communi organizat hope[d] to in?uence?: state-wide support for challenges identi?ed 1 59 This documer Kinder v. Geithner challenging the PPACA on July 7, 201 A violated the Missouri constitution, that Missourians woul and that Missouri would be subjected to an unfunded mat the summer of 2010, substantial efforts were made by a var ei the widest possible support for challenges to the PPACA a issouri, as well as similar efforts in Kentucky, were part Jawsuit? educated viewers on certain provisions of the ith the recently-expressed views of 71.1% of the state?s .a?wsuit? identi?ed ?a speci?c event . . . that the organization twas obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp )posal. On August 3, 2010, led lawsuits challenging the avemor Peter Kinder ?led a 0. The lawsuit alleged that suffer reduced access to idate. In July of2011, 21 iety of actors to encourage tthe state level. this larger effort. 3A. The advertisement er lack of support for er to contact Secretary of ate could have offered her 31:1115 lawsuit at the time the advertisement was aired, and action would have been oters. hope[d] to in?uence?: the ?The timing of the cation coincide[d] with a speci?c event outside the control of the organization that the to the PPACA. ?Lawsuit? Secretary of State Carnahan ?solely as a government of?cial,? and Secretary of State bnsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Carnahan was ?in a position to act on the public policy issue in connection with the speci?c event.? ?Lawsuit? identi?ed an incumbent Officeholder and was distributed to Secretary of State 3 Carnahap constituents in Missouri, some of whom were also voters in the upcoming election. The advqirtisement did not reference candidates, campaigns, political parties, elections, electoral opponen .s, or electoral voting. 60 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Miselassi?ed Advertisement 5: ?Babv? Aired: 0 to 09/10/2010 in Missouri Cost: 1 093,723.00 (with TV-03) Overvrevg 0 ?Baby? focused on Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan?s support for the Patient Protectioi?i and Affordable Care Act and her refusal to support a lawsuit brought by Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder challenging the implementation of the PPACA in Missouri l?Baby? focused on the negative consequences of the PPACA, including increased premiums kind cuts to Medicare spending. The advertisement educated the viewer on provisions of the and urged viewers to ?Tell Carnahan: Start ?ghting for Missouri, Fight against Obamaczre.? On screen, the viewer was urged to ?Tell Robin Carnahan Start ?ghting for Missouri lSupport the Lieutenant Governor?s challenge Call: (573) 751-4936.? Legislat' and/or Policy Context of Advertisement Ir May of 2010, the Missouri legislature approved legislation that would bar the federal government from reduiring Missourians to purchase health care insurance and prohibit the federal )vernment from punishing those who did not do so a rejection of the ?individual mandate. The legislation was made a ballot measure Proposition so that voters could directly approve or reject the legislation. Voting ?yes? on Proposition would have approved the amendment of state law to deny the federal?government?s authority to ?penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services.? A ?no? vote on Proposition would have rejected that proposal. On August 3, 2010, 71.1% of vpters cast ?yes? ballots. 61 This docume it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) I A i validity ofl various provisions of the PPACA. Missouri Lieutenant lawsuit Kinder v. Geithner challenging the PPACA on July 7, 20 the health ca states joined this lawsuit. and secure? the widest possible support for challenges to the PPACA efforts ir :iim of the Facts and Circumstances Test Applica (t explainei Secretary of State Camahan?s position on the PPACA and Lieutenan Governor Kinder?s lawsuit. ?Baby? encouraged the View State Ca nahan and tell her to support the lawsuit. The Secretary of support for this lawsuit at the time the advertisement was aired, and consister pending communication coincide[d] with a speci?c event outside the control organizazion hope[d] to in?uence?: state-wide support for challenge identi?ed Secretary of State Carnahan ?solely as a government of?ci Camahan ?in a position to act on the public policy issue in come event.? 62 This docume iriiund the same time, various states and state of?cials had at 3% violated the Missouri constitution, that Missourians wou mas, and that Missouri would be subjected to an unfunded ma, '1 ihe summer of 2010, substantial efforts were made by a va Baby? educated viewers on certain provisions of the PPACA tlwith the recently-expressed views of 71.1% of the state?s Baby? identi?ed ?a speci?c event . . . that the organization lawsuit by Lieutenant Governor Kinder against the PPACA. ht was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp led lawsuits challenging the vemor Peter Kinder ?led a The lawsuit alleged that ld suffer reduced access to ndate. In July of2011, 21 riety of actors to encourage it the state level. livlissouri, as well as similar efforts in Kentucky, were part (of this larger effort. 1. The advertisement her lack of support for er to contact Secretary of State could have offered her uch action would have been Voters. ope[d] to in?uence?: the ?The timing of the of the organization that the s. to the PPACA. ?Baby? ill,? and Secretary of State action with the speci?c onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) ?Baby? identi?ed an incumbent Of?ceholder and was distributed to Secretary of State 5 Camahan constituents in Missouri, some of whom were also voters in the upcoming election. The advertisement did not reference candidates, campaigns, political parties, elections, electoral opponen s, or electoral voting. 63 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) This docume Aired: 0 Cost: 7 Overvievg ?C?l Clock? f1 bill?s tote the stim Misclassi?ed Advertisement 6: ?Debt Clocl_(? 3/24/2010 to 09/06/2010 in Colorado 31,924.00 )ifbt Clock? addressed Senator Michael Bennet?s voting rec national liebt. The advertisement noted that Senator Bennet had said nothing Bennet tc Stop the Spending Vote No on S. Amdt. 4594 Call: (866) 455-986 Legislative and/or Policv Context of Adverti_sement reference votes on 1 every day viewers spending 9, ?stop[pinig] Congress? reckless waste of taxpayer money.? a. was intro Act of 20 )ebt Clock? urged a ?no? vote on Senate Amendment 4594. According to the Congressional Budget Of?ce, Senat 64 )cused on Senator Bennet?s vote in favor of the stimulus bill ll icost and some of its wasteful spending. The advertisemen lus bill did not reduce unemployment or bankruptcies; rathe I I lshow for [the stimulus bill].? The advertisement closed by i stop the spending spree.? On screen, the viewer was urged Debt Clock? reviewed ?scal legislation for which Senator B: HR. 1 (02/13/2009) the stimulus bill. ?Debt Clock? cha ?scal legislation as a government ?spending spree? that amo that Senator Bennet had been a member of the Senate. The This position was part of ?7 in ?11 National Actior dl:1ced as a substitute amendment to House Bill 5297 (the ht was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp 3rd on ?scal matters. ?Debt and noted the stimulus informed the viewer that r, the bill had increased the ?in my view we have telling the viewer to ?Tell to ?Tell Senator Bennet/ 3. ,3 :nnet voted, and it racterized Senator Bennet?s unted to $2.5 billion for advertisement educated 11: Senator Bennet?s ?scal record and encouraged them to tell! him to ?stop the 1 Plan,? which called for Senate Amendment 4594 mall Business and Credit 13 Amendment 4594 would onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) have increased the Fiscal Year 2011 de?cit by $85.38 billion and would have caused a net increase i? the de?cit over the next decade. House Bill 5297 was pr ajected to increase the Fiscal Year 2011 de?cit by $10.1 billion and also cause a net increase in the de?cit over the next decade. Ai the time ?Debt Clock? aired, Senate Amendment 4594 was scheduled for a vote on the Senate o'or on September 14, 2010 (which did occur). A ?no? vote on Senate Amendment 45 94 was part calf an effort to reduce wasteful and ineffective federal spending because the legislation was viewed as another stimulus bill. GPS hoped to engage Senator Bennet?s constituents in an effort to persuade Senator Bennet to vote ?no? on Senate Amendment 4594. By citing Senator Bennet?s dawn negative assessment of the impact of the earlier stimu 3, GPS hoped to convince both viewiers and the Senator that yet another stimulus would yield same unhelpful result. Applica tibn of the Facts and Circumstances Test ThIe content of ?Debt Clock? was based on ?7 in ?11? agenda: (1) ?End the Bailout (Stillturef? (2) ?Stop Congress? Reckless Waste of Taxpayer Money;? and (3) ?Aggres sively Attack the National Debt.? The advertisement was ?part of an ongoing series of substantTally similar advocacy communications by the organization cn the same issue.? ?Dlebt Clock? identi?ed ?speci?c legislation . . . that the organization hope[d] to in?uence?: the upcoming vote on Senate Amendment 4594. ?The timing of the communication coincide with a speci?c event outside the control of the organization that the organization hepe[d] toi in?uence, such as a legislative vote?: the September 14, 2010, vote on Senate Amendrr e'nt 4594. ?Debt Clock? identi?ed Senator Bennet ?solely as a government of?cial,? and Senatdr Bennet was ?in a position to act on the public policy issue in connection with the speci?c 0 ?ent (such as a legislator who is eligible to vote on legislation)? 65 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) ?Debt Clock? identi?ed an incumbent Of?ceholder and was distributed to Senator Bennet?s constituents in Colorado, some of whom were also voters in the upcoming election. The adv :rtisement did not reference candidates, campaigns, political parties, elections, electoral opponerTs, or electoral voting. 66 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Esclassi?ed Advertisement 7: ?Hurtin Aired: to 09/03/2010 in Cost: 518,422.41 Overview; Hurting? addressed provisions of the Patient Protection and Representative Joe Sestak voted in favor of the House?s version of th these cutsito Medicare. ?Hurting? addressed the consequences of the contact Representative Sestak and tell him to ?stop the Medicare cuts Legislative and/or Policy Context of Advertisement A 2009 report had found that Medicare cuts were likely to pr: and nurs (TV-05) Affordable Care Act AP that would out $500 billion in projected Medicare over the next decade. PPACA, which contained se cuts and urged viewers to 5! we so costly to hospitals mg homes that they could stop taking Medicare patients altogether. The Kaiser Family Foundatioip had reported that 850,000 Medicare Advantage enrollees could be forced froin the program. Tihe actual impact of the PPACA was not entirely clear when of the PI 1 onerous, area of of?cials Application of the Facts and Circumstances Test that were its ?7 in 67 ACA had tried to repeal some or all of the bill, amend provi and de?md the legislation, and a number of changes had be: ariticular focus was the cuts to Medicare spending. GPS hop across the political spectrum to ?stop? this particular provisi Hurting? called on an incumbent Of?ceholder to take steps tc 111? agenda: ?Reform[ing] Health Care Responsibly, not Id it was enacted. Opponents sions deemed especially :n made to the law. One ed to encourage public on. 3 ?stop the Medicare cuts? signi?cant part of the PPACA. This ?irthered one of stated goals contained in eologically.? This policy This docume it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) goal inciu ed ?call[ing] a ?time-out? on implementing Obamacare to protect seniors? and families health.? Protecting the health of seniors was directly related to stopping cuts to Medicare spending. urting? identi?ed ?speci?c legislation . . . that the organization hope[d] to in?uence?: the PPA 3 and its provisions cutting Medicare spending. ?The tim' of the communication coincide[ with a speci?c event outside the control of the organizat on that the organization hope[d] :ol in?uence?: ongoing efforts by opponents of the stop implementation of the Med care cuts. ?Hurting? identi?ed Representative Sestak ?solely as a government of?cial,? and Rep-'e entative Sestak was ?in a position to act on the public policy issue in connection with the spec event (such as a legislator who is eligible to vote on legis lation).? ?Hurting? identi?ed an incumbent Of?ceholder and was distr buted to Representative Sestak?s constituents in some of whom were also vote '8 in the upcoming election. The advertisement did not reference candidates, campaigns, political parties, elections, electoral opponents, or electoral voting. i 68 This docume ht was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Misclassi?ed Adverthement 8: ?Wrong av? (TV-06) Aired: (8(24/2010 to 09/05/2010 in Kentucky Cost: 526,790.97 (with Overvidw; (I rong Way? focused on Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway?s refusal ?to join 13 other att Dmeys general? in a lawsuit challenging certain provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care and Act The advertisement educated tie viewer on provisions of the PPA including higher taxes, Medicare cuts, and higher premirims. ?Wrong Way? told the view er that the PPACA and Attorney General Conway were ?taking Kentucky?s health care down the mug road. The advertisement urged the viewer to contact Attorney General Conway and tell +irn to ?turn around? and ?stop defending Obamacare and pr atect Kentucky from the federal insurance mandate.? On screen, the advertisement included the Attorney General?s phone i ber so that viewers could contact his of?ce. _L_egi_slat ve and/or Policy Context of Advertisement oilowing the enactment of the PPACA, 13 state attorneys general ?led lawsuits challenging various provisions of the law. Florida?s Attorney General was the lead plaintiff in one lawsuit (?led March 23, 2010) and was joined by the Attorneys General of South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Washington, Idaho, ar South Dakota. Virginia?s Attorney General ?led a separa1e lawsuit on the same day. Subsequently, a number of other states joined the Florida lawsuit: North Dakota, Arizona, Georgia, Alaska, Nevada, Indiana, and Mississippi. During this period, there were extensive efforts to broaden the legal opposition to the PPACA in as many states as possible. Attorney General Conway was in a position to act on behalf of the Commonwealth of Kentucky 69 This documeliit was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) and join the lawsuits challenging provisions of the PPACA. After ?Wrong Way? aired, several addition aL states joined the Florida lawsuit: Wisconsin, Wyoming, Ohio, Kansas, and Maine. Applic i, of the Facts and Circurms_t:_mces Test Wrong Way? educated the viewer about certain provisions of the PPACA and explained Attomey General Conway?s position on the PPACA and his lack of support for the state lawsuits challenging the law to date. The advertisement urged the viewer to contact Attorney General Conway and tell him to join the lawsuits challenging the PPACA. ?liS communication was in furtherance of stated goals contained in its ?7 in ?11? agenda: ?Reform[ing] Health Care I Responsibily, not Ideologically.? (I Wrong Way? identi?ed ?speci?c legislation . . . that the organization hope[d] to in?uenc ii: the PPACA. ?The timing of the communication coincide[d] with a speci?c event outside the control of the organization that the organization hope[d] tio in?uence?: pending lawsuits brought by many state attorneys general challenging provisions of the PPACA. ?Wrong Way? id :nti?ed Attorney General Conway ?solely as a government of?cial,? and Attorney General Sbnway was ?in a position to act on the public policy issue connection with the speci?c Went.? Wrong Way? identi?ed an incumbent Of?ceholder and was distributed to Attorney (C General Conway?s constituents in Kentucky, some of whom were also voters in the upcoming election. The advertisement did not reference candidates, campaigns political parties, elections, electoral opponents, or electoral voting. 70 This documeliit was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Misclassi?ed Advertisement 9: ?Bad Siefg? Aired: 8/31/2010 to 09/06/2010 in Kentucky 1 I Cost: . 25,790.97 (with TV-06) Overvie a: Bl ad Sign? focused on Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway?s refusal ?to join 13 other att Affordal effects 0 omeys general? in a lawsuit challenging certain provisions 0 ?le Care and Act The advertisement educated the PPACA, including higher taxes, Medicare cuts, higher the Patient Protection and he viewer on negative premiums, and reduced bene?ts lfc'ln seniors. ?Wrong Way? urged the viewer to contact Attorney General Conway and tell him to ??ght the insurance mandate? and ??ght Obamacare.? on screen, the advertisement included the Attorney General?s phone number so that viewers could contact his of?ce. i Legislative and/or Policy Context of Advertisement ollowing the enactment of the PPACA, 13 state attorneys ge i ng various provisions of the law. Florida?s Attorney General was the lead plaintiff in ?Ti neral ?led lawsuits chaHeng one lawsuit (?led March 23, 2010) and was joined by the Attorneys General of South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Washington, Idaho, ar til South Dakota. Virginia?s Attorney General ?led a separa1 ubsequently, a number of other states joined the Florida law: :e lawsuit on the same day. Cl) :uit: North Dakota, Arizona, Georgia, Alaska, Nevada, Indiana, and Mississippi. During this period, there were extensive efforts to broaden the legal opposition to the PPACA in as many states as possible. General Conway was in a position to act on behalf of the Cc hle lawsuits challenging provisions of the PPACA. After ?Bfad Sign? aired, several Attorney immonwealth of Kentucky and join 1 statesjoined the Florida lawsuit: Wisconsin, Wyoming, 0] addition? 'liO, Kansas, and Maine. 71 This documerlt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Applic Attornej chaneng and tell the PPA control if the organization that the organization hope[d] to in?uence by man} Attorney ?napm Conway The adv opponents; or electoral voting. . tion of the Facts and Circumstances Test 'Blad Sign? educated the viewer about certain provisions of I General Conway?s position on the PPACA and his lack of irig the law. The advertisement urged the viewer to contact him to join the lawsuits challenging the PPACA. glad Sign? identi?ed ?speci?c legislation . . . that the organi CA. ?The timing of the communication coincide[d] with a dpeci?c event outside the state attorneys general challenging provisions of the PPACJ General Conway ?solely as a government of?cial,? and A itlion to act on the public policy issue in connection with the Bad Sign? identi?ed an incumbent Of?ceholder and was dis '5 constituents in Kentucky, some of whom were also voters :rtisement did not reference candidates, campaigns, political i 72 he PPACA and explained support for the state lawsuits Attorney General Conway zation hope[d] to in?uence?: pending lawsuits brought A. ?Bad Sign? identi?ed ttforney General Conway was speci?c event.? tributed to Attorney General in the upcoming election. parties, elections, electoral This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Misclassi?ed Advertisemeri 10: ?Worried? (TV-07) Aired: mil/250010 to 09/02/2010 in California Worried? addressed provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that would cut $500 billion in projected Medicare spending over the next decade. Senator Barbara Boxer voted in favor of the Senate?s version of the PPACA which contained these cu to Medicare and also voted to table a proposed amendment that would have restored the fun rig. ?Worried? addressed the consequences of these cuts and urged viewers to contact Senator 'oxer and tell her to ?stop the Medicare cuts.? Legisla vie and/or Policy Context of Advertisement I A 2009 report had found that Medicare cuts were likely to pr ave so costly to hospitals and nursfn'g homes that they could stop taking Medicare patients altogether. The impact of the PPACA was not entirely clear when it was enacted. Opponents of tire PPACA had tried to repeal some or a of the bill, amend provisions deemed eSpecially onerous, and defund the legislation, and a nu Tiber of changes had been made to the law. One area of particular focus was the cuts to Medicare ?spending. GPS hoped to encourage public of?cials across the political spectrum to ?stop? this particular provision. Applicat ion of the Facts and Circumstances Test Worried? called on an incumbent Of?ceholder to take steps to ?stop the Medicare cuts? that were a part of the PPACA. This furthered one of stated gJals contained in its ?7 in ?11? ageida: ?reform[ing] health care responsibly, not ideologically.? This policy goal included I 73 This document'was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Politics (OpenSecrets.org) ?call[ing;] ?a ?time-out? on implementing Obamacare to protect seniors? and families? health.? Protecti the health of seniors was directly related to stopping cuts to Medicare spending. 0 Worried? identi?ed ?speci?c legislation . . . that the organization hope[d] to in?uence?: the PPA and its provisions cutting Medicare spending. ?The timing of the communication coincide[ci] with a speci?c event outside the control of the organization that the organization hope[d] to in?uence?: ongoing efforts by opponents of the stop implementation of the Med dare cuts. ?Worried? identi?ed Senator Boxer ?solely as a government of?cial,? and Senator xer was ?in a position to act on the public policy issue in :onnection with the speci?c event (suck as a legislator who is eligible to vote on legislation).? ?\Iorried? identi?ed an incumbent Of?ceholder and was distributed to Senator Boxer?s constitue in California, some of whom were also voters in the upcoming election. The advertise nlient did not reference candidates, campaigns, political part es, elections, electoral opponents} or electoral voting. 1 74 i This documeliit' was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) APPENDIX C: TABLES OF TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENTS PROVIDED TO THE SERVICE Television Advertisement Table A: Issue Advocacy and Social Welfare Advertisements 75 Each of the advertisements below (1) identi?es an incumbent Of?ceholder, (2) addresses a current policy or legislative matter, (3) is addressed to the incumbent?s constituents, and (4) urges viewers/constituents to contact the identi?ed incumbent with respect to the policy or legislative matter for the purpose of encouraging the identi?ed incumbent to take a particular position or action with respect to the matter. Not one of the advertisements below (1) refers to any election, campaign, opposing candidate, political party, or electoral voting; (2) advocates the election or defeat of any candidate; (3) comments on the identi?ed of?ceholder?s character, quali?cations, or ?tness for of?ce; or (4) encourages viewers to take any action in connection with any campaign or election. Title Period of Part of Exhibit Availability Geographic Area of Distribution Ongoing Series Legislation, Policy, or Event Reasons for Classi?cation Total Associated Expenses Code Calendar 08/17/2010 08/23/2010 Colorado Yes - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - debt limit increases (HR. 4314, Res. 45) - Identi?es Michael Bennet; Bennet is an incumbent US. Senator - Reviews Bennet?s ?scal voting record as a US. Senator, including his votes in favor of the ?stimulus bill,? increasing the debt limit, and the ?cash for clunkers? program - Tells viewers to contact Bennet to tell him to ?stop the spending? and ?Vote No on S. Amdt. 4594? 402,160.00 TV-0 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) - tax increases - S. Amdt. 4594 (small business credit and tax relief) - S. Amdt. 4594 was pending legislation that Bennet was in a position to vote on and in?uence Thanks Harry Jobs 08/20/2010 09/09/2010 Nevada Yes - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Identi?es Harry Reid; Reid is an incumbent US. Senator and Senate Majority Leader Combined cost of and TV-22: TV-02 Act - Reviews Reid?s legislative record in securing necessary votes in the US. Senate to pass the PPACA _n LL - alum-DALI 928,639.37 . 1111\111110 LllU YIUWUI uqu 1\\a1u 76 offered special deals to Senators from other states in exchange for their support for PPACA, but that Nevada received no such special deal and suffers from the nation?s highest unemployment rate and record home foreclosures - Tells viewers to contact Reid to tell him to focus on jobs for Nevada instead of ?government-run healthcare? - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact Reid Thanks A Lot 09/01/2010 - 09/10/2010 Nevada Yes - Identi?es Harry Reid; Reid is an incumbent US. Senator and Senate Majority Leader - Reviews Reid?s legislative record ?spearhead[ing] the stimulus- spending bill? Informs the viewer that the stimulus bill Reid supported contained a variety of special See above This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) spending projecrs for States ether than Nevada, and Nevada still suffers from the nation?s highest unemployment rate and record home foreclosures - Tells viewers to contact Reid to tell him to stop supporting more government spending, focus on creating jobs for Nevada, and ?vote no on S. Amdt. 4594? - S. Amdt. 4594 was pending legislation that Reid was in a position to vote on and in?uence ?n I .C flUVluUD 77 viewers to call to contact Reid Lawsuit 08/20/2010 09/09/2010 Missouri Yes - PPACA - Litigation challenging PPACA (Kinder v. Geithner) - Identi?es Robin Carnahan; Carnahan was the incumbent Missouri Secretary of State - Discusses Carnahan?s expressed support for PPACA, and the results of Missouri?s ?Proposition which was a Missouri ballot measure voted on in August 2010; 71% of voters approved of the measure, which purported to bar the federal government from applying individual mandate penalties to Missourians - Informs viewer that Missouri?s Lieutenant Governor is involved in a lawsuit challenging PPACA - Tells the Viewer to contact Carnahan and tell her to ?support the health care challenge? The Missouri Lieutenant Govemor?s lawsuit against PPACA Combined cost of TV-03 and 1,093,723.00 TV-03 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) was penamg and ongoing at the time the ad was distributed; 20 states subsequently supported the Missouri lawsuit - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact Carnahan Baby 09/01/2010 09/10/2010 Missouri Yes - PPACA - Litigation challenging - Identi?es Robin Carnahan; Carnahan was the incumbent Missouri Secretary of State - Discusses Carnahan?s expressed See above TV-27 PPACA support for PPACA - Informs viewer that Missouri?s Lieutenant Governor is involved in a lutunr?f plan? r?nn- DDA A luvv a nu: 78 - Tells the v1ewer to contact Carnahan and tell her to ??ght against Obamacare? and ?support the Lieutenant Governor?s challenger? - The Missouri Lieutenant Governor?s lawsuit against PPACA was pending and ongoing at the time the ad was distributed; 20 states subsequently supported the Missouri lawsuit - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact Carnahan Debt Clock 08/24/2010 09/06/2010 Colorado Yes - ARRA - unemployment - national debt - Identi?es Michael Bennet; Bennet is an incumbent US. Senator - Reviews Bennet?s ?scal voting record as a member of the US. Senate, including his vote in favor of the ?stimulus bill? - Tells viewers to contact Bennet to ?tell him to stop the spending spree? and ?vote no on S. Amdt. 781,924.00 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) 4374 - S. Amdt. 4594 was pending legislation that Bennet was in a position to vote on and in?uence - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact Bennet Hurting 08/24/2010 - 09/03/2010 Yes - PPACA - Medicare - Identi?es Joe Sestak; Sestak is an incumbent member of the US. House of Representatives Discusses Sestak?s vote in favor 518,422.41 of PPACA, and provisions contained in that legislation, including a provision that cuts $500 11- 1 I It I. UllIlUll IVICUILGIU 79 - Tells viewers to contact Sestak and tell him to ?stop the Medicare cuts? - Legislative efforts to eliminate provisions of PPACA, including its cuts to Medicare spending, were ongoing at the time the ad was distributed - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact Sestak Wrong Way 08/24/2010 09/05/2010 Kentucky Yes. Ads in Mo., Ky., and Ohio urging officials to support lawsuits against PPACA. PPACA - Medicare - State lawsuits challenging PPACA - Identi?es Jack Conway; Conway is the incumbent Attorney General of Kentucky - Asserts that ?Obamacare is taking health care in the wrong direction? - Informs viewer that Conway endorsed PPACA and refused to join 13 other state attorneys general in a lawsuit challenging PPACA - Explains negative effects of incumbent?s failure to join lawsuit against PPACA Combined TV-06 cost of TV-06 and TV-17: 526,790.97 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) - Urges v1ewers to contact Conway to tell him to ?stop defending Obamacare and protect Kentucky from the federal insurance mandate? - The lawsuit brought by other state attorneys general was pending at the time this ad was distributed, and Conway could have joined that lawsuit on behalf of Kentucky at any time - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact Conway Bad Sign 08/51/2010 KCDTUCKV Yes - - ldenuues JacK Lonway; Lonway bee above lV-l/ 80 09/06/2010 - Medicare - State lawsuits challenging PPACA is the incumbent Attorney General of Kentucky - Asserts that ?Obamacare is the wrong way for Kentucky? - Explains the negative effects of PPACA - Urges viewers to ?Tell Jack Conway Fight the insurance mandate? - Call to action refers to Conway?s refusal to join 13 other state attorneys general in a lawsuit challenging PPACA - The lawsuit brought by other state attorneys general was pending at the time this ad was distributed, and Conway could have joined that lawsuit on behalf of Kentucky at any time - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact Conway Worried 08/25/2010 - California Yes. Ads in - PPACA - Identi?es Barbara Boxer; Boxer is 990,000.00 TV-07 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) 09/02/2010 multiple states urging Congress to protect Medicare from spending cuts. - Medicare an incumbent member of the US. Senate Discusses Boxer?s vote in favor of PPACA, and provisions contained in that legislation, including a provision that cuts $500 billion from Medicare spending - Tells viewers to contact Boxer and tell her to ?stop the Medicare cuts? - Legislative efforts to eliminate provisions of PPACA, including its cuts to Medicare spending, were 81 - . 1- .1 1 (ll UIC 1.11115 luC GU was distributed A - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact Boxer 03/09/201 1 National No 03/16/2011 The System - Reform of government employee unions - Identi?es President Obama - Informs viewers of the practice by which the mandatory dues of unionized government employees are spent to support pro-union politicians who, in turn, protect a system in which unionized government employees are paid considerably more than their non- unionized counterparts - Tells viewers to ?Tell President Obama: You?ve had enoug and ?Call on him to support government union reform? 778,803.58 TV-37 Yes (?No More Blank Checks? series)64 06/23/2011 - National 07/08/201 1 Shovel Ready -ARRA - second stimulus package - Identi?es President Obama - Reviews current economic indicators and ?gures (unemployment, national debt, gasoline prices) 3,224,331.24 TV-3 8 This documert was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) (American Jobs Act) - Tells the Viewer that ?Ubama?s $830 billion stimulus failed? and that now ?America [is] drowning in debt? - Tells viewer that ?It?s time to take away Obama?s blank check,? and 64 The ?No More Blank Checks? series aired during a period in which Congress and President Obama were considering a second package of economic stimulus in various advertisements as President Obama?s ?blank check.? legislation. GPS referred to this $450 billion American Jobs Act viewer is urged to ?Tell Congress: No More Blank Checks? - Provides phone number for ef? J. 1. .. .- VIUWUL 1U 82 - Distributed at time when Congress and the President were considering the AJA Thread 07/27/201 1 08/03/201 1 National Yes (?No More Blank Checks? series) -ARRA - AJA - Identi?es President Obama - Reviews current economic indicators and ?gures (unemployment, national debt, gasoline prices) - Tells viewer that ?It?s time to take away Obama?s blank check? - Urges viewer to visit Crossroads GPS website at NoMoreBlankChecks.com to ?take action? At this website, viewers can learn about President Obama?s ?scal record - Website provides the viewer with assistance to contact elected of?cials by phone or email - Distributed at time when Congress and the President were 1,993,048.99 TV-39 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) considering the AJA Hard To Sleep 07/08/201 1 07/22/201 1 National Yes (?No More Blank Checks? series) -ARRA - AJA - Identi?es President Obama - Reviews current economic indicators and ?gures (unemployment, national debt), and questions President Obama?s proposal to ?spend even more and raise taxes? - Tells viewer: ?We?ve gotta take away Obama?s blank check? Combined costs of TV- 40 TV-42: 72,851.86 TV-40 TV- 42 were on the same invoices as TV-40 - Urges viewer to visit Crossroads GPS website at NoMoreBlankChecks.com to ?take TV-43 - TV- 47 anLiunA L. 3? 83 - At this website, viewers can learn about President Obama?s ?scal record - Website provides the viewer with assistance to contact elected of?cials by phone or email - Distributed at time when Congress and the President Were considering the AJA costs of TV- 40 TV-47: 5,043,220.42 Wake Up 07/08/2011 07/22/201 1 National Yes (?No More Blank Checks? series) - Identi?es President Obama - Reviews current economic indicators and ?gures (unemployment, national debt), and questions President Obama?s proposal to ?raise taxes and keep spending more? - Asks: ?Doesn?t Washington know we can?t afford more taxes and debt?? - Tells viewer: ?There?s gotta be a way to take away Obama?s blank check? See above This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) - Urges Viewer to Visit Lrossroads GPS website at NoMoreBlankChecks.com to ?take action? - At this website, viewers can learn about President Obama?s ?scal record - Website provides the viewer with assistance to contact elected of?cials by phone or email - Distributed at time when Congress and the President were Despertarse National resr NO -Aw considering the AJA AH Waidem Obarna r1 A L/Ubl U1 1 84 07/28/2011 10/24/2011 10/25/2011 More Blank Checks? series) - AJA - Reviews current economic indicators and ?gures (unemployment, national debt), and questions President Obama?s proposal to ?raise taxes and keep spending more? - Tells viewer: ?There?s gotta be a way to take away Obama?s blank check? - Asks: ?Doesn?t Washington know we can?t afford more taxes and debt?? - Urges viewer to visit Crossroads GPS website at NoMoreBlankChecks.com to ?take action? - At this website, viewers can learn about President Obama?s ?scal record - Website provides the viewer with assistance to contact elected of?cials by phone or email airing: 207,228.22 Production costs included above. This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) - Distributed at time when Congress and the President were considering the AJA Watch-FL 07/08/2011 07/22/201 1 Florida Yes (?No - ARRA More Blank Checks? series) - AJA - PPACA - Identi?es Bill Nelson; Nelson is an incumbent US. Senator - Reviews Nelson?s recent record on ?scal legislation, including votes for ARRA, PPACA, and to raise debt limit national debt - Tells viewer to call Bill Nelson Production costs for TV- 43 TV-47: 60,000.00 lirriit and tell him ?no more reckless spending, no new taxes and No More Blank Checks? h' 5.41. J. 1. LI .LJIDLIIUULVU at 85 Congress and the President were considering the AJA - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact Senator Nelson Watch-MO 07/08/201 1 07/22/201 1 Missouri Yes (?No More Blank Checks? series) -ARRA - AJA - PPACA - national debt lilIlit - Identi?es Claire McCaskill; McCaskill is an incumbent US. Senator - Reviews McCaskill?s recent record on ?scal legislation, including votes for ARRA, PPACA, and to raise debt limit - Tells viewer to call Claire McCaskill and tell her ?no more reckless spending, no new taxes and No More Blank Checks? Distributed at time when Congress and the President were considering the AJA - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact Senator McCaskill See above This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Watch-MT 07/08/2011 07/22/201 1 Montana Yes (?No More Blank Checks? series) -AR.RA - AJA - PPACA - national debt limit - Identities Jon tester; 1 ester is an incumbent US. Senator - Reviews Tester?s recent record on ?scal legislation, including votes for ARRA, PPACA, and to raise debt limit - Tells viewer to call Bill Jon Tester and tell him ?no more reckless spending, no new taxes and No More Blank Checks? See above - Distributed at time when Congress and the President were considering the AJA - I 1 I lluulUCl 86 viewers to call to contact Senator Tester Watch-NE 07/08/2011 07/22/2011 Nebraska Yes (?No More Blank Checks? series) -ARRA - AJA - PPACA - national debt limit - Identi?es Ben Nelson; Nelson is an incumbent US. Senator - Reviews Nelson?s recent record on ?scal legislation, including votes for ARRA, PPACA, and to raise debt limit - Tells viewer to call Bill Nelson and tell him ?no more reckless spending, no new taxes and No More Blank Checks? - Distributed at time when Congress and the President were considering the AJA - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact Senator Nelson See above TV-46 Watch-OH 07/08/201 1 07/22/201 1 Ohio Yes (?No More Blank Checks? series) - AJA - Identi?es Sherrod Brown; Brown is an incumbent US. Senator - Reviews Brown?s recent record on ?scal legislation, including See above TV-47 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSeCretsorg) - PPACA - national debt limit votes tor ARRA, PPACA, and to raise debt limit - Tells viewer to call Sherrod Brown and tell him ?no more reckless spending, no new taxes and No More Blank Checks? - Distributed at time when Congress and the President were considering the AJA - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact Senator Brown Stop (series) 07/18/2011 Yes (?No - Series of 10 advertisements that ?T?1f EH 1,344,841.24 uzsiUZ/ZU 1 1 Iviure Biank II A I 1 lUllUW UIC au 1 87 Checks? series) - AJA - PPACA - national debt limit identi?es an incumbent Member of the US. House of Representatives - Each ad reviews the Member?s recent record on ?scal legislation, including votes for ARRA, PPACA, and to raise debt limit - Each ad tells viewer to call the named Member and tell him or her ?no more reckless spending, no new taxes and no more blank checks? - Distributed at time when Congress and the President were considering the AJA - Provide phone number for viewers to call to contact the identi?ed Member Each ad was targeted to the identi?ed Member?s constituents Change-FL 07/26/201 1 08/03/201 1 Yes (?No More Blank Checks? -ARRA - AJA - Identi?es Bill Nelson; Nelson is an incumbent US. Senator - Reviews Nelson?s recent record Combined TV-S 8 costs for TV- 58 TV-62: This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) series) on ?scal legislation, including votes for ?billions in new taxes? and ?trillions in crushing debt? - Informs viewer that ?Now President Obama wants to continue the reckless spending and raise taxes even higher? - Tells viewer to call Nelson and tell him ?no more blank checks? - Distributed at time when 1,292,955 .95 Congress and the President were considering the AJA - Directs viewers to the Crossroads n'nn uro WUUDILU 88 NoMoreBlankChecks.com At this website, viewers could learn about President Obama?s ?scal record - Website provided the viewer with assistance to contact elected of?cials by phone or email Change?MO 07/26/201 1 08/03/201 1 Missouri Yes (?No - ARRA More Blank Checks? - AJA series) - Identi?es Claire McCaskill; McCaskill is an incumbent US. Senator - Reviews McCaskill?s recent record on ?scal legislation, including votes for ?billions in new taxes? and ?trillions in crushing debt? - Informs Viewer that ?Now President Obama wants to continue the reckless spending and raise taxes even higher? Tells viewer to call McCaskill and tell her ?no more blank checks? - Distributed at time when See above 9 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Congress and the President were considering the AJA - Directs viewers to the Crossroads GPS website NoMoreBlankChecks.com - At this website, viewers could learn about President Obama?s ?scal record - Website provided the viewer with assistance to contact elected of?cials by phone or email Change-MT 07/26/201 1 08/03/201 1 Montana Yes (?No - ARRA More Blank - Identi?es Jon Tester; Tester is an incumbent US. Senator See above TV-6O checks - AJA - Reviews Tester's recent record on 89 series) ?scal legislation, including votes for ?billions in new taxes? and ?trillions in crushing debt? - Informs viewer that ?Now President Obama wants to continue the reckless spending and raise taxes even higher? - Tells viewer to call Tester and tell him ?no more blank checks? - Distributed at time when Congress and the President were considering the AJA - Directs viewers to the Crossroads GPS website NoMoreBlankChecks.com - At this website, viewers could learn about President Obama?s ?scal record - Website provided the viewer with assistance to contact elected of?cials by phone or email Change-NE 07/26/2011 Nebraska Yes (?No - ARRA - Identi?es Ben Nelson; Nelson is See above TV-6 1 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) 08/03/201 1 More Blank Checks? - AJA series) an incumbent US. Senator - Reviews Nelson?s recent record on ?scal legislation, including votes for ?billions in new taxes? and ?trillions in crushing debt? - Informs viewer that ?Now President Obama wants to continue the reckless spending and raise taxes even higher? - Tells viewer to call Nelson and tell him ?no more blank checks? - Distributed at time when Congress and the President were 0011510611112 the AJA - Directs viewers to the Crossroads GPS website NoMoreBlankChecks.com - At this website, viewers could learn about President Obarna?s ?scal record - Website provided the viewer with assistance to contact elected of?cials by phone or email Change?OH 07/26/2011 - Ohio Yes (?No - ARRA - Identi?es Sherrod Brown; Brown See above TV-62 08/03/2011 More Blank is an incumbent US. Senator Checks? - AJA - Reviews Brown?s recent record series) on ?scal legislation, including votes for ?billions in new taxes? and ?trillions in crushing debt? - Informs viewer that ?Now President Obama wants to continue the reckless spending and raise taxes even higher? - Tells viewer to call Brown and tell him ?no more blank chec - Distributed at time when 90 Congress and the President were considering the AJA - Directs viewers to the Crossroads GPS website NoMoreBlankChecks.com - At this website, viewers could learn about President Obama?s ?scal record - Website provided the viewer with assistance to contact elected This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecretsorg) of?cials by phone or email Peas 10/25/2011 11/07/2011 Iowa Yes (?No More Blank -ARRA - Identi?es Leonard Boswell; Boswell is an incumbent Member 160,568.48 TV-63 - AJA of the v.5. House of 91 series) Representatives - Reviews Boswell?s vote for President Obama?s stimulus bill, and informs viewers of Boswell?s support for the AJA - Informs the viewer that the AJA contains ?more of the same big spending? and ?tax increases of $450 billion? - Tells viewer to contact Congressman Boswell to tell him that ?Iowa needs jobs, not more Obama taxes and spending? - Provides viewers with phone number to call to contact Boswell - Boswell was in a position to vote on and in?uence the AJA - Distributed at a time when Congress and the President were considering the AJA 2 Presidents 11/09/2011 11/23/2011 National Yes (same subject as - AJA - Identifies former President Clinton and President Obama, and 2,341,043.23 TV-64 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) ?No More Blank Checks? series) contrasts their differing views on tax increases - Informs viewers about the tax increases contained in the AJA, and characterizes the AJA as ?a political stunt, not a solution? - Viewers are urged to call President Obama to tell him to ?attack problems, not people? in context, the message conveyed is one of opposition to the AJA - President Obama was in a position to in?uence the debate on ATA 4.1. "15 {1-111 92 - Provides a phone number for viewers to call to contact President Obama - Distributed at a time when Congress and the President were considering the AJA Typical 12/12/2011? 12/21/2011 National Yes (one of several ads produced regarding the bankruptcy scandal) - bankruptcy scandal - Identi?es President Obama 516,247.36 - Discusses the federal govemment?s $535 million loan to the company?s political ties to the Obama Administration, and the company?s subsequent bankruptcy and FBI investigation Urges viewers to contact President Obama to tell him: ?we need jobs, not more Washington insider deals? - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact President Obama - Aired during a period when the scandal was subject of This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) reporting Every Level 02/01/2012 02/07/2012 National Yes (one of several ads produced regarding the bankruptcy scandal) - bankruptcy scandal - Identifies President Obama 515,125.22 TV-68 - Discusses the federal government?s stimulus spending on ?clean energy companies,? including - Informs viewers that billions of dollars went to the Administration?s political supporters as Lart of a program that the Washington Post called ?infused with politics at every level? - urgeS viewers to contacr 93 President Obama to tell him: ?we need jobs, not more Washington insider deals? - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact President Obama - Aired during a period when the scandal was subject of reporting Step 11/17/2011 11/23/2011 Missouri Yes (same subject as ?No More Blank Checks? series) - AJA - Identi?es Claire McCaskill and Barack Obama; McCaskill is an incumbent US. Senator - Reviews McCaskill?s vote in favor of the ARRA, and her expressed support for the AJA - Tells viewer to call McCaskill and tell her to ?Stop Spending? and ?Step in a new direction? (the ad urges opposition to the AJA, and support for alternative ways to address unemployment concerns) Distributed at time when 266,046.00 TV-7 1 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Congress and the President were considering the AJA - McCaskill was in a position to vote on and in?uence the pending AJA - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact McCaskil] 14 12/12/2011 12/21/2011 Missouri Yes (same subject as ?No More - AJA - Identi?es Claire McCaskill and Barack Obama; McCaskill is an incumbent US. Senator 261,570.60 TV-70 Blank - Reviews national debt ?gures that Checks? resulted from the policies and laws series) supported by Senator McCaskill and Fresr?ent Ubama - Tells viewer to call McCaskill and tell her to ?stop the reckless spending? (in context, the ad urges opposition to the AJA) - Distributed at time when Congress and the President were considering the AJA - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact McCaskill - McCaskill was in a position to vote on and in?uence the pending AJA 94 From There 03/08/2012 Missouri No - PPACA - Identi?es Claire McCaskill; 300,000.00 TV-72 03/22/2012 McCaskill is an incumbent U.S. - Medicare Senator - Reviews McCaskill?s record on - Extension of Medicare and opposition to Bush-era tax extension of certain tax cuts, and cuts contrasts that record with Senator McCaskill?s claims that she had protected Medicare and cut taxes for the middle class - Tells viewer to call McCaskill and tell her: ?on Medicare and taxes, start voting in Washington the way you talk in Missouri? - Distributed at time when was considering numerous proposals related to Medicare and taxes; McCaskill was in a position to vote on and in?uence these debates - Provides phone number for This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) viewers to call to contact McCaskill Bacon 11/17/2011 - 11/23/2011 Nebraska Yes (?No More Blank -ARRA - Identi?es Ben Nelson; Nelson was an incumbent U.S. Senator 135,499.70 - Rem In Iavor of i 95 series) the ARRA and some of the wasteful spending contained in that legislation - Educates the viewer about Nelson?s consistent support for President Obama?s spending proposals - Tells viewer to call Nelson and tell him ?no more blank checks? - Distributed at time when Congress and the President were considering the AJA - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact Nelson Nelson was in a position to vote on and in?uence the pending AJA Stakes 12/12/2011 12/21/2011 Nebraska Yes (ongoing series of PPACA- related ads - PPACA - Identi?es Ben Nelson; Nelson was an incumbent U.S. Senator - Reviews the special deal that Nelson received in exchange for his vote in favor of PPACA Tells viewer to call Nelson and 143,079.63 TV-75 This documenlt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) tell him that ?it?s time to make it right? and to ?help repeal Obamacare? - Distributed at time when efforts were being made to repeal PPACA - Nelson was in a position to vote on and in?uence efforts to repeal PPACA Provides phone number for viewer to call to contact Nelson Dirt 11/17/2011? 11/23/2011 Montana No - EPA regulatory authority - Identi?es Jon Tester; Tester is an incumbent US. Senator - Reviews Tester?s recent vote on FHA 154,784.75 TV-77 131?? I 4 n. lauuy ?y 96 - Urges opposition to ?big government regulations that could hurt our farmers and jobs? - Tells viewer to call Tester and tell him: ?on jobs, he needs to work for Montana, - At time ad was aired, Tester was in a position to in?uence various legislative and policy debates, and to support alternatives to President Obama?s economic and regulatory proposals - Provides viewers with a phone number to call to contact Tester not Obama? His Own Words 12/12/2011? 12/21/2011 Montana Yes (same issues as ?No More Blank Chec series) - PPACA - national debt - Identi?es Jon Tester; Tester is an incumbent US. Senator - Reviews Tester?s recent record on ?scal legislation, including his votes for the ARRA, PPACA, and trillions of dollars of additional national - Tells viewer to call Tester and tell overnment debt 147,540.81 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) him to ?stop our w1th trillions in debt? and ?stop the Washington spending and debt? - Distributed at time when Congress and the President were considering the AJA - Tester was in a position to vote on and in?uence the AJA - Provides viewers with a phone number to call to contact Tester Balloon 03/01/2012 03/07/2012 Iowa Yes (same issues as ?No More -ARRA PPACA - Identi?es President Obama and Leonard Boswell; Boswell was an incumbent Member of the US. 88,631.72 TV-84 Blank 97 Checks? series) - auto industry bailout - Reviews Boswell?s support for the ARRA, the auto industry bailout, and the PPACA - Urges viewer to call Boswell to tell him to ?vote for policies that lower our debt, not add to it,? and to ?stop the out of control spending? - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact Boswell - Distributed at time when Congress was considering the President?s ?scal year 2013 budget proposal - Boswell was in a position to vote on and in?uence the pending budget debate and vote De?ect 03/21/2012 03/28/2012 National Yes (energy policy series) - oil production in the Gulf of Mexico - oil shale - Identi?es President Barack Obama - Educates viewers about President Obama?s energy policies, and the effect of those policies on gasoline 650,000.00 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) production - Keystone XL pipeline prices, and asserts that accuses President Obama is ?playing politics? with energy policy - Urges viewers to call President Obama to tell him that ?bad energy policies mean energy prices we can?t afford? - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact President Obama - President Obama was in a position to change the energy policies referenced in the ad 98 IooMuch_, 04/20/20 1 2 _Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia policy series) Ldomestic__ energy production and gasoline prices .Jdentr?esfresrdentB aracL_, Obama - Discusses recent claims made by the President about domestic oil production - Informs viewers that despite the President?s spin, ?gas costs too much? - Urges viewers to call President Obama to tell him to ?work to pass better energy policies? - Provides a phone number for viewers to call to contact the President - President Obama was in a position to adopt energy policies that might reduce gasoline prices TV-73 Quote Leadership 04/24/2012 05/04/2012 One of numerous GPS ads urging ?scal restraint Missouri - President Obama?s proposed ?scal year 2013 budget - Identi?es Claire McCaskill and Barack Obama; McCaskill is an incumbent US. Senator - Reviews employment ?gures and foreclosures in Missouri, and reviews federal government 300,593.80 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) spending supported by Senator McCaskill and President Obama - Tells viewers to call McCaskill to tell her to ?stop supporting Obama?s outrageous spending? and to ?say NO to Obama?s proposed trillion-dollar de?cit; bring a responsible budget to a Senate vote? - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact McCaskill - Distributed at time when Congress was considering the l?resrdent?s ?scal year ZUIJ proposal - McCaskill was in a position to vote on and in?uence the pending budget debate and vote 99 Way 04/24/2012 Montana One of - President - Identi?es Jon Tester and Barack 194,963.69 TV-80 05/04/2012 numerous Obama?s Obama; Tester is an incumbent GPS ads proposed ?scal US. Senator urging ?scal year 2013 - Reviews federal government restraint budget spending and new taxes supported by Senator Tester and President Obama, and that ?Tester voted with President Obama 97% of the time? - Tells viewers to call Tester to tell him that ?Obama?s way is the wrong way for Montana? and to ?say NO to Obama?s proposed trillion-dollar de?cit; bring a responsible budget to a Senate vote? - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact Tester - Distributed at time when Congress was considering the President?s ?scal year 2013 budget proposal -Tester was in a position to vote on and in?uence the pending budget debate and vote Hole 04/24/2012 Nevada No - HR. 206 - Identi?es Shelley Berkley; 305,362.90 TV-81 05/04/2012 Berkley is an incumbent Member of the US. House of Representatives This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) - Reviews Berkley?s recent voting record on ?scal matters, including votes for tax increases and de?cit sspendmg- A, - Urges viewers to call Berkley to tell her to ?vote against higher taxes that would cost more jobs? and to ?Vote for HR. 206? (HR. 206 was a bill to prevent tax increases) - Provides phone number for viewers to call to contact Berkley - Distributed at time when HR. 206 was pending before the House - Berkley was in a position to vote on and in?uence HR. 206 100 Television Advertisement Table B: Campaign Intervention Advertisements (Reported to FEC as Independent Expenditures) Title Period of Availability Geographic Area of Distribution Part of Ongoing Series Legislation, Policy, or Event Reasons for Classi?cation Total Associated Expenses Exhibit Code What 09/21/2010 - 10/04/2010 No - Patient Protection and Affordable Care - Identi?es Rep. Joe Sestak - Criticizes Sestak?s voting record - Does not tell viewer to contact 506,745.12 TV-08 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Act - Medicare - Tax increases Sestak about a pending legislative or policy issue - Advocates against the election of Sestak can?t afford Joe Sesta 09/28/2010 10/1 1/2010 Review Missouri No - None - Identi?es Robin Carnahan - Criticizes Carnahan?s ?negative ads? - Tells viewers that Carnahan is ?too dishonest? and ?too liberal? 714,223.70 - Tells viewers that Carnahan deserves ?too thumbs down? - Does not tell viewer to contact Carnahanaboutapending 101 legislative or policy issue - Advocates against the election of Carnahan (Say NO to Robin Carnahan?) Add Up 09/28/2010 lO/l l/2010 No - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - PPACA - debt limit Identi?es Rep. Joe Sestak - Criticizes Sestak?s voting record - Does not tell viewer to contact Sestak about a pending legislative or policy issue - Advocates against the election of Sestak (?Joe Sestak . . . wrong for 302,450.50 TV-IO Can?t Afford Patty 09/2 8/20 1 0 10/04/2010 Washington No - National debt - unemployment - Identi?es Patty Murray - Criticizes Murray?s voting record - Does not tell viewer to contact Murray about a pending legislative or policy issue - Advocates against election of Patty Murray by telling viewers that ?We can?t afford six more years of Patty Murray? 507,93 1.20 1 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Choice 10/05/1010? 10/11/2010 Florida No - ARRA - PPACA - Cap and trade legislation Identi?es two candidates in Florida Senate election (Marco Rubio, Charlie Crist) - Identifies policy differences between the two candidates - Supports policy positions of Rubio - Criticizes policy positions of Crist - Does not tell viewer to contact Rubio or Crist about a pending legislative or policy issue 353,605.10 TV-12 - Advocates for election of Marco Rubio (?Florida needs a strong leader to put a check on Obama?s agenda. That?s Marco Rubia. 102 Claim 10/05/2010? 10/11/2010 Illinois - None - Identi?es Alexi Giannoulias Criticizes Giannoulias? record as Illinois state of?cial - Informs viewer that ?Alexi let them down,? and that he has a record of ?broken promises? and ??nancial neglect? - Advertisement responds to a Giannoulias campaign advertisement - References the election by informing viewers that Giannoulias has run a ?dishonest campaign? - Does not tell viewer to contact Giannoulias about a pending legislative or policy issue -Advocates against election of Giannoulias (?Illinois can?t afford any more Alexi?) 1,080,582.00 TV-13 You Guessed It 10/05/2010 10/11/2010 Kentucky No - None - Identi?es Jack Conway - Criticizes Conway?s record as a state of?cial 324,028.50 TV- 14 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Ad accuses Conway of personally pro?ting from utility rate increases that occurred on his watch - Ad informs viewers that ?Conway helps himself? while ?Kentucky families pay? - Does not tell viewer to contact Conway about a pending legislative or policy issue Colors 10/12/2010? Florida - Identi?es Charlie Crist 354,016.00 10/ 18/2010 - Criticizes Crist?s record as a state of?cial - Criticizes Crist?s support for President Gbama's initiatives - Does not tell viewer to contact Crist about a pending legislative or policy issue - Advocates against Crist?s election (?We don?t need another chameleon in Washington? and ?Vote No/ Chameleon Charlie Cris? 103 Shacker 10/ 12/2010 Kentucky No - None - Identi?es Jack Conway 359,806.78 TV-16 10/ 18/2010 - Criticizes Conway?s record as a state of?cial - Accuses Conway of personally pro?ting from utility rate increases that occurred on his watch - Does not tell viewer to contact Conway about a pending legislative or policy issue - Advocates against the election of Conway (?Jack Conway is the Wrong Way for Kentucky?) Story 10/ 12/2010 Nevada No - None - Identi?es Harry Reid 571,811.95 TV-18 10/18/2010 - Refers to Reid as a ?champion of liberal special interests inside the 10/19/2010 - beltway? who is ?disconnected 10/29/2010 from Nevada and its residents" and ?extremely out of touch with Nevada? - Does not tell viewer to contact Reid about a pending legislative or policy issue - Advocates against the election of Reid (?Nevada just can?t afford more of the same old Harry Reid?) This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Consistent 10/12/2010 Illinois No None - Identi?es Alexi Giannoulias 2,360,954.70 10/25/2010 Criticizes Giannoulias? accounts of his own personal taxes - Cr1t101zes_G1annouhas for being inconsistent - Criticizes Giannoulias for wanting to raise taxes - Does not tell viewers to contact Giannoulias about a pending legislative or policy issue 104 Known 10/ 19/2010 Illinois No - None - Identi?es Alexi Giannoulias 1,03 8,067.80 TV-20 11/02/2010 - Criticizes ties between the Giannoulias family bank and organized crime - Criticizes Giannoulias? accounts of his own personal taxes - Criticizes Giannoulias? record as a state of?cial - Does not tell viewers to contact Giannoulias about a pending legislative or policy issue - Advocates against the election of Giannoulias (?Alexi Giannoulias can?t be trusted?) Enough 10/ 19/2010 Nevada No - unemployment Identi?es Harry Reid 1,681,445.86 TV-21 11/02/2010 - Criticizes Reid?s voting record - PPACA and its impact - Refers to election (?Are you tired - National debt of all these negative political ads??) - Does not tell viewer to contact - Wall Street Reid about a pending legislative or Bailout policy issue - Advocates against the election of - Home Reid on Harry Reid?) foreclosure rate Patty?s 10/26/2010 Washington No - None - Identi?es Patty Murray 1,049,573.67 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Promises 11/02/2010 - Features four individuals making critical comments of Murray - Does not tell viewer to contact Murray abouLa pending legislative or policy issue - Advocates against election of Murray (?nal speaker states think she?s been there too long?) Problem With Patty 105 10/26/2010 1 1/02/2010 Washington No - PPACA - bailouts - Identi?es Patty Murray - Features several individuals making comments critical of Murray - One speaker states, ?Patty?s become part of the problem? - Another speaker states, ?She?s been there too long? - Does not tell viewer to contact Murray about a pending legislative or policy issue - Advocates against the election of Murray (?We can?t afford six more years of Patty Murray?) 2,039,811.26 TV-26 Boondoggle (series) 10/27/2010 1 1/02/2010 In and around congressional districts of 8 named No (Eight advertisements following same template) Each advertisement identi?es an incumbent member of the House of Total cost of eight ads: 2,185,124.37 TV-28 through 6 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Represent- atives Representatives who is running for reelection - Each ad tells the viewer that the state of the identi?ed Representative ?is reeling? and the identi?ed Representative ?is making it worse? - Each ad criticizes the identi?ed Representative for supporting ?Nancy Pelosi and her failed agenda,? instead of ?helping us? - Each ad then repeats the assertion as ?helping Pelosi, not us? - Ads (10 not tell Viewer to contact 106 the identi?ed Representative about a pending legislative or policy issue - Each ad advocates against the election of the identi?ed Representative by telling the viewer that the individual is ?wrong for? his particular state Charm 10/29/2010 1 1/02/2010 Nevada No None - Identi?es two candidates (Harry TV-86 Reid, Sharron Angle) Urges viewers to vote for Sharron Angle for US. Senate 126,013.58 Foundation 11/10/2011 11/23/2011 Massachusett No - unemployment - Occupy Wall Street - Identi?es Elizabeth Warren; TV-65 Warren had served as Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the Troubled Asset Relief Program and was associated with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - At the time'the ad aired, Warren was a candidate for of?ce, and not an incumbent Of?ceholder, although 530,339.86 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) she had held government positions related to ?nancial matters - Informs viewers of Warren?s support for the ?Occupy Wall Street? protests, and of her assertion that she ?created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do? - Does not call on Warren to take any particular legislative action - Targeted to viewers in Massachusetts, where Warren was seeking of?ce Applause ll/lU/ZUll ll'El?la No - AREA 107 11/23/2011 - government spending - national debt formerly the Governor of Virginia and Chairman of the Democratic National Committee - At the time the ad aired, Kaine was a candidate for of?ce, and not an incumbent Of?ceholder - Informs viewers of Kaine?s support for President Obama?s stimulus bill, and his ?scal record as Governor of Virginia - Does not call on viewers to contact Kaine about a legislative issue; ad does not call on Kaine to take any particular legislative action - Targeted to viewers in Virginia, where Kaine was seeking of?ce l?V?66 Champion 12/12/2011? 12/21/2011 Massachusett No - TARP - Identi?es Elizabeth Warren; Warren had served as Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee TARP, and was associated with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 546,256.03 TV-69 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) - At the time the ad aired, Warren was a candidate for of?ce, and not an incumbent Officeholder, although she had held government positions related to ?nancial matters - Criticizes Warren?s role in the Troubled Asset Relief Program - Does not call on Warren to take any particular legislative action - Targeted to viewers in Massachusetts, where Warren was seeking of?ce Amazing 04/24/2012 North Dakota No - Identi?es Heidi Heitkamp; 88,147.44 TV-82 051041201 2 Heitkamp wasaformeLNorth 108 Dakota state of?cial - At the time the ad aired, Heitkamp was a candidate for of?ce, and not an incumbent Of?ceholder - Notes Heitkamp?s praise for President Obama and her support for PPACA - Tells viewers to call Heitkamp to tell her to support the repeal of PPACA - Targeted to viewers in North Dakota, where Heitkamp was seeking of?ce Similarities 04/24/2012 05/04/2012 Virginia No - Identi?es Tim Kaine and Barack Obama; Kaine was formerly the GOVernor of Virginia and Chairman of the Democratic National Committee - At the time the ad aired, Kaine was a candidate for of?ce, and not an incumbent Of?ceholder - Informs Viewers of Kaine?s 264,834.17 TV-83 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) support for President Obama?s stimulus bill, and his ?scal record as Governor of Virginia - Does not call on viewers to contact Kaine about a legislative issue; ad does not call on Kaine to take any particular legislative action - Targeted to viewers in Virginia, where Kaine was seeking of?ce This docume all of its 0 section organization. GPS may or may not hav with thes agreemei amount grant.? 2 Code sec letter wit understanding and agreement that the grant funds would only be used purposes a Code 3: funds we Justice Appendiz' dniSeptember 17, 2010, GPS made a grant of $300,000 to An APPENDIX D: GRANTS MADE was aware of the limitations on its grant-making activiti grants to purposes furthering social welfare. (1) in October 26, 2010, GPS made a grant of $50,000 to 60 Plu I . 60 Plus Association, Inc. funds. Regardless, GPS and 60 Plus Association, Inc. had it that the grant funds would only be used for social welfare .the grant was invoiced by 60 Plus Association, Inc. as an ?1 copy of the invoice is included in this Appendix. (2) American Action Network 11 August 26, 2010, GPS made a grant of $500,000 to Amer tipn 501(c)(4) tax~exempt organization. GPS may or may 11 these funds. Regardless, GPS and American Action Netw (3) American Justice Partnership :ction 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization. The transmittal 1e uld not be used for any political activity or other purpose inc . . . artnership?s social welfare status. A copy of the transmittal 109 12010 as and appropriately limited 5 Association, Inc., a Code sent a transmittal letter an oral understanding and purposes. Additionally, the ?unrestricted educational can Action Network, a at have sent a transmittal ork had an oral for social welfare terican Justice Partnership, tter established that the :onsistent with American etter is included in this 1t was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) This docume exempt on $200, initial gr Americans for Tax Reform (4) rganization: $1,300,000 on September 29, 2010; $2,500,00 000 on October 21, 2010. GPS may or may not have sent a agreement that the grant funds would only be used for social welfare transmitt and restr included Freedom that the purposes transmitt transmitt organiza1 transmitt Inc.?s so: exempt a in this Appendix. Center for Individual Freedom (5) PS made two grants to Freedom Vote Inc., a Code section 5 ctivity. Copies of the transmittal letters are included in this 110 as made three grants to Americans for Tax Reform, a Code int. Regardless, GPS and Americans for Tax Reform had at al letters for the second and third grants memorialize and rel ctions applied to the ?rst grant. Copies of the two available October 8, 2010, GPS made a grant of $2,750,000 to the a Code section 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization. The tra unds would be used in support of the Center for Individual 511 letter is included in this Appendix; GPS has been unable 31 letter. (6) Freedom Vote Inc. ion: $700,000 on September 13, 2010, and $200,000 on Oc ,ial welfare purpose and that no funds would be used for pol section 501(c)(4) tax- on October 12, 2010; and transmittal letter for the oral understanding and purposes. Furthermore, the lect the same requirements transmittal letters are Ienter for Individual nsmittal letter established reedom?s social welfare and would not be used in connection with any non-exempt Activity. A c0py of the draft 0 ?nd a signed copy of the 01 tax-exempt tober 19, 2010. The all letters established that the sole purpose of the grants was to further Freedom Vote itical or any other non- Appendix. nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) section 5 would nc transmitt Independent Business, a Code section 501(c)(6) tax-exempt organizai establish were not in this (Institute transmitt purposes used in letter is i (7) Indiana Right to Life On;September 17, 2010, GPS made a grant of $35,000 to Indi 11 letter is included in this Appendix. (8) CTn'October 8, 2010, GPS made a grant of $3,700,000 to the 1? that the funds were to be used consistently with so to be used for any non-exempt activity. A copy of the draft (9) 1cluded in this Appendix. (10) National Right to Life Committee tax-exenipt organization, between June 10, 2010, and October 21, 20 $250,000 be used i This docume 111 be used in connection with any political or other non?exem National Federation of Independent Busines Jpendix; GPS has been unable to ?nd a signed copy of the tr National Ri?e Association (Institute for Leg for Legislative Action), a Code section 501(c)(4) tax-exem; 31! letter established that the funds would be used in support of the National Ri?e Association (Institute for Legislative A annection with any political or other non-exempt activity. A made nine grants to the National Right to Life Committe the ninth grant was for $25,000. Transmittal letters establi 1 support of the National Right to Life Committee?s social Vi ana Right to Life, a Code Dl(c)(4) tax-exempt organization. The transmittal letter established that the funds pt activity. A copy of the lational Federation of ion. The transmittal letter :ial welfare purposes and transmittal letter is included ansmittal letter. islative Action) On!0ctober 12, 2010, GPS made a grant of $600,000 to the National Ri?e Association torganization. The )f the social welfare .ction) and would not be copy of the transmittal e, a Code section 501(c)(4) 10. Eight grants were for shed that the funds would relfare purpose and would nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) not be us eight tran not have ninth gra Public Pc letter est: Public Pc political exempt transmitt Jewish or other plirpose. A copy of the ?rst transmittal letter is included in I grant for with the OmESeptember 17, 2010, GPS made a grant of $750,000 to the in connection with any political or other non-exempt actii sinittal letters are included in this Appendix. The ninth gran been accompanied by a transmittal letter but was made with was subject to the same conditions as the previous grants. (11) Republican Governors Public Policy Comm LbElished that the sole purpose of the grant was to further the ulicy Committee?s social welfare purpose and that the funds other purpose. A copy of the transmittal letter is included (12) Republican Jewish Coalition made two grants to the Republican Jewish Coalition, a rganization: $150,000 on October 19, 2010, and $100,000 alf letter established that the sole purpose of the grant was to calition?s social welfare purpose and that the funds would n< 00,000 may or may not have been accompanied by a tran I understanding that the second grant was subject to the same i I 112 rity. Copies of the ?rst for $25,000 may or may the understanding that the lttee Republican Governors plicy Committee, a Code section 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization. The transmittal Republican Governors would not be used for any in this Appendix. ode section 501(c)(4) tax- rn October 26, 2010. The further the Republican )t be used for any political his Appendix. The second smittal letter but was made conditions as the ?rst grant. This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) 60 us Association, Inc. Invo I ce 51 3ng Street i. . . Sut 315 as Invouce# Ali, andria, VA 22314 10/25/2010 93' Bill To 1 Ship To Crossroads G?s: PD. Box 34413 PO. Box 34413 Washington, DC 20043 thhington, no 20043 P.O. Number Terms Rep' snip F. 3.3. Project 10/25/2010 Quantity itetn Code Description Price Each Amount 1 omit Unrestricted Educational Grant 50,000.00 50,000.00 i i i i i PNC Bank Account #5303d70871 - Routing 0031000053 Total $50,000.00 1 ?4 i I 113 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Crossroads September 17, 2010 Mr. Dan Perro Amer'lcan Justice Partnership 600 Eiou't'h Walnut Street Lansing, MI 48933 Dear Dan: Crossroads Grassroots Policies'Strate?gies (GPS), a tax exempt orga "zation, is pleased to make this general supp0rt grant in the amount of $300,000 to Am r?can Justice Partnership also an IRS tax exempt non-profit 501 organization. The sole purpose of this grant is to further your'organjza?on?s stated mission and purpose asa legally qualified social welfare tax exempt organization. As a result, ATP agrees that funds provided by this grant will notbe? used for any other purpose inclu any political activity. grantis being made based upon that assurance. President 114 This documelnt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Um . I CroSsroads GPS October .12, .2010 Mr. Gror ossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies is pleased to for Tax Reform in support of your-organization?s ta know, Crossroads GPS is committed to ad'vancir will gthen America's economy and security, and tone of or social. welfare organizations to help promote such nate $2,500,000. to exempt purposes. kg legislative policies that strategies is to partner olicie-s. We value your efforts educate the public and policymakers on the need toxep taxes low, reduce the national debt and deficits, and restrain O'ut?of?contr?ol govern we applaud and support yOu-r efforts over many yet from pu liic officials at every level of government to oppose an through well-known Taxpayer Protection Pledge?. ?ssroads GPS is organized as- a nonprofit corpo-ra?ox of the emal ReVenue Code. In keeping withiits own tax exe. GPS is hating to your organization with the understanding 1 be used connection with any .nonrexempt activity. ldase do not hesitate to contact me. if you have any que i Sincerely, i Steven La 1 President Paid for binrossroods Grassroots PoiiCy Strategies, on independent, nonpro?t taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the internal Revenu 1401 New York NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 -c (202?) 559-454 116 nt spending, 'In' iris to, secure pledges and all tax increases 1 under section 501(c)(4) status, iCitos?erad's hat it's donation will not stions. rgonization exempt from federal 2 Code. 28 - This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) October 8, 2010 I Center fol Individual Freedom I Dear xx x, Crossroads GPS is pleased to make this grant, in the amount of X, to the Center for IndividL al Freedom (CFIF) to support its non-pro?t 501(c missmn, namely to assist CFIF in its congnl ing efforts to promote and protect the rights granted to individuals under the United States o'nstitution. Crossroads GPS is organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code for the promOtion of social welfare. Speci?cally, Crossroads GPS is a olicy and grassroots advocacy organization that is committed to educating, equipping an mobilizing millions of American: citizens to take action on the critical economic and legisl ive issues that will shape our nati )d?s future in the years ahead. We share with CFIF an overriding concern that ic levels of debt, expansive government power, a nationalized health care system, a economy and looming tax increases are all on the brink ofreshaping and potentially FIF has been a leading voice in the ?ghts to reign in unchecked government spending and kee lnarginal tax rates low. CFIF has also worked for innovative energy solutions that li?ce economic growth, and has been a strong voice in opposition to the individual mandat and other features of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Crossroads GPS makes is grant to help CFIF continue its efforts in these important areas and in furtherance of own mission, consistent Internal Revenue Service ?exempt function? guidelines. ?hank you again for your past efforts, and please feel free to contact me if we can be of assistance, going forward. Sincerely, Steven J. Law 1 117 This docume it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Crossroads 1401 New York Ave, NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 September 13, 2010 Free pm Vote Inc. 0 ID Cloud .8: CO LLP Mr. W'hatman 1'10 ercantile, Center 120 Fourth St. Cin . ti, OH 45202 from: ?1 Crossroads Grassroots PoliciesStrategies (GPS), a non-p o??t 501(c)(4) exempt Org; Ili'zation, is-pleaSed 3to make this general support grant in - amount of $700,000 to Free In Vote, also an IRS tax exempt nonfpro?t 501 (4) or'gar De The sole purpose of this grant to further your organize tion?s stated mission and purpose as a legally qualified soCial welfare tax exempt organization; As a result, Free om Vote agrees that funds prOVided by this grant will: not be used fOr any other p11 including any political activity. This grant is being made based upon that ass ce. i This docume it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) 118 Freedox ID Mr. Tom Crossroads GPS Charting the Course" for a New Direction far Ar October 19, 2010 1 Vote Inc. Cloud 8: CO LLP 1 Whatrnan 1100 120 'Cinc' Dear Torr organiz Freedor Paid for 140] i at The sole purpose of thisgrant to further your organizatioi purpose agrees political I.d11?le Center uIth St. ii, OH 45202 1? Crossroads Grassroots Policies Strategies (GPS), a nonepro? ion? is Pleas? to make this general- support 81? ant in the a] 1 Vote, also an IRS tax exempt non?profit 5010:) (4) organiza :z'at funds provided by- grant will not be used for any 01': aetivi?qr. This grant is being made based upon that. a surar,? Steven Law President bl! Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, on independent, nonprofit a taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenu 119 This docume nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp tax exempt mount of $200,000 to 1's stated mission and as a legally qualified social welfare tax exempt organization. As a result, Freedom Vote her purpose including any rga'n'ization exempt from federal ew York Ave, NW Suite 1200 - Washington, DC 20005 (202) 559?6498 - onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Mike Presid India Crossroad-3G PS September 17, 2010 'Cihter rtiand CEO 1 ight to Life 8520 lison Pointe Blvd. Suite Indian Dear 1? Life Paid for 140.1 New York Ave, NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 .- (202) 559-64 This docume 0 olis, IN 46250 [ike, further your organization?s tax exempt activities. i1 makers on vital nationalissues.- i'OSSroadS GPS is organized as a non-profit corporatic 'ernal Revenue Code; In keeping; with its own tax ex :1 nating to your organization with the understanding 1 ed in connection with any political or other non-exetii Please do- not hesitate to contact me if you haVe any President Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, on independent, nonprofit 120 Charting the Course for a New Direction forA I Cressroads GPS is pleased to make" a? contribution of $2 are particularly appreciative of your focus on educ taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the In terna! Reven it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp :nerica 55,000 to Indiana Right to ating the American people in under section 501(c)(4) empt status, Crossroads that its contribution Will pt activity. qtiestions'. irganization exempt from federal 2 Code. 28 - onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) I October 8, 2010 Mr. i3anner Preside it; National Federation of Independent Business 53 Century Boulevard Suite 250 Nashville, TN 37214 Dear Mi.iDanner, Crossroads GPS is pleased to make this grant, in the amount of 3,700,000, to the Nation 1 Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), to assist the IVFIB in its continuing efforts to pronlte and protect free-market?based economic policies. Siossroads GPS is organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code for the prom tion of social welfare. Speci?cally, Crossroads GPS is a policy and grassroots advocac organization that is committed to educating, equipping and mobilizing millions of Americ an citizens to take action on the critical economic and legislative issues that will shape our nati n?s future in the years ahead. We share with the NFIB an )verriding concern that cataclysihiic levels of debt, expansive government power, a nationalized health care system, a strugin ?1 economy and looming tax increases are all on the brink of reshaping and potentially devasta .i i the great country we?ve all known. has been a leading voice in the ?ghts to reduce marginal tax rates and prevent the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, and reign in unchecked govemm ent spending. NFIB also joined 0i states in a historic lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Af aridable Care Act. Crossroads GPS makes this grant to help NF 1B continue its efforts in these in portant areasvand in furtherance of own mission withiin Internal Revenue Service ?exempt i?unction? guidelines. Thank you again for your past efforts, and please feel free to contact me if we can be of assistan :6 going forward. Sincerely, Steven J. Law 1 121 This docume it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Charting the Course for a New Direction for Amerita CrossroadsG PS David Deputy ExeCutive Director and General Counsel NRA-II 11250 WIanles Mill Road Fairfax, VA 22030 October 12, 2010 Dear David, GPS is, pleased?to make acontributi'on ofl$600;000? tothe National Ri?e Association to further your organization?s tax exempt activities. we are particularly appreciative of your focus on educating the. American people and pol cymakers on the importance of private property as a core economic right under the rpserads GPS is organized as a 'n'on?profit corporatiorii under section 501(c)(4) of the Ir ternal Revenue Code. In keeping with its own tax exempt status, Crossroads GPS is I to your organization with the understanding that its contribution will not be (Edam connection with any political. or other non-exam pt activity. ease do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. I . incerely Steven La President Paid forby Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, an independent, nanprofit organization exempt from federal taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. 1401 illew York Ave, NW Suite 1200 - Washington, DC 20005 I (202] 559-6423 - 122 This documeliit was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Ms. De Mapping a New Direction for America June 10', 20.10 I rla St. Martin. 512 10t Washii Dear Right I tive Director Co-Ex NatimjaLRight to Life Committee 1 I treet, NW mgton, DC 20004 airla, crossroads GPS is pleased to make a contribution of $2 0 iLife, Committee to further.- your Organiza?on?s tax em Poid? are particularly appreciative of your focus on educ makers on the vital national issue of health care re entation of, and potential "changes to, the health care 1. rossrloads GPS is organized as a non-profit corporatic ernal Revenue Code. In keeping with its own tax ex donating to your organization with the understanding lead in connection with any political or other non-eer cerely, Steven Law Chairman 123 Jr and authorized by Crossroads Global Policy Strategies, a 501k, 250,000 to the National empt activities. ating the American pe'0ple rm, including anticipated agis?lation enacted by under section 501 (4) empt status, Crossroads that its contribution will activity. Piease do not hesitate to contact me if you have any quiestions. (4) tax-exempt organization. This documelit was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp bnsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) i Charting the Course fer a New Direction for America I1in 7, 2010 Co-Exec 've Director Natio ight to Life Committee 512 10th street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Ms. Darl?gt. Martin Dear Darla, "0,000 to the National pt activities. GPS is pleased. to make a contribution of $25 Right to Life Committee to further'your organization?s tax exe We are particularly appreciative of your focus on educa the American people jimakers on the vital national issue of health care ref. to, including anticipated implem ?tation of, and potential changes to, the health care 1e "elation enacted by ?(inssroads GPS is organized as a non-profit corporatio under section 501 I - pt status, Cr055r0ads ease do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, anew Steven Law Chairman Paid for y[Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, on independent, nonpro?t organization exempt from federal taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. 1401 ?ew York Ave, NW Suite 1200. - Washington, DC 20005 -- (202) 559-6448 - 124 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Ms. De Co-Ex: atior 512 101Ih Street, NW Washi Dear- Natior welfar will st: with efforts the im Congr of the] GPS is not be Paid f0 14% New York Ave, NW Suite 1200 0 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 559-6 August 12,. 2010 LrlaStf Martin a tive Director Right to Life Committee 1gton, DC 20004 +121, drossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies is pleased to all Right to Life Committee in support of your organiz 3 activities. I i As you know, Crossroad-s CPS is committed to advanc eingthen America?s economy and security, and one Oh Ie-r social welfare organizations to help promote such 1% educate the public and policymakers on national he a 's earlier thisyear. Qrossroads GPS is organized as anon-profit corpo-ratit ritemal Revenue Code. In keeping with its own tax ex donating to your organization with the understanding used in connection with any political or other non-exei I 'l?lease do not hesitate to contact me if you have any qu I Steven La Director liy Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, on in dependent, nonprofit 125 Crossroads taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Raven Dntribute $250,000 to the tion?s tax exempt social ing legislative policies that )ur strategies is to partner policies. We value your alth care policy, including ementation of, and potential changes to, the health care legislation enacted by an under section 501 empt status, Crossroads that its contribution will activity. Les?ons. organization exempt from federal ue Code. 428 - This docume nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Ms. Da Co-Ex Natio Right to Life Committee 512 10 Street, NW Was Dear %a Nation 1 and po implerr Congre of the GPS is not be deed in connection with any political or other non-exen 1 Paid for 1401 rla St. Martin Charting the Course for a New Direction for Al I September 1, 20.1.0 clitive Director gton, DC 20004 rla, Crossroads GPS is pleased to?make a further con?tribu are particularly appreciative of?jzour focus on educ': makers on the? vital national issue of health care ref Lentation of, and potential changes to, the health care 16 earlier this year. itemal Revenue Code. In keeping with. its own tax ext iona?ng to your organization with the understanding ?lpase do not hesitate to contact me if you have any qty nerica n. of $250,000 to the al? Right to- Life Committee to further your organiza?SEs tax exempt activities. ting the American people arm, including anticipated rgislation enacted by Irossr?oa?ds GPS is organized as a non-profit corporatioin under section 501 empit status, Crossroads that its contribution will 1pt activity. astions. Steven Law Chairman I ml Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, on independent, nonpro?t taxation under section 501 of the Internal Revenu 126 York Ave, NW Suite 1200 0 Washington, DC 20005, ?0 (202) 559-64: 'ganization exempt from federal a Code. :8 - This was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) CrossroadsG PS Charting the Course for a New Direction for Tenor: September 17, 2010. Ms. Daria St. Martin . Co-Execiutive Director Natior Right to Life Committee 512 10"h treet, NW Washi igton, DC 20004 Dear Darla, Gross-roads GPS is pleased to: make: a' contribution of$250,000 to the National Right #0 Life COmmittee to farther your organization?s tax exempt activities. I We are particularly appreciative of-your focus on educ ating the American people and pc licymakers on the vital national issueof health care reform, including anticipated implementation. of, and potential changes to, the health care liegisl'a?on enacted. by Congress earlier this year. Grossroads GPS is organized as a non-profit corporation under of the lnternal Revenue Code. In keeping. with its own tax exempt status, Crossroads onating to your organization. With the understanding that its contribution will not be 11 ed in-connection with any political or other non-exempt activity..- Paid fo Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, on independen nonprofit i i - cerely Steven La President Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. organization exempt from federal taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. 127 . 1401 New YorkAve, NW Suite 1200 - Washington, DC 20005 0 (202') 559-6 428 - This docume it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) This documel MS. Dar Co?Exec Nationa 512 10th Washing Dear Daria, Nationa' Vi and poli impleme Congres of the In GPS is a? St. Martin 5 gton, DC 20004 70 are particularly appreciative of your?yfocus on educai :ymakers on the vital national issue of health care refo earlier this year. rassroads is organized as a non?profit corporation teirnal Revenue Code. In keeping with its own tax exer not be Paid for 1401 i Charting the Course for a New Direction for Am September 30, 2010 've Director Iliight? .to Life Committee eet, NW l?ight to Life Committee to further your organization" I tation of, and potential changes to, the health care leg ating to your organization with the understanding tl ed in connection with any political or other non-exam? ease do not hesitate to contact me if you have any" que: ncerely, SteV?en Law Chairman 1 Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, on independent, nonpro?t org I taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue eiM York Ave, NW Suite 1200 - Washington, Dc 20005. - (202) 559-542: i . 123 erica- rissroads GPS is pleased to make :a further contributioin of $250,000 to the 5 tax exempt activities. ing the American people rm, including anticipated gislation enacted by under section 501 status, Crossroads oat-its contribution will pt activity. stions. ionization exempt from federal Code. - it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) CrossroadsG PS Charting the Course for a NEW Direction for Arne-rice October 12, .2010 Right to Life Coimnitt'e?e. 512 10?1$treet, NW Washington, DC 20004 Dear Dia?rla, Crossroads GPS is pleased to make a further contributl'fn of $250,000 to the National Right to Life Committee to further your -orgar-1'izatio ?3 tax exempt activities. We. are particularly appreciative of yourwas on educating the American people and po [i makers on the vital national issue of health. care reform, including anticipated implementation of, and potential changes to, the health care legislation enacted by Congress earlier this year. Crossroads GPS is organized as a non-profit corporation under section 501 (4) of the -ernal Revenue Code. In keeping with its own tax exempt status, Crossroads GPS is donating to your organization the understanding that its contribution will not be need in connection with any political or other'nonaexempt activity. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any qu est-ions. I i i 1 Steven Law Chairman Paid for biz Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, on Independent, nonprofit organization exempt from federal taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the interna! Revenu Code. i 1401 New verk Ave, NW Suite 1200 - Washington, DC 20005 (202) SSQ-GEFS - 129 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Ms. Da 1 Charting the Course-for a New Direction for Ar October 20, "201-0 St. Martin .1 National 51210.!1 Washir Dear itiVe Director itreet, ton, DC 20004 Right to Life. Committee- 4 Nation litI and po imple Congre Crossroads Grassroot?sPolicy Strategies, on independent, nonprofit ?4 taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the. Internal Reven Paid fa: 140 ?la,T Crossroads GPS. pleased to make a further contributi 11 Right to Life Carnmi?c'tee to further your organization?s tax exempt activities. :ymakers on the vital national issua ofhealth care- ref mentation of, and potential changes to, the health care 1: ss earlier this year. or at) lse are particularly appreciatiVe of?yoar fecus on- educ ossr-Oads GPS is organized as a ernal Revenue Code. In keeping its oWn tax em mating to your organiZation with the understanding in connection with any political or other nondexe'r ease do not hesitate to Contact me if you have any qu - SinCerely, teven Law 3 President \Iew York Ave, NW Suite 1200 - Washington, DC 20005 - (202-) 559-64 130 nerica- on of $250,000 to the ?ing the American peeple arm, including anticipated agislation enacted by :1 under section 501 ampt status, Crossroads that its contribution will apt activity. estions. argonization exempt from federal 1e Code. 128 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Crossroads September 17, 2010 Mr. itsk Ayers 'GoVernors Public Policy Committee 1747 ylva?ia Ave, NW Suite "0 Wasltington, DC 20006 Dear [?ick iC-rossroads Grassroots PoliciesStrategies (CPS), anon?profit 501(c) (4) tax exempt orgarj pleased to malce this general support grant in the amount of $750,000 to Repu; '3 Teen Governors Public Policy Committee also an IRS tax exempt non- profit organization. {The sole purpose of grant is?t'o further your organization?s stated mission and use as a legally qualified Welfare tax exempt Organization. Asa result, RGPP ?ligrees that funds provided By grant will not be used for any other purpose. inclucl' 1- any political activity. grant is being made based Lipon that assurance, Steven Law - President 131 i This document?was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Politics (OpenSecrets.org) This docume Crossroads-GPS Charting the Course for?dNew Direction forA nerica October 19, 2010 Mr. Maithew Brooks Executi vca Director Republ r" ?nJewish Coalition Suite 1C 0 Washing .12, NW :on, DC 20001. Dear Matt 1 Cto'ssroads GraSsr?oots'Polic'ie's Strategies (GPS), a non-profit 501(c)(4) tax exempt org-aniz ation, is pleased ?to make this tigeneral support grant in the amount of $150,000 to Republic Jewish Coalition (RIC), also an IRS tax exempt non-pro Eit 501(c)(4) organization. Thesole purpose of this grant to further your .organiZation?s' stated mission and purpose as a legally quali?ed social welfare tax exempt. organization. As a result, RIC agrees that fund? provided by this grant will not?b'e usedfor any other purpose including any political activity Paid for Crossroads 1401 This grant is beingmade based upon that assurance. - 1 President 132 rassroots Policy Strategies, on independent, nonprofit organization exempt from federal taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the Interna! Revenue Code.? blew York Ave, NW Suite 1200 0 Washington, DC 20005 (202') 559-64 28 -0 it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) E: STATEMENT OF STEVEN DUFFIELD. VICE PRESIDENT FOR m1 133 This docume Ht was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecretsorg) Statement of Steven Duffield, Policy Director; Vice President for Policy Crossro ds Grassroots Policy Strategies The following is a review of the role that I have played as Policy Director and Vice President for Policy for Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies with special attention paid to the 2010-2011 time period. This review is designed to demonstrate how GPS focuses its efforts on the policymaking process, in particular on Capitol Hill. General Background of Policy Role I was approached by representatives of GPS to serve as Policy Director in May 2010. When I was contacted and invited to discuss a policy role with GPS, it was made clear to me that my role would be to develop a smart policy agenda for the organization, monitor legislation on Capitol ill, engage productively throughout the national policy community, and look for opportunities for GPS to in?uence legislative activity. This has been my objective throughout my time with GPS. Agenda Development From the beginning, it was important to determine which policy areas GPS should target and how he organization could best in?uence them. To determine th at agenda, we examined and ident ?ed issue areas where the public might be willing to become engaged and where Congress and the President might pay attention. GPS soon develOped a policy agenda that focused (in economics, energy policy, health care, national debt, regulatory overreach, and national efense. This agenda dubbed the ?7 in ?1 1? National Actio 1 Plan) was discussed openly in the press and with policymakers, and was the culmination a great deal of work that drew on research within the national policy community on both the quality of the policy being pursued and the feasibility of its enactment. 134 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) It is important to emphasize this latter point, which is that feasibility has always been an importan: consideration. It has been the practice at GPS to advocate for policies that are within the realm of the possible and that are close to where elected of?cials ?re inclined to engage. GPS tries to in?uence policy debates as they actually occur, which is in marked contrast to some many organizations that lay out aspirational ideological principles with the hope that of?cehol :lers will respond. GPS focuses on policy as it actually develops, and we identify issues where policymakers are already inclined to act, and then advocate for the best possible policy outcome. Issue Surveys GPS is focused on the art of the possible in terms of policy, which means that an essential part of our work has focused on determining where the public stands on key issues. This knowledge helps us decide how best to persuade the public, and then policymakers, to support and pursuel policies that GPS supports. To that end, GPS has pursued public opinion projects that are focused on policy issues so that our advocacy work can be shaped to persuade. During the relevant time period (2010-2011), we conducted several issue-based surveys, including surveys focused on health care policy, tax policy, and the national debt. These surveys helped GPS develop and shape its policy agendas. surveys are sometimes made public and sometime sshared with policymakers or with other members of the national policy community. In the latter case, this collaborative process enables our work to be a ?force multiplier? of those who share the same policy goals. Interacticn with Policymakers Because GPS is primarily focused on in?uencing public policy, part of my role is to interact with policymakers, elected and appointed, both directly and through staff. These 135 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) interactions are of an educational nature. We share polling results an? public m: Capitol I- and Members/Senators in their decision-making. Capitol Hill staff an appreciat discuss AdvocaC? Washingi meetings Forum, A the Cato which have happened quite literally daily since the inception of the 01 Crossroa advocacy view the ?Issue Directions? Emails the national policy community that is represented by Washington DC pro?t adi journaliSi practice (of: announcing and broadcasting policy positions on some leg when the One speci?c way that GPS has sought to in?uence policy is 1y react to different public policy choices. In my role, I have [ill staff about policy issues and provide counsel and educati the policy knowledge and research that we can share and 0 ur latest public policy research and analysis. within Policy Community nroughout my work with GPS, I have engaged with other po on DC. regarding how best to advance our policy agenda. and correspondence with policy at entities such as 1 mericans for Tax Reform, the Heritage Foundation, the Am Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and other inst is GPS on the nature of the policy debate and aid the organi: . iCrossroads research and analyses likewise impact how otl policy debate and how they might be most effective. rocacy organizations, trade associations, corporate lobbying and commentary. To that end, during the 2010-2011 time se bills or amendments were being considered in the House 136 Ll judgments on how the regular conversations with onal materials to aid staff (1 elected of?cials ften invite us to visit to licy organizations in In practice, this has meant be American Action erican Enterprise Institute, tutions. These interactions, 'ganization, inform ration in shaping its ier non-pro?t organizations changing opinions within 3.?based think tanks, non- shops, and centers of frame, GPS began the :islative matters, especially or Senate. These policy This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) positions oppositio announce system th journalism, and government communities, and they were made availa This tacti influenci Public For exam Washing former Vi policy an and was with regL administi Health discussec discussio behalf of Lamar A through udorthodox means. GPS has also shared its agenda through public events where Ain'other example of this approach was in January 2011 when nients are shared throughout the Washington policy commu at reaches more than 1,000 essential influencers in the corpc 1g those who in?uence policymakers. rents and Public Writings ple, during the relevant time period, Crossroads GPS hosted ?hite House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, Senator Orrin Hatch, This event, designed in late 2011 and effectuated in iiscussed in the national press. It focused the public?s attent latory authority, the Affordable Care Act, environmental po ative actions on small business. In July 2012, Crossroads ht are policy in which elected of?cials and policy advocates the then-recent Supreme Court decision on the Affordable n. GPS at a Heritage Foundation-hosted event. This event, wl IeXander, focused on how the Senate should react to efforts I 137 included specific analysis of the issue at hand and an explan ation of why support or to a particular position would better serve the nation?s These nity through a distribution irate, non?pro?t, ble on our website for all. c?has been important in ful?lling vision of in?uencing policy by, in part, olicy issues are discussed. a special forum in on DC. on the issue of Executive Power, hosting former Attorney General Ed Meese, Rep. Peter Roskam, and early 2012, was televised ion on questions dealing licy, and the impact of asted a similar event on the non-pro?t world Care Act in a televised I appeared on C-SPAN on iich also included Sen. 0 change Senate rules This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) In a similar way, GPS has, at times, pursued opinion advocacy under its of?cers? names that seeks to in?uence policymakers. For example, GPS has published opinion advocacy pieces authored by former Board member Heather Wilson, GPS president Steven J. Law, and myself. These efforts, all of which appeared in key publications were policy focused in an effort to in?uence policymakers. 138 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) EX IT 1: PROPOSED ADVERSE DETERMINATION I ETTER 6, 2013! 139 This docume Lt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecretsorg) DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY I INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WASHINGTON, o.c. 20224 TAX EXEMPT ANB GOVERNMENT ENTI IES DIVISION Date: September 6, 2013 Contact Person: Karen Schiller Identific ation Number: Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies 100070858 45 Nortt Hill Drive, Suite 1000 Contact Number: Warrent 3n, VA 20186 (202) 517-8989 FAX Nu TIber: (202) 2 17-8584 Employer Identification Number: 27-275 3378 LEGEND FiscalYe ar Taxable year ending May 31, 2011 gate June 2, 2010 Virginia Descriptiont economy and national security Calenda rYearl 2010 three Description2 too much government spending seven two one 11 20,797,851 12 I 40,365,792 - y; 42,344,884 Calende rYear2 2011 Descripi ions government union reform 14 778,804 y? 786.763 y? 73,985 y1 876,514 y? 178,942 yg 1,012,933 3110 15,860,000 12 Grantee 1 Republican Jewish Coalition Grantee American Action Network Organizgjg? American Crossroads L11 45,000,000 Dear Applicant: We have considered your application for recognition of exemption fr om federal income tax under Internal Revenue Code 501 ("Application"). Based on the information provided in 140 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Crossroa connectii you do below. FACTS You inco ?establis ds Grassroots Policy Strategies with your Application and in your Form 990 for FiscalYear 3t qualify for exemption under 501(c)(4). The basis for our rporated on Date. in State. Your Articles of Incorporation ste ted primarily to further the common good and general welfar United 8 regardin ahead? tates of America by engaging in research, education, and co policy issues of national importance that will impact Americ our Articles also state that you ?shall not carry on any activ This docume carried internal by an organization exempt from federal income tax under: evenue Code of 1986 . . . In your pplication. you stated that your primary activities consist of ii policym king research and public education Yr ?may, in he future, develop and/or distribute independent political 'co ?any suc activity will be limited in amount, and will not constitute the purpose In Part of your Application, you indicated that you also en??es. 1. Adv acv Activities: in respo se to further requests for information, you provided a list ofi commu cations," with the dates the communications were distributei commu cations, and the cost of each one. These communications: advertis ments, radio advertisements, print media, direct mail, and te not prov any specific information regarding the amount of time spe levision Communications: Of the al amount you reported spending on communications in ditures?more than 90%?were for television advertisemer the exp you refe televisior one of th 'to these advertisements as "issue advocacy ads." You sub ese advertisements. 1 advertisements aired in FiscalYear and provided informatic we have concluded that conclusion is set forth te that you were of the citizens of the mmunication efforts a?s [Description1] in years Ity not permitted to be section 501(c)(4) of the 1fluencing legislation and Du also stated that you nmunications,? and that organization?s primary "lake grants to other what you termed ?advocacy descriptions of the :onsisted of television lephone contacts. You did int on any activities. calYear, substantially all of ts. In your press releases, mitted transcripts of the on the costs of all but Vith the exception of one, all of these television advertiseme 3r public office by name and were aired during the period Ie alendarYeart general election (the ?pre-election TV ads"). re-election TV ads aired during the 11 weeks prior to the Ca lection. 141 ts referred to a candidate ing up to the ore specifically, all of the endarYear1 general nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies advertisement; one advertisement also expressed approv ndidate. ou aired the pre-election TV ads in a number of different sta pproximately three-quarters of the pre-election TV ads aired hich a candidate for US. Senate was named in the advertis dvertisements, the individual you named was a candidate to rhere it aired. he remaining pre-election TV ads aired in different U.S. Hou ongressional districts. For each of these advertisements, dvertisement aired. 'ou identified nearly two-thirds of the pre-election TV ads as sported to the Federal Election Commission These rith statements such as the following: [Candidate] "is wrong for" [State]; [State] ?can't affor [Candidate]; ?Say no" to [Candidate]; [Candidate] ?can?t be trusted"; ?Two thumbs down"; and [Candidate] has ?been there too long." "he other approximately one-third of the pre-election TV ads 1dependent expenditures to the FEC. Of these, x1 contained text at the very end of the advertis tell the US. Senator in question to vote against a particul Senate was scheduled to vote on the identified bill shortly ll of the pre-election TV ads expressed disapproval of an inc candidate for the US. House of Representatives congressit ividual candidate named in al of the opponent to the tes. state-wide in states in ement. For each of these US. Senate in the state se of Representatives 3 individual you named was anal district in which the Independent expenditures advertisements concluded you did not report as ement asking the viewer to ar bill number. The US. after the advertisements aired. However, none of these advertisements provided indicating you ran any advertisements during this period candidate US. Senators to vote against the bill in questio 1 An inde election with, or a or a polit This docume pendent expenditure is an expenditure made for a communication 3r defeat of a clearly identified candidate that is not made in coope the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate's authoriz cal party or its agents." 11 C.F.R. 142 ny information about the bill other than the number. The advertisements containe no description or discussion of the content of the bill, and the audio of the dvertisements did not mention the bill at all. Rather, the advertisements focuse on criticizing the US. Senate candidates for having approved DescriptionZ int past. During the same 11-week period before the CalendarYear1 general electi n, you ran advertisements that expressed disapproval of these same US. Senate ndidates that you reported as independent expenditures to the FEC. You did not pr vide any information rging voters to tell any non- "expressly advocating the ration. consultation, or concert ad committee, or their agents, nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Crossro This docume ads Grassroots Policy Strategies - Another advertisement described the involvement of a was a state official at the time) in what the advertisement scandal" while also criticizing the candidate?s support of tax increases. You reported spending $y1 on the pre-election TV ads,whic1 was more than half of the - An additional of these advertisements criticized the candidate identified in the advertisement for supporting legislation Congress had enacted earlier in CalendarYear1. 25g of these 3 advertisements concluded by telling vi wers to tell the member of Congress identified in the advertisement to "stop" a rticular element of the legislation. of these 32 advertisements provided no discussio of why the legislation was undesirable but instead criticized the candidate forw rking to get the legislation passed rather than improving the state?s economy. More than half of these 52 advertisements criticized .8. Senate candidates who were state officials (not incumbent Senators) for sup orting the legislation earlier in CalendarYear1. The advertisements identifying on of the Senate candidates concluded by noting that another official in the state as suing the federal government to oppose the legislation and asked the iewers to tell the US. Senate candidate, as a state official, to support the allenge of the legislation. Advertisements identifying a Senate candidate in a di erent state (who was a state official in that state) concluded by asking the vi ers to tell the US. Senate candidate to ?fight? and "stop defending" the legislati (with one of those advertisements noting that the candidate had refuse to join other states? officials in opposing the legislation). The timing of these 52 advertisements criticizing can idates for supporting the legislation earlier in CalendarYear1 does not appear 0 be related to a non- electoral event such as a scheduled vote on specific gislation by the candidates. While there were pending suits againstt federal government, the timing of the advertisements mentioning or alluding such suits does not appear to be related to any expected action in the suits. During the same 11-week period before the Calenda Yeari general election in which you were airing these advertisements critici ing the candidates for their past approval of the legislation, you aired advertisem expressing disapproval of all but one of the candidates that you reported as i dependent expenditures to the FEC. You did not provide any information indicating that aired advertisements prior to, during, or after the 11-week period before the Cal ndarYear1 general election urging viewers to tell US. Senators or state officials he were not candidates to oppose or challenge the legislation in question. The legislation in question was raised as an issue distinguishing the candidates mentioned in the advertisements from their opponents S. Senate candidate (who characterized as a ?tax 143 nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies period leading up to the CalendarYear1 general election if xpenditures. tadio Communications: You sta than 2% ted that you spent for radio communications that aired in of your Stay; in total FiscalYear expenditures: ?ou aired the advertisements at the same time Congress del gislation, which was after the CalendarYear1 general electi the advertisements, you instructed the listener to call their your $12 in total FiscalYear expenditures: :alendarYeari general election, and one day was after the agislation mentioned in the advertisement and urged supporl 'ou ran the other advertisement after the CalendarYear?l ger epealing legislation passed earlier in the year. 2 The informati FiscalYear, with most of the difference presumably being general administrt was user using $11 in total FiscalYear expenditures that you accounted for in respon: an is somewhat less than the 3y; in total expenditures you reporte because that is the total for which you provided the requisite, spe 1 as the figure for total FiscalYear expenditures would not affect th 144 2 in total FiscalYear expenditures that you accounted for in quests for information.2 However, you aired at least one te 'ou aired the advertisements as a series of advertisements l: ?ou aired theadvertisements in different congressional distrit i5? 'ou ran one advertisement on two separate days. One dayv response to further vision advertisement in rwhich you did not rovide information on the associated expenditures. That ad ertisement criticized the cord of a member of Congress, who was also a candidate, or making the state?s conomy worse and concluded by stating that the member 5 ?wrong for? the state. he one television advertisement you aired in FiscalYear tha was not a pre-election TV aired nationally in CalendarYearZ. The advertisement urg resident and tell him to support Description 3. You reported elevision advertisement, which was less than 2% of your $yg viewers to call the spending on this in total FiscalYear FiscalYear, which was less ased on a template. :ts in a number of states. erated a piece of Congressional that you spent for newsprint communications in Fisca lYear, which was less than vas before the alendarYear1 general lection. The advertisements appeared at the same time Congress deliberated the for the legislation. reral election. It called for se to further requests for on your Form 990 for ative and overhead costs. cific information. However, a outcome of this ruling. This docume nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies Eirect Mailinq: You stated that you spent $y1 for direct mailings in FiscalYear (which was approximately 2% of your $yg in total FiscalYear expenditures) and submitted a list and samples of direct-mail communications mailed in FiscalYear: ou mailed all communications in September and October of CalendarYear1, during the riod leading up to the CalendarYear1 general election. Yo .I did not mail any mmunications after the CalendarYear1 general election. ou selected a number of states in which to send mailings, a of which were holding an ection for US. Senate. ou customized the content of each communication for the ecific state of distribution. ach communication identified an individual who was a cand date for US. Senate in the ate where you mailed it. ubstantially all of the communications expressed disapprov of a specific candidate ith statements such as the following: . [State] ?can?t afford" [Candidate]; [Candidate] ?only hurts [the] economy?; [Candidate] ?made the problem worse"; [Candidate] "ideas don't solve the problem"; "That's the wrong way, [Candidate]"; ?[Candidate?s] policies are driving [State?s] economy off a cliff." he remaining communications expressed approval of a specific candidate, with the llowing statements: [Candidate] ?gets itl?; [Candidate?s] voting record is one of . . . "champion." ost of the communications contained a few sentences asking the reader to contact the andidate to support specific legislation. However, the vast majority of the text in the ommunications was not devoted to discussing the legislation mentioned but to riticizing (or approving) the candidate?s past record. Moreover, nearly half of the andidates mentioned were not incumbents in the US. Senate and hence had no ability vote on the legislation mentioned. ore than half of the candidates you identified in your direct mail communications were lso identified in your television advertisements. elephone Contacts: You staled that you spent for telephone messaging in FiscalYei (which was less than 0.5% of your in total FiscalYear expenditures) and submitted a li of telephone messaging communications placed in FiscalYear: - You initiated all the calls within 30 days prior to the CalendarYear1 general election. No calls were made after the CalendarYear1 general election. 145 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Crossroa Grassroots Policy Strategies directed the calls to a number of states. A specific candic id ntified in each of the calls. 0 call named a candidate for the US. House of Represents named candidates for US. Senate. DU customized the script of each telephone message to eacl strict. Each message identified an individual who was a can state where the call was made. I but one of the candidates you identified in your telephone enti?ed in your television communications, your direct mail I of the calls that named US. Senate candidates expressed dividual candidate named in the call. The call that named a epresentatives candidate expressed approval of the individu intained statements such as the following: - [Candidate] "is taking us down with the votes [Candidate]?s - [Candidate?s] ?votes have made the problem worse"; - [Candidate] ?isn?t on the same page as the rest of? [State]; - [Candidate] ?has turned [Candidate?s] back on? [State]; I [Candidate] ?has failed." 2. Research: Accordin 3 to your Form 990 for FiscalYear. you spent on researc approxim dl 0T 0Y Your Ap]: activities submitter FiscaIYe This docume In initiatives. Pub ately 2.5% of your $12 in total FiscalYear expenditures: December of CalendarYeari, you released a poll that meas 3th parties' messaging on a number of economic issues regs eficit. 1e timing of the poll coincided with pending legislation. ou also filed FOIA requests to gain access to information relr Education: ilication states that you engage in public education activities aimed at influencing legislation and policymaking. However i does not specify any such public education activities that . 146 ou conducted in ate in the state was tives, while the remaining I state or congressional didate for elected office in nessages were also ommunications, or both. disapproval of the US. House of al candidate. Several calls . casting in Washington?; activities, which was .ured voter responses to irding tax rates and the ated to your policy that are distinct from your the information you nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Crossro ds Grassroots Policy Strategies Accordi to your Form 990 for FiscalYear. you spent on grants. to other organizations, which 3 less than 40% of your $12 in total FiscalYear expenditures: ou made grants to x? organizations exempt under 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6). You re to be used only for tax-exempt function purposes of the rantee organization and tto be used in connection with any political or non?exempt ctivity." ou state that the percentage of your total time devoted to king grants is a relatively all percentage because evaluating potential grant recipien is not as time intensive activity as your other endeavors. ne of the largest of the grants was made to a 501(c)(6) or anization. number of your grantees have reported significant political xpenditures. ou did not provide any additional information regarding thes grants. our Form 990 for FiscalYear shows that you made a grant Grantee1 and Grantee1, i turn, made a grant to you during the same year. Moreover Grantee1?s Form 990 vering the FiscalYear period shows that Grantee1 receive a grant from Grantee2, an rganization to whom you made a grant in FiscalYear. Grant e1?s grant to you xceeded the combined amount of your grants to Grantee1 onship to Organization: any way with any other organization, you stated ?nla.? in response further inquiry, you provide information about your relationship with Organization. You stated that you ?share[] several mployees and consultants with [Organization], an 27 organization that is register with the FEC as a political committee.? Among the share employees is your CEO, who is so CEO of Organization. in addition, you and Organization hare of?ce space and office uipment. You stated that you had x_2_ employees, and you ll ted employees who have ployment relations with, and receive salaries from, both you and Organization. Further ore, you listed additional persons who provided volunteer rvices to you and to Or aniz tion. These individuals provide consulting and strategic ad ice and assist with fundrais ng. Although you share office space, equipment, employee consultants, and volunte rs who provide strategic advice, you stated that you and Or anization do not engage in ?joint? orts. In Caler darYearZ, you issued a report which stated that your publicl stated goal was to raise in ,3alendarYear1 for both you and Organization. You stated at your donor support ?explode d" in September and October of CalendarYeart, allowing to substantially exceed your public goal "across the two organizations.? in this report, you i cluded various newspaper articles about the CalendarYear?l political campaign. You included article that stated that you and Organization disclosed in an annual report sent to donors tr at you and Organization 147 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies spent ne persuasi TV (sic), integrated with direct-contact mail and phone ad LAW Section 01(c)(4) provides for the exemption from federal income tax organize for pro?t but operated exclusively for the promotion of socia Section .501 of the Income Tax Regulations provides tt operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarili some we the common good and general welfare of the people of the organiza ion embraced within this section is one which is operated pr bringing bout civic betterments and social improvements. in additior that the romotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect campaig on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public ofl Rev. Rul 68-45, 1968-1 CB. 259, states that ?[a]ll facts and circumst account and gen ral welfare of the people of the community. In Rev. to prom an enlightened electorate and whose primary activity was public of ice, was not exempt under 501(c)(4) because it did not ruling st ted that the comparative rating of candidates, even on a nor the parti ipation or intervention on behalf of candidates favorably rate those le favorably rated. ln Rev. campaig other ex those rul activities designed to promote social welfare. in addition, it conducte participa ion and intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in for nomi ation or election to public office. The ruling concluded that, primary ctivities promoted social welfare, its lawful participation or in campaig on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office its exem status under 501(c)(4). mples of what constitutes participation or intervention in pol Rev. Ru 2004-6, 2004-1 CB. 328, analyzes six situations to determ organiz ion described in each has expended funds for a 527(e)(2) 148 rly all of the money raised on campaigns. The report also 5 Augusto CalendarYear1 was to "energize citizens in key states? and which th re would likely be robust debate on national policy were sele ul. 67-368, 1967-2 CB. 194, the Service held that an organi lul. 81-95, 1981-1 CB. 332, the Service considered the effec 1 activities on 3 501(c)(4) organization. The ruling refers t: involves 3 501(c)(3) organization. The organization tated that your strategy in that "states and districts in cted for an issue vocacyf of organizations not I welfare. let an organization is engaged in promoting in community. An marin for the purpose of 1, the regulations provide participation in political iice. ances are taken into determining an organization?s primary activity? for purposes of determining whether an organ zation primarily engages in activities which promote in some way the common good zation, which was formed rating candidates for mote social welfare. The -partisan basis, constitutes and in opposition to :t of engaging in political a ?ve revenue rulings for tical campaigns. Each of as primarily engaged in activities involving opposition to candidates because the organization?s tervention in political would not adversely affect ne whether the exempt function as a This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) 10 Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies result of an advocacy communication on a public policy issue. A 52 means or appoir organiz individua or electors are selected, nominated, elected, or appointed." circumst that an include, In facts show th function nclude, but are not limited to, the following: Each of "t 1e function of influencing or attempting to influence the sele tment of any individual to any Federal, State or local public alion, or the election of Presidential or Vice-Presidential elect nces must be considered when making this determination. a but are not limited to, the following: we communication identifies a candidate for public office; he timing of the communication coincides with an electoral he communication targets voters in a particular election; he communication identifies that candidate?s position on the subject of the communication; he position of the candidate on the public policy issue has stinguishing the candidate from others in the campaign, eith self or in other public communications; and 't cammunications by the organization on the same issue. nd circumstances, such as those described in the six situatii tan advocacy communication on a public policy issue is not a absence of any one or more of the factors listed above; communication identifies specific legislation, or a specific the organization. that the organization hopes to influence; he timing of the communication coincides with a specific eve organization that the organization hopes to influence, suc her major legislative action (for example, a hearing before a issue that is the subject of the communication); he communication identi?es the candidate solely as a gover sition to act on the public policy issue in connection with gislator who is eligible to vote on the legislation); and he communication identifies the candidate solely in the list 0 of the legislation that is the subject of the communication. the situations assumes that: W: ill payments for the described activity are from the general tr ather than from a separate segregated fund under 527(f)(3 .1 149 :lvocacy communication on a public policy issue is for a 52 he communication is not part of an ongoing series of substai exempt function :tion, nomination, election, affice or office in a political irs, whether or not such All the facts and Factors that tend to show exempt function I ampaign; public policy issue that is en raised as in the communication 1tially similar advocacy ans, factors that tend to for a 527(e)(2) exempt event outside the control int outside the control of 'l as a legislative vote or legislative committee on nment official who is in a a specific event (such as a key or principal sponsors easury of the organization This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Crossro ds Grassroots Policy Strategies Rev. Ru. 2007-41, 2007-1 CB. 1421, analyzes 21 situations to dete 501(c) 3) organization described in each has directly or indirectly campai 11 he organization would continue to be exempt under 501 (a ctivity is not a 501(c) exempt activity, because the organiz escribed in the appropriate subparagraph of 501(c); and II advocacy communications described also include a solicit rganization. i, even if the described ation's primary activities are ation of contributions to the rmine whether the rticipated in a political . All facts and on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public offic circums nces are considered when making this determination. Wh determining whether a commu ication results in political campaign intervention, key factors include:. hether the statement identi?es one or more candidates for given public of?ce; hether the statement expresses approval or disapproval to one or more candidates? ositions and/or actions; hether the statement is delivered close in time to the electi n; hether the statement makes reference to voting or an elect on; hether the issue addressed in the communication has bee raised as an issue istinguishing candidates for a given office; hether the communication is part of an ongoing series of mmunications by the rganization on the same issue that are made independent 0 the timing of any election; on when it makes avertheless, the any conclusions. itted to conduct certain iner. On the other hand, cation or registration activities conducted in a biased manner that favors (or opposes) one or more candidates is prohibited. Finally, he ruling states that a web site is a form of communication. If an organization posts something on its web site that favors or opposes a candidate for public office, the organization will be treated the same as if it distributed printed material, oral state favored This docume ments, or broadcasts that or opposed a candidate. 150 nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) This docume 12 Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies ANALYSIS Based 0 have de the mea ing of 501(c)(4) and the regulations thereunder. Therefo 1 our analysis of the information you submitted in connectio exempti from federal income tax as an organization described in Televisi advertisements accounted for the majority of your FiscalY one of ur FiscalYear television advertisements aired during the 11 Calend Year1 general election, identified a candidate for public offi or disap roval of that candidate. You aired all of these pre?election where candidate mentioned in the advertisement was running for You ide tified nearly two?thirds of your ore-election TV ads as indepi reports to the FEC. Of the remaining one-third of pre-election TV the end fthe advertisement that listed a bill number, and a vote on ermined that you are not operated exclusively for the promo with your Application, we tion of social welfare within e, you do not qualify for 501(c)(4). l? expenditures. All but weeks before the and expressed approval ads in targeted areas public office. I =ndent expenditures 5, a few contained text at hat bill was scheduled close to he time the advertisements were aired. However, these ad ertisements focused primaril on criticizing the identified candidate and provided no infor other th the bill number, which was provided as text (but not audi advertis ment. In addition, you did not run any advertisements urgi candida officials to take action on the legislation. Accordingly, the ation about the legislation at the very end of the 9 viewers to contact non- acts and circumstances indicate hat these advertisements were political campaign interventi and did not promote social Ifare. Most of he remaining one-third of pre-election TV ads that you did indepen ent expenditures did not identify specific pending legislatio report to the FEC as but rather criticized the candida es for supporting legislation enacted earlier in CalendarYea ?l?legislation that was raised a an issue distinguishing the candidates from their opponen . The timing of these advertis ments does not appear to be related to a non-electoral eve such as scheduled vote on spec ic legislation by the candidates. While a few of these adve alluded suits filed with regard to the enacted legislation and aske isements referenced or the candidates?who were also cur ent state officials?to support the challenge, the timing of th se advertisements does not app ar to have had any obvious connection to the timing of the uits. Moreover, you did not run any dvertisements urging these or other state officials to challe ge the legislation either prior to lawsuits neverr legislati these te earlier ir he 11-week period before the CalendarYear1 general electi were being prepared and filed) or after the CalendarYear1 any advertisements urging state of?cials who were not ca n. Balancing these and other facts and circumstances res evision advertisements criticizing the candidates for suppo Thus, televisio welfare. 3 conclude that all of your pre-election TV ads, and all but 0 151 CalendarYear1 were political campaign activities that did advertisements, constituted political campaign interventior The ore-election TV ads accounted for a majority (closer to the time the eneral election. You also didates to challenge the Its in the conclusion that ing legislation enacted ot promote social welfare. of your FiscalYear and did not promote social if your $1.2 in total nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Crossroa FiscalYe a pre-ele rather th than 2% In additic were als Calenda 13 ds Grassroots Policy Strategies ction TV ad (which aired nationally in CalendarYearZ) consti an political campaign intervention. However. this one advert of your in total FiscalYear expenditures. to the television advertisements, both your direct mailings communications that targeted voters, during the period lea candidat approxirr as for public office. We conclude that these activities, which campaign intervention and did not promote social welfare. We also note that after the CalendarYear1 general election, your adv election than poli influence in total and newsprint communications, most of which ran after th tical campaign activity. Your research activities also appear legislation. However, these activities together accounted fc iscalYear expenditures. During organiz islcalYear, you also made grants totaling $y_1_Q to other 501 ions. You state that the grants were accompanied by a lett _a_r expenditures. The one television advertisement you aireo Year1 general election, which expressed approval or disapi: ater 2.5% of your $12 in total FiscalYear expenditures, alsc dropped off sharply, which supports the conclusion that in FiscalYear that was not tuted issue advocacy sement accounted for less and your telephone calls ding up to the roval of specific, identified accounted for constituted political ertising expenditures in ost of your advertising CalendarYear1 general and called for action on legislation, constituted attempts to influence legislation rather to be related to attempts to less than 5% of your $yg and 501(c)(6) of transmittal stating that the fund ?are to be used only for tax-exempt function purposes of th grantee organization and not to used in connection with any political or non-exempt activity. one oft function welfare. that suc substan i Moreove have pro largest of these grants is described in 501(c)(6), not 5 to promote the common business interests of its member You did not provide information regarding the purpose of th grants promoted a social welfare purpose. Hence, we can al portion of your grant activity promotes social welfare for r, a number of your grantees have reported significant politi vided no information establishing that the funds you donate However, the recipient of tax-exempt not to promote social other grants to indicate ot conclude that a rposes of 501(c)(4). al expenditures and you to these grantees were not, in fact, used for political campaign activities or that you retained he control and discretion (or cond activities In addition, we note that you made a grant to Grantee1 in Fiscleear made a you mao grant to transact promote This docume Jcted the monitoring) necessary to ensure that use of the fu that promote social welfare. grant to you of a larger amount during the same year. Moret a grant in FiscalYear, made a grant to Grantee1 during th you exceeded the combined amount of your grants to Grant ons suggest the possibility of a circular flow of funds rathert social welfare. 152 ds was restricted to and Grantee1, in turn, aver, Grantee2, to whom same period. Grantee1 ?5 e1 and Grantee2. These han grants to actually nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) 14 Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies However even assuming that all of your grants did, in fact, promote cial welfare, it remains the case that the majority of your FiscalYear expenditures were spen on political campaign activities. Moreover, you have acknowledged that the percentage of otal time you devote to making 9 ants is a relatively small percentage because evaluating po ential grant recipients is not as ti intensive an activity as your other endeavors. While all facts and circumstances are taken into account in determini 9 an organization's primary ctivity for purposes of determining whether an organization rimarily engages in activities hat promote social welfare, you only submitted a detailed a ocation of your expendit res. You did not provide sufficiently detailed information re arding other possible measure such as the amount of time and effort that was expended or each activity, and, to the limite extent that you did comment on the relative amount of tim devoted to your activities, your stat ments support our conclusion that you are not primarily engaged in promoting social welfare. ccordingly, we have based our conclusion that you are not exempt under 501(c)(4) principal! on the financial expenditure information that you provided. CONCL SION Based 0 our analysis of the information you provided in connection with your Application and in erated exclusively for the must su mit a statement of your views and fully explain your reasoni 9. You must submit the stateme t, signed by one of your officers, within 30 days from the da of this letter. We will gp?gider your statement and decide if the information affects our det rmination. Your pro est statement should be accompanied by the following decl ration: Un er penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this otest statement, including ac mpanying documents, and, to the best of my knowledge a belief, the statement co ains all the relevant facts, and such facts are true, correct, nd complete. You als have a right to request a conference to discuss your protes This request should be made en you ?le your protest statement. An attorney, certified pu lic accountant, or an individu enrolled to practice before the Internal Revenue Service represent you. If you want representation during the conference procedures, you must file proper power of attorney, Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative, if ou have not already done so. For more information about representation, see Publication 947, ractice before the IRS and Power of Attorney. All forms and publications mentioned in this I tter can be found at gov, Forms and Publications. 153 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies If you dc 15 0t intend to protest this determination, you do not need to take any further action. if- we. do not hear from you within 30 days. we will issue a final adverse determination letter. That letter will provide information about filing tax returns and other matters. Please send your protest statement, Form 2848, and any supportan internal Revenue Service Karen Schiller Washington, DC 20224?0002 You may also fax your statement using the fax number shown in the 1111 Constitution Avenue NW heading of this. letter. If you fax 'ur statementi please call the person identi?ed in the heading of this ietter to con?rm that he orsh?e received your fax. If you have any questions, please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown in the heading of this letter. This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) 154 Sincerely, Acting Director, E0 Rulings and Schiller Agreements documents to this address: EXHIBIT 2: VOTE AID FORM 1023 155 This docume n1: was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecretsorg) Focus on the Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(c)(3) of the internal Revenue Code 1 023 (Rev. June 2006) Department of the Tm internal Revenue Servl Use the inst ctions to complete this application and for a de?nition of all hold items. For Organizations ustomer Account Services toll-free at 1-877-829-5500. Visit our website at publications. if he required information and documents are not submitted with payment of application me be returned to you. Attach additi nal sheets to this application if you need more space to answer fully. Put identify each a swer by Part and line number. Complete Parts I - Xi of Form 1023 and SUbi H) that apply tc you. 1 OMB No. 1545-0056 Note: if exempt status is approved. this application will be open for public inspection. additional help, call IRS Exempt for forms and the appropriate user fee, the sury ~e name and EIN on each sheet and nit only those Schedules (A through identification of Applicant Full name oforganization (exactly as it appears in your organizing document) 2 old Name (if applicable) Voter Alliance tc Improve Democracy Liz Tov1ne 3 Mailing address (Number and street) (see instructions) 11 Dupont 0er le, NW Room/Suite 2nd Floor 4 Identi?cation Number (EIN) 20-5353546 City or t0i Washington. vn, state or country, and ZIP 4 i0 20036?1206 5 Month the annual accounting period ends (01 12) December 6 Primary a Name: antact (of?cer, director, trustee, or authorized representative) B. Holly Schadler Phor e: 202-328-1666 Fax: (optional) 202-328-9162 Are you represented by an authorized representative, such as an attorney or account t? If ?Yes,? El Yes provide tte authorized representative's name, and the name and address of the auth rized representative's ?rm. include a completed Form 2848, Power of Attorney and Declare ion of Represen ative, with your application if you would like us to communicate with your presentative?not one of your officers, directors, trustees, employeesrepresentative listed in line 7, paid, or promised payment, to help plan, manage, or ad the struct .lre or activities of your organization, or about your financial or tax matters? provide ti e'person?s name. the name and address of the person's ?rm, the amounts promised to be paid, and describe that person?s role. thorized vise you about ?Yes,? bald or 9a Organization?s website: None Organizat on?s email: (optional) 10 Certain are grant ?Yes,? ex Form 990 ganizations are not required to file an Information return (Form 990 or Form dltax-exemption, are you claiming to be excused from ?ling Form 990 or F: alain. See the instructions for a description of organizations not required to .52, If you Yes No rl?lTl If le Form 990 or 11 Date Inco rporated if a corporation, or formed, it other than a corporation. Wm 11/ 17 lanes 12 Were you if ?Yes,? state the country. towed under the laws of a foreign country? END Yes For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see page 24 of the instructions. Cat. No. 17133K Form ,1023 (Rev. 6-2006) The Exempt rganization Tax Review Fel aruary 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 171 156 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) harp?. .- - . 14.. '3 $5 - . . {55.11It: Harv-15: - z'ws?if??n?un_ I "5-1 .5. Focus or the IRS 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) Name; Voter Aliiance to improve Democracy Or anizationai Structure must be a corporation (including a limited liability companY). an unincorporated ee?, instructions.) DO NOT file this form unless you can check ?Yes? on lines 1. Fa EN: 20 5853546 Page 2 Yc (S 1 asspciation. or a trust to be tax exempt. game showing certi?cation to your articles and Are you a corporation? if ?Yes.? attach a copy of your articles of incorporatior Yes of ?ling with the appropriate state agency. Include copies of any amendments be sure they also show state ?ling certi?cation. Are you a limited liability company it "Yes." attach a copy of your articles of organization showing CI Ye No certi?cation of ?ling with the appropriate state agency. Also. if you adopted an ope agreement, attach a copy. include copies of any amendments to your articles and be sure they show tate ?ling certification. Refer to the instructIOns for circumstances when an LLC should not ?le Its own exe ption application. of association, CI Yes No east two signatures. Are you an unincorporated association? if attach a copy of your articlfs constitution. or other similar organizing document that is dated and includes a i include signed and dated copies of any amendments. DNO [:lNo a 3 Are you atrust?? if a signed and dated copy of your trust agreem and dated copies of any amendments. Have you been funded? If explain how you are formed without anything of value placed in trust. Have you adopted bylaws? if "Yes." attach a current copy showing date of ad how your of?cers. directors. or tmstees are selected. Required Provisions in Your Organizi? Document following questions are designed to ensure that when you ?le this application. your organizing document contains the required provisions to meet the organizational test under section 501(c)(3). Unless you can check the boxes in both lines 1 and 2. your organizing document as not meet the organizational test. DO NOT file this application until you have amended your organizing document. Submit your ginal and amended organizing documents (showing state ?ling certi?cation If you are a co'poratlon or an LLC) with your application. ent. Include signed Yes Yes Yes option. if explain Section 501(c)(3) requires that your organizing document state your exempt purpose(s). such as charitable. religious. educational. and/or scienti?c purposes. Check the box to confirm th your organizing document meets this requirement. Describe speci?cally where your organizing document meets this requirement, such as a reference to a particular article or section In your organizing document. Rate to the instructions for exempt purpose language. Location of Purpose Clause (Page. Article. and Paragraph): 39 1.2 an 3 gate 3 a 3 Section 501 (0X3) requires that upon dissolution of your organization. your remainin assets must be used exclusively for exam purposes. such as charitable. religious. educational, and/or scienti?c 9 case. Check the box on line 2a to con?nn at your organizing document meets this requirement by express provislo for the distribution of assets upon dissolution. If you rely on state law for your dissolution provision. do not check the box on line 2a and go to line 2c. if you checked the box on line 2a. specify the location of your dissolution clau (Page. Article. and Paragraph). Do not complete line 2c if you checked box 2a. - 1 to See the instructions for information about the Operation of state law in your pelrticular state. Check this box if you rely on operation of state law for your dissolution provision and indicate ti" 9 state: Narrative Description 'of Your Activities EZ Eb ing an attachment, describe your past, present, and planned activities In a narrative. If you believe that you have already provided some of 3 information in response to other parts of this application, you may summarize that information here and refer to the speci?c parts of the a plication for supporting details. You may also attach representative copies of newsletters. brochures. or similar documents for supporting tails to this narrative. Remember that if this application is approved, it will be open for pu ailc inspection. Therefore. your narrative scription of activities should be thorough and accurate. Refer to the for information that must be included in your description. Compensation and Other Financial Arrangements With Your Employees, and Independent Contractors 1a List the names. titles, and mailing addresses of all of your of?cers, directors, and-t ustees. For each person listed. state their total annual compensation. or proposed compensation. for all services to the organization. whether as an officer. employee. or Of?cers, Directors. Trustees, . other position. Use actual ?gures. if available. Enter "none" if no compensation is will be paid. if additional space is needed, attach a separate sheet. Refer to the instructions for information on what to includ as compensation. Compensation amount arne Title Mailing address (annual actual or estimated) rIan Aron President. Director $0 DC 90036 Jleff Malachowsky Treasurer. Director $0 Portland 0191212_ 5 hannon Garrett Secretary. Director ,123013th?tteet?w, $0 DC 9000?; Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) 172 February 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 The Exempt Organization Tax Review 157 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the IRS Name: Voter Alliance to improve Democracy Employees, and Independent Contractors (Continued) Form 10 (Rev. 6-2006) em; 20 5853546 Compensation and Other Financial Arrangements With Your Officers, Directors, Trustees, Page 3 Lift the names, titles, and mailing addresses of each of your five highest compen ted employees who receive or will re.eive compensation of more than $50,000 per year. Use the actual figure, If avai able. Refer to the instructions for ln?ormation on what to include as compensation. Do not include officers, directors or trustees listed in line 1a. Compensation amount Name Title Mailing address (annual actual or estimated) None. Li the names, names of businesses, and mailing addresses of your five highest compensated independent contractors th receive or will receive compensation of more than $50,000 per year. Use the actual ?gure, if available. Refer to the in tructions for information on what to include as compensation. Compensation amount Name Title Mailing address (annual actual or estimated] None. The foiic wing ?Yes? or "No" questions relate to past, present, or planned relationships, transactic ns, or agreements with your of?cers, directors, trustees, highest compensated employees, and highest compensated independent con tractors listed In lines 1ayour of?cers, directors, or trustees related to each other through family or business [1 Yes El No re tlonships'? if ?Yes,? identify the individuals and explain the relationship. you have a business relationship with any of your of?cers, directors, or trustee other than Yes No th ough their position as an officer, director, or trustee? if ?Yes,? identify the indivi uals and describe th business relationship with each of your officers, directors, or trustees. A any of your of?cers, directors, or trustees related to your highest compensate employees or Cl Yes . No hi hest compensated independent contractors listed on lines 1b or to through liy or business re tlonships? If "Yes," identify the individuals and explain the relationship. 3a each of'your of?cers, directors, trustees, highest compensated employees, anc highest pensated independent contractors listed on lines 1a, 1b, or 1c, attach a list st? owing their name, all?catlons, average hours worked, and duties. any of your of?cers, directors, trustees, highest compensated employees, and ighest Yes if No mpensated independent contractors listed on lines 1a, 1b, or ?lc receive comps sation from any at er organizations, whether tax exempt or taxable, that are related to you throug common ntrol? If ?Yes,? identify the individuals, explain the relationship between you and the other 0 ganlzation, and describe the compensation arrangement. 4 in establishing the compensation for your of?cers, directors, trustees, highest com'aensated employees, and highest compensated independent contractors listed on lines 1alowing practices are recommended, although they are not required to obtain ex mption. Answer ?Yies? to all the practices you use. a D: you or will the individuals that approve compensation arrangements follow a con?l of interest policy? Yes No Do you or will you approve compensation arrangements in advance of paying co ensation? Yes No Dc: you or will you document in writing the date and terms of approved compensa ion arrangements? Yes No Eorm 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) The Exempi Organization Tax Review Hebruary 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 173 158 This docume wt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) . 1 22:32: Focus 0 the IRS ma?a?.54- . 1m. Name: VoterAlilance to improve Democracy EIN: 20 5853546 Fo n1023 (Fiev. 6-2000) - Compensation and Other Financial Arrangements With Year Of?cers, Directors, Trustees, Employees, and Independent Contractors (Continued) Yes Do you or will you record in writing the decision made by each individual who decided or voted on Yes x. . l? .u-fr 1r; compensation arrangements? 555% Do you or will you approve compensation arrangements based on information about compensation paid by lil similarly situated taxable or tax-exempt organizations for similar services. curren compensation surveys compiled by independent ?rms. or actual written offers from similarly situated org izations? Refer to the instructions for Part V. lines 1a. 1b. and 1c. for information on what to include as ompensatlon. .- 23.3: Yes 1? Do you or will you record in writing both the information on which you relied 0 base your decision and its source? 9 if you answered "No" to any item on lines 4a through 4f. describe how you compensation that is reasonable for your of?cers. directors. trustees. highest corn ensated emplo ees. and highest compensated independent contractors listed in Part V. lines a. 1b. and 1c. Have you adopted a conflict of interest policy consistent with the sample n?ict of interest policy in Appendix A to the instructions? If "Yes." provide a copy of the policy and xplaln how the policy has been adopted. such as by resolution of your governing board. it a swer lines 5b and 5c. EYes I A What procedures will you follow to assure that persons who have a con?ict cf interest will not have influence over you for setting their own compensation? What procedures will you follow to assure that persons who have a conflict cf interest will not have in?uence over you regarding business deals with themselves? Note: A con?ict of interest policy is recommended though it is not required to obtain exemption. ID No Page4 ClNo Hospitals. see Schedule 0, Section l. ?line 14. Do you or will you compensate any of your of?cers, directors. trustees. highest compensated employees. El Yes and highest compensated independent contractors listed in lines 1a. lb. or 1c through non-fixed payments, such as discretionary bonuses or revenue-based payments? If "Yes." describe all non-?xed compensation arrangements. including how the amounts are determined, who Is liglble for such arrangements. whether you place a limitation on total compensation. and how determine or will determine that you pay no more than reasonable compensation for services. He to the instructions for Part V. lines 1a. 1b. and 1c. for information on what to include as compensation Do you or will you compensate any of our employees. other than your offi rs. directors. trustees. or your five highest compensated emp oyees who receive or will receive co pensation of more than $50,000 per ear. through non-fixed payments. such as discretionary bonu or revenue-based payments? I "Yes." describe all. non-fixed compensation arrangements. inc ding how the amounts are or will be determined. who is or will be all rble for such arrangements. hether ou place or will place a limitation on total compensation. and grow on determine or will det mine at you pay no more than reasonable compensation for services. star to the instructions Part V. lines 1 a. 1b. and ?lc. for information on what to include as compensation. DYes - . 1 . we?. .. Ingram?rye..? - .. Yes -. To Do you or will you purchase any goods. services. or assets from any of yo of?cers. directors. trustees. highest compensated employees. or highest com ensated indepe dent contractors listed in lines 1a, 1b. or to? if "Yes." describe any such purchase at you made or intend to make. from whom you make or will make such purchases. how the terms are or will negotiated at arm?s - length. and explain how you determine or will determine that you pay no are than fair market value. Attach copies of any written contracts or other agreements relating lo such purchases. mus-r:- Do you or will you sell any goods. services. or assets to any of your of?cers. directors. trustees. El Yes highest compensated employees. or highest compensated independent co 1tractors listed in lines 1a. lb. or 1c? if "Yes," describe any such sales that you made or intend to rn ke. to whom you make or will make such sales, how the terms are or will be negotiated at arm?s len h, and explain how you determine or will determine you are or will be paid at least fair market valu . Attach copies of any written contracts or other agreements relating to such sales. 8a Do you or will you have any leases. contracts. loans. or other agreements ith your of?cers, directors. trustees. highest compensated employees. or highest compensated lndep dent contractors listed in lines 1a. ?lb. or 1c? if "Yes." provide the inforrnatlon requested in lines 8b - - .ghtr?mermvz-m-n-u El Yes Describe any written or oral arrangements that you made or intend to ma identify with whom you have orwiil have such arrangements. Explain how the terms are or will be negotiated at arm's length. Explain how you determine you pay no more than fair market value or you are paid at least fair market value. Attach copies of any signed leases. contracts. loans. or other agreements rela ing to such arrangements. ?manna 3N0 9a Do you or will you have any leases. contracts. loans. or other any organization in Yes which any of your officers. directors, or trustees are also officers. director . or trustees. or in which any Individual of?cer. director. or trustee owns more than a 35% interest? if "Yes." provide the infonnatlon requested in lines 9b through 9f. Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) 3N0 174 February 2008 - Vol. 59. No. 2 159 The Exempt Organization Tax Review This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the Form 102: (Rev. 6-2006) Name: Voter Alliance to improve Democracy EIN: 20 5853546 P393 5 Compensation and Other Financial Arrangements With Your Of?cers. Directors, Trustees, Employees, and independent Contractors (Continued) cribe any written or oral arrangements you made or intend to make. id ntliy with whom you have or will have such arrangements. Ex lain how the terms are or will be negotiated at arm's length. Ex lain how you determine or will determine you pay no more than fair market value or that you are pa at least fair market value. . A ch a copy of any signed leases, contracts, loans. or other agreements relating to such arrangements. Your Members and Other individuals and Organizations That Receive Benefits From You The fol] wing ?Yes? or "No" questions relate to goods, services, and funds you provide to individuals and organizations as part of your ctivities. Your answers should pertain to past, present. and planned activities. (S ee instructions.) 1a in arrying out your exempt purposes. do you provide goods. services, or funds to ndividualsdescribe each program that provides goods. services, or funds to individual . in ing out your exempt purposes, do you provide goods, services. or funds telnrganizaticns? if Yes [if No describe each program that provides goods. services. or funds to organizati ns. 2 any of your programs limit the provision of goods. services, or funds to a speci 0 individual speci?c individuals? For example. answer "Yes." if goods. services, or fun 5 are provided on for a particular individual, your members. individuals who work for a particular mployer, or duates of a particular school. If ?Yes.? explain the limitation and how recipients a selected for ea program. 3 any individuals who receiVe goods. services. or funds through your programs vs a family or Yes No bu iness relationship with any of?cer. director. trustee. or with any of your highest ompensated ployees or highest compensated independent contractors listed in Part V. lines a, 1b, and 1c? if explain how these related individuals are eligible for goods. services, or fund . Your History I The toll: wing "Yes" or "No" questions relate to your history. (See instructions) 1 Am you a successor to another organization? Answer "Yes." if you have taken or will take over the CI Yes No aci of another organization; you took over 25% or more of the fair market vali of the net as: ets of another organization; or you were established upon the conversion of an organization from for-pro?t to non-pro?t status. If ?Yes.? complete Schedule G. 2 Arr you submitting this application more than 27 months after the end of the mend in which you El Yes No we legally formed? lf "Yes," complete Schedule E. Your Speci?c Activities The toll wing "Yes" or "No" questions relate to speci?c activities that you may conduct. Shack the appropriate box. Your answe should pertain to past, present, and planned activities. (See Instructions.) 1 Do you support or oppose candidates in political campaigns in any way? if "Yes," explain. Ci Yes No 2a Do you attempt to in?uence legislation? If "Yes," explain how you attempt to influ nce legislation Yes CI No an:l complete line 2b. if go to line 3a. a you made or are you making an election to have your legislative activities ured by El Yes No ex enditures by ?ling Form 5768? if "Yes." attach a copy of the Form 5768 that already ?led or a ch a completed Form 5768 that you are filing with this application. If describe whether your a to in?uence legislation are a substantial part of your activities. Include the time and money sp nt on your attempts to influence legislation as compared to your total activities. you or will you operate bingo or gaming activities? If "Yes," describe who cond them, and Yes 3? No II all revenue received or expected to be received and expenses paid or expected to be paid in 0 rating these activities. Revenue and expenses should be provided for the time periods speci?ed in art lX. Financial Data. you or will you enter Into contracts or other agreements with individuals or orga izations to Yes No co duct bingo or gaming for you? If "Yes," describe any written or oral arrangeme that you made or ntend to make, identify with whom you have or will have such arrangements. ex lain how the te are or will be negotiated at arm?s length, and explain how you determine or ill determine you no more than fair market value or you will be paid at least fair market value. A ch copies or an written contracts or other agreements relating to such arrangements. Li the states and local jurisdictions, including lndian Reservations. in which you conduct or will co 1duct gaming or bingo. Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) The Exempt Organization Tax Review I February 2008 - Vol. 59, 'No. 2 175 160 This docume ?it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) mini: ?l Focus or the un? our Form 1023 (Rev. 15-2005) Name: VoterAlliance to improve Democracy em; 20- 5353545 page 3 Your Speci?c Activities LContinued) 4a you or will you undertake fundraising? if "Yes." check all the fundraising pr agrams you do or will Yes El No conduct. {See instructions.) mail solicitations [1 phone solicitations email solicitations accept donations on your website -- personal solicitations receive donations fro another organization?s website it} vehicle. boat, plane. or similar donations Cl government grant soli tations {it foundation grant solicitations CI Other Attach a description of each fundraising program. Do you or will you have written or oral contracts with any individuals or organi tions to raise funds Yes [if No for you? if "Yes." describe these activities. Include all revenue and expenses rn these activities and state who conducts them. Revenue and expenses should be provided for time periods speci?ed in Part lX, Financial Data. Also, attach a copy of any contracts or agr ements. . - Do you or will you engage in fundraising activities for other organizations? If describe these Cl Yes No arrangements. include a description of the organizations for which you raise to ds and attach copies of all contracts or agreements. ?um-11W . . . (1 List all states and local jurisdictions in which you conduct fundraising. For each state or local jurisdiction listed, specify whether you fundraise for your own organization. you fundraise for another organization. or another organization fundraises for you. A Do you or will you maintain separate accounts for any contributor under which the contributor has Yes No the right to advise on the use or distribution of funds? Answer "Yes" if the den or may provide advice on the types of investments. distributions from the types of investments. or th distribution from the donor?s contribution account. if "Yes." describe this program. including the of advice that may be provided and submit copies of any written materials provided to donors. 5 Are you af?liated with a governmental unit? if "Yes." explain. Yes No Do you or will you engage in economic development? it "Yes," describe your program. Yes No Describe in full who benefits from your economic development activities and the activities promote exempt purposes. 7] Do or will persons other than your employees or volunteers develop-your facll les? if "Yes," describe El Yes No a? each facility. the role of the developer. and any business or family relationship between the developer and your officers, directors. or trustees. Do or will persons other than your employees or volunteers manage your actl ities or facilities? If Yes [if No "Yes." describe each activity and facility. the role of the manager. and any bu ness or family reiationship(s) between the manager and your of?cers, directors, or trustees. if there is a business or family relationship between any manager or developer and your of?cers. directors, or trustees. identify the individuals. explain the relationship, describ how contracts are negotiated at arm's length so that you pay no more than fair market value, an submit a copy of any icontracts or other agreements. 8 'Do you or will you enter into joint ventures, including partnerships or limited iability companies Yes a No treated as partnerships, in which you share profits and losses with partners ot er than section 501(c)(3) organizations? it "Yes." describe the activities of these joint ventures which you participate. . Are you applying for exemption as a childcare organization under section 501 )7 If ?Yes,? answer CI Yes El No lines 9b through 9d. if go to line 10. Do you provide child care so that parents or caretakers of children you care can be gainfully Cl Yes No employed (see instructions)? if explain how you qualify as a childcare 'ganization described in section 501 0f the children for whom you provide child care, are 85% or more of them enable their parents or caretakers to be gainfully employed (see instructions)? If explain how you qualify as a childcare organization described In section 501(k). 0 Are your services available to the general public? it describe the specific group of people for Yes No whom your activities are available. Also. see the instructions and explain how you qualify as a childcare organization described in section 501(kwill you publish. own, or have rights in music, literature, tapes. mis?ts, choreography. Yes No scienti?c discoveries. or other intellectual property? If "Yes." explain. Descri a who owns or will own any copyrights, patents. or trademarks. whether fees are or will be cha d. how the fees are determined, and how any items are or will be produCed. distributed. and marketed. Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) if?E 176 i-?ebruary 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 The Exempt Organization Tax Review 2551' 1 6 1 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the IRS Form 1023 (am. 5-2006) Name; Voter Alliance to Improve Democracy EIN: 20 - 5853546 page 7 Part Your Specific Activities (Continued) 11 Do or will you accept contributions of: real property: conservation easements; closely held Ci Yes [if No securit as: intellectual property such as patents, trademarks, and copyrights; work of music or art; licens royalties; automobiles, boats, planes, or other vehicles; or collectibles of any type? if "Yes," descrl each type of contribution, any conditions imposed by the donor on the contribution, and any ag eements with the donor regarding the contribution. 12a Do yo or will you operate in aforeign country or countries? if "Yes," answer lines 12b through Yes No 12d. if go to line 13a. Name he foreign countries and regions within the countries in which you operate. Descri your operations in each country and region in which you operate. Descri a how your operations in each country and region further your exempt purposes. Do yo ?or will you make grants, loans, or other distributions to organization(s)? If ?Yes,? answer lines Yes No 13b th ough 139. if 90 to line 14a. Descri a how your grants, loans, or other distributions to organizations further your axe purposes. Do yo have written contracts with each of?these organizations? If "Yes," attach a copy of each contract. Ci Yes No each recipient organization and any relationship between you and the recipient organization. Descri the records you keep with respect to the grants, loans, or other distributions you make. Descri your selection process, including whether you do any of the following: Do on require an application form? If "Yes," attach a copy of the form. Yes No El (ii) Do you require a grant proposal? If ?Yes,? describe whether the grant proposal specifies your Yes res onsibilities and those of the grantee, obligates the grantee to use the grant funds only for the pu oses for which the grant was made, provides for periodic written reports conceming the use of rent funds, requires a ?nal written report and an accounting of how grant funds were used, an acknowledges your authority to withhold and/or recover grant funds in cas a such funds are, or ppear to be, misused. Descri your procedures for oversight of distributions that assure you the resourc as are used to further your exempt purposes, including whether you require periodic and ?nal on the use of 13 monouwill you make grants, loans, or other distributions to foreign organizatio if "Yes," Yes No . answe lines 14b through 14f. If go to line 15. Provid the name of each foreign organization, the country and regions within a ntry in which each foreign organization operates, and describelany relationship you have with organization. Does foreign organization listed in line 14b accept contributions earmarked fo a speci?c country I: Yes El No Do yo contributors know that you have ultimate authority to use contributions rn do to you at your El Yes Ci No describe these Ci Yes El No -exempt status or will you use any additional procedures to ensure that your distributions 0 foreign Yes [3 No organizations are used in furtherance of your exempt purposes? if "Yes," describe hese procedures, including site visits by your employees or compliance checks by impartial experts, verify that grant funds are being used appropriately. Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) The Exempt Organization Tax Review February 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 177 162 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) i'l - r; I 123;; Focus 0L the (RS . Form 1623 (Rev. 6-2006) Name: Voter Alliance to improve Democracy EIN: 20 - 5853546 Page 8 We!" Speci?c Activities (Continued) I 15 Do you have a close connection with any organizations? if "Yes," explain. El Yes No 16 Are you applying for exemption as a cooperative hospital service oranization under section Yes 3 No ewe)? If ?Yes,? explain. 17 Fire you applying for exemption as a cooperative service organization of ope 'ating educational Yes No? g1?: rganizations under section 501 If "Yes," explain. 18 Are you applying for exemption as a charitable risk pool under section 501 if ?Yes,? explainwill you operate a school? if ?Yes,? complete Schedule 8. Answer ?Yes.? whether you Yes No . operate a school as your main function or as a secondary activity. 20 luau, main function to provide hospital or medical care? If "Yes," complete Schedule will you provide low-income housing or housing for the elderiy or ilandicapped? if Yes No ?Yes,? conlglete Schedule F. 22 I50 you or will you provide scholarships. fellowships, educational loans, or othe educational grants to Cl Yes No 15 individuals, including grants for travel, study, or other similar purposes? if "Yes. complete l; Scheduie H. Note: Private foundations may use Schedule to request advance approval of individual grant ill I I rocedures. I?ll? If- if 15.Lil; Form 1023 (Flay. 6-2005) . 178 rebruary 2008 - Vol. 59, Na. 2 - The Exempt Organization Tax Review 163 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the (RS Form 1023 (new. 6-2006) Name; Voter Alliance to improve Democracy am: 20? 5853546 Page 9 . Financial Data For purooses of this schedule, years in existence refer to completed tax years. If in existence 4 or more years, complete the schedu for the most recent 4 tax years. If In existence more than 1 year but less than 4 years. complete the statements for each er in existence and provide projections of your likely revenues and expenses based on a reasonable and good faith estimat} of your future finances for a total of 3 years of ?nancial information. If in existen re less than 1 year, provide projections of your likely revenues and expenses for the current year and the 2 following years, basej on a reasonable and good faith estimate of your future finances for a total of 3 years of ?nancial information. (See instru ions.) A. Statement of Revenues and Expenses Type of revenue or expense Current tax year 3 prior tax years or 2 succeeding tax years From -. Provide Total for To .1213 1?95. To .12L3JIQ7. To 1.21.3193. . To id) 1 Gifts, grants, and contributions received (do not Include unusual grants) 20.000 111000 124 . 08 255.108 2 Membershya fees received 0 0 0 3 Gross investment income 0 0 0 0 4 Net unrelated business 1 income 0 0 0 0 5 Taxes levied for your benefit 0 0 0 0. 6 Value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit without charge (not 3 including the value of services a generally furnished to the public without charge) 0 0 0 0 7 Any revenue not othenrvise listed above or in lines 9-12 b'elow (attach an itemized list) 0 8 Total of lines 1 through 7 20,000 111,000 124.? 08 255,103 9 Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or furnishing of facilities In any activity that is related to our exempt I purposes attach itemized list) 0 0 0 0 10 Total of lines 8 and 9 20.000 111,000 124.108 255.108 11 Net gain or loss on sale of capital assets (attach . schedule and see instructions) 0 12 Unusual grants 0 0 0 0 13 Total Revenue Add lines 10 through 12 20,000 111,000 124,108 255,108 14 Fundraising expenses 1.000 1,000 1.000 15 Contributions, gifts. grants, and similar amounts paid out (attach an itemized list) 16 Distrsements to or for the bene?t of members (attach an itemized list) 0 0 a, 17 Compensation of of?cers, 3 directors, and tmstees 0 0 18 Other salaries and wages 7.980- 49,880 54,058 If. 19 Interest expense 0 0 20 Occupancy (rent, utilities, etc.) 1704 8,560 9..416 21 Depreciation and depletion 0 0 0 22 Professional fees 3,760 23,400 25,140 23 Any expense not classified, such as program services (attach itemized list) 1734 21 _534 23,6 87 24 Total Expenses Add lines 14 through 23 17.178 104,374 114,"11 Form 1023 (Rev. 6?2006) The Exempt Organization Tax Review Ffbruery 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 129 164 This docume Ht was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) l'l?l' . Li (I Focus oi the )ii Forrn1323(Fiev. 6-2006) Name: to Improve Democracy EIN: 20 .. 5853546 Pati- 10 . Financial Data (Continued) - ii} B. Balance Sheet (for your most recently completed tax ye r) Your End: 2006 Assets (Whole dollars) 2 Accountsrecelvabiemet -Bonds and notes receivable (attach an itemized listCorporate stocks (attach an itemized list) - - 5 0 6 Loans receivable (attach an itemized listother investments (attach an itemized listDepreciable and depletable assets (attach an itemized list 3 0 9 0 A) 10 Other assets (attach an itemized listTotal Assets (add lines 1 through 10) - - .. 11 Liabilities 0 Ti): 0 ,lg_ 13 Contributions. gifts. grants, etc. payable I - .. 13 0 14 Mortgages and notes payable (attach an itemized list?13: 15 Other liabilities (attach an itemized listTotal Liabilities (add lines 12 through 15Fund Balances or Net Assets 17 Total fund balances or net assets - - . - 17 0 18 Total Liabilities and Fund Balances or Net Assets (add lines Have there been any substantial changes in your assets or liabilities since the lend of the period yes [if No shown above? If ?Yes.? explain. Public Charity Status grill. Part is designed to classify you as an organization that is either a private foundation or a public charity. Public charity status all}; is a are favorable tax status than private foundation status. If you are a private foun dation, Part is designed to further 1) date Vine whether you are a private operating foundation. (See instructions.) 1a Are you a private foundation? If ?ersJ' go to line 1b. it go to line 5 and proceed as instructed. Cl Yes No. if you are unsure. see the instructions. As a private foundation, section 508(9) requires special provisions in your organ-Zing document in El addition to those that apply to all organizations described in section 501(c)(3). heck the box to .11; confirm that your organizing document meets this requirement. whether by express provision or by reliance on operation of state law. Attach a statement that describes specifically where your organizing document meets this requirement, such as a reference to a particul article or section in your organizing document or by operation of state law. See the instructions. in iuding Appendix B, for information about the special provisions that need to be contained in your anizlng document. 54)! Go to line private operating foundation? To be a private operating foundation you must engage CI Yes No 3i} directly in the active conduct of charitable, religious. educational. and similar ac tivitles. as opposed to indirectiylcarrying out these activities by providing grants to individuals or other organizations. ii ?Yes.? go to line 3. if go to the signature section of Part Xi. 3 Have you existed for one or more years? if ?Yes.? attach ?nancial information showin that you are a private yes No 553%; operating foundation: go to the signature section of Part XI. If continue to line 41 ii Pfi? 4 Have you attached either (1) an affidavit or opinion of counsel. (including a wr' en af?dth or opinion Yes No from a certified public accountant or accounting ?rm with expertise regarding is tax law matter). git. that sets forth facts concerning your operations and support to demonstrate th you are likely to satisfy the requirements to be classi?ed as a private operating foundation; or a statement describing your proposed operations as a private operating foundation? 5 if you answered "No" to line is. indicate the type of public charity status you are rdquesting by checking one of the choices below. You may check only one box. The organization is not a private foundation because it is: 509(a)(1) and church or a convention or association of churches. Complete and attach Schedule A. El 509(a)(1) and school. Complete and attach Schedule B. 509(c)(1) and hospital. a cooperative hospital service organletion, or a medical research organization operated in conjunction with a hospital. Complete and attach dule C. i: organization supporting either one or more organizations describ'.d in line 5a through c. f. g. or or a publicly supported section 501(c)(4). (5). or (6) organization. Complete and attach Schedule D. Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) 180 February 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 The Exempt Organization Tax Review 165 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006] Name: Voter Alliance to improve Democracy Public Charity Status (Continued) EN: 20 - 5853546 Page 11 op rated by a governmental unit. 9 505(a)(1) and organization that receives a substantial part of its of contributions from publicly supported organizations, from a governmental unit, 0 organization that normally receives not more than one?third of its ?ne investment income and receives more than one-third of its financial support from fees. and gross receipts from activities related to its exempt functions (subject to A publicly supported organization. but unsure if it is described in 5g or 5h. The org decide the correct status. ting one of the boxes below. Refer to the Instructions to determine which type of afety. nancial support in the form from the general public. oial support from gross ontributions. membership rtaln exceptions). El nization would like the IRS to If you :ch?cked box 9. h, or I in question 5 above, you must request either an advance a de?nitive ruling by ling you are eligible to receive. the Code you request an advance ruling and agree to extend the statute of limitati ns on the assessment of ex ea tax. under section 4940 of the code. The tax will apply only the 5-year advance ruling period. The assessment period will be exte ya to 8 years, 4 months. and 15 days beyond the end of the ?rst year. You hav blish public support status ded for the 5 advance ruling the right to refuse or limit 5. Extending the Tax isequences of the choices yo make. You may obtain Publication 1035 free of charge from the web site atwwarsgov or by calling oth nyise be entitled. if you decide not to extend the statute of limitations. you are mil 9. to which you would not eligible for an advance ii; . (Type or print name at signer) President (Type or print title or authority of signer authorized of?cial) . .- sf'ui'v": til . 13; 1 - at.? For Use Only RS Director. Exempt Re uest for De?nitive Ruling: Check this box if you have completed one tax year ye are requesting a definitive ruling. To con?rm your public support status, answe of at least 8 full months and Cl line 6b(i) if you checked box 9 line 5 above. Answer line 6b(ii) if you checked box in line 5 above. If you oh iced box i in line 5 above, an er both lines 6b(i) and GI). a) Enter 2% of lines. column on Part Statement of Revenues and Ex nses. b) Attach a list showing the name and amount contributed by each person. co pany. or organization whose El gifts totaled more than the 2% amount. If the answer is ?None.? check this ox. (ii) a) For each year amounts are included on lines 1. 2. and 9 of Part State ent of Revenues and Expenses. attach a list showing the name of and amount received from eac answer is "None." check this box. For each year amounts are included on line 9 of Part Statement of Rev a list showing the name of and amount received from each payer, other the i payments were more than the larger of (1) 1% of line 10. Part Stateme Expenses. or (2) $5,000. if the answer is "None." check this box. disquali?ed person. if the a disqualified person, whose of Revenues and '{hues and Expenses. attach Did you receive any unusual grants during any of the years shown on Part Sta Re\ enues and Expenses? it "Yes," attach a list Including the name of the contribut: am aunt of the grant. a brief description of the grant, and eXpiain why it is unusual. Cl Yes No itement of the date and Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) This docume The Exempt Organization Tax Review 166 'ebruary 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 181 it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) i i Focus hi the Form wail (Rev. 6-2006) Name: Voter Alliance to Improve Democracy EN: 20 5353546 User Fee information You ust Include a user fee payment with this application. it will not be process without your paid user fee. if your average I annu g'ross receipts have exceeded or will exceed $10,000 annually over a 4-ye period, you must submit payment of $750. If 3:3; your ross receipts have not exceeded or will not exceed $10,000 annually over 4-year period, the required user fee payment is $3 0 See instructions for Part Xi. for a de?nition of gross receipts over a 4-y ar period. Your check or money order must be Page 12 mad yable to the United States Treasury. User fees are subject to change. Ch ck our website at and type "User if Fee? keyword box, or call Customer Account Services at 1-877?829-5500 current information. 1 -Ia'(ve your annual gross receipts averaged or are they expected to average not ore than $10,000? ET Yes No i'iYes," check the box on line 2 and enclose a user fee payment of $300 (Subject to change?see above). f?fNo." check the box on line 3 and enclose a user fee payment of $750 (Subjec. to change?see above). 2 Shock the box if you have enclosed the reduced user fee payment of $300 (Subject to change) 3 Shock the box if you have enclosed the user fee payment of $750 (Subject to i dec tinder the penalties of perjury that I am authorized to sign this appiicetion on behalf of th above organization and that have examined this applic 'on, including the accompanying schedules and attachments. and to the best of my knowl dge it is true. correct. and complete. - Plea a Sign He (Signature of Of?cer, Director, Trustee, or other (Type or print name of signer) Eli-ate) - - authorized of?cial) President (Type or print title or authority of signer), Fie irider: Send the completed Form 1023 Checklist with your fille d-in-application. i Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2005) 182 February 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 The Exempt Organization Tax. Review 167 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the Name: Voter Alliance to improve Democracy 20 5853546 Page 13 i - Schedule A. Churches 1a Do yc ihave a written creed, statement of faith. or summary of beliefs? if "Yes,"iattach copies of CI Yes Ci No reiev nt documents. Do have a form of Worship? if ?Yes,? describe your form of worship. Cl Yes No 2a Do have a formal code of doctrine and discipline? if ?Yes,? describe your code of doctrine and El Yes No disci line. . Do have a distinct religious history? If "Yes," describe your religious history. Cl Yes No Do have a literature of your own? if "Yes," describe your literature. Yes El No 3 Desc be the organization's religious hierarchy or ecclesiastical government. 4a Do have regularly scheduled reiigioEis services? if "Yes," describe the nature of the services and Yes El No provi eirepresentative copies of relevant literature such as church bulletins. What Sithe average attendance at your regularly scheduled religious services? . 5a Do y' have an established place of worship? lf ?Yes.? refer to the instructions the information Yes No required. Do you own the property where you have an established place of Worship? Ci Yes No 6 Do you have an established congregation or other regular membership group? If refer to the instru :tions. Cl Yes El No 7 How many members do you have? as Do you have a process by which an individual becomes a member? If "Yes," ribe the process Yes No and carhplete lines 8b-8d. below. if you have members, do your members have voting rights, rights to participate i religious functions. Cl Yes No or oti' erI rights? if "Yes," describe the rights your members have. May your members be associated with another denomination or churchyour members part of the same family? Yes CI No 9 Do you conduct baptisms. weddings, funerals, etc? Yes No 10 Do you have a school for the religious instruction of the young? Cl Yes No 11a Do you have a minister or religious leader? lf "Yes," describe this person's role an explain whether Cl Yes No the niSter or religious leader was ordained, commissioned, or licensed after a pr scribed course of study I: Do you have schools for the preparation of your ordained ministers or religious iLders? Yes No 12 Is your minister or re?gious leader also one of your officers. directors, or trustees? Yes No 13 Do you Ordain, commission. or license ministers or religious leaders? if "Yes," describe the Cl Yes No requirements for ordination. commission, or iicensure. 14 Are you part of a group of churches with similar beliefs and structures? If "Yes." Explain. include the Yes No name of the group of churches. - 15 Do you issue church charters? if describe the requirements for issuing a cnarter. Yes Na 16 Did y< upay a fee for a church charter? if "Yes," attach a copy of the charteryou have other information you believe should be considered regarding your status as a church? Yes No If ?Ye explain. Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) The Tax Review February 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 183 168 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the Name; Voter Alliance to Improve Democracy EN: 20 - 5853546 Page 14 Schedule B. Schools, Colleges, and Universities . if you operate a school as an activity. complete Sc tedule Operational information 1 1a 5 you normally have a regularly scheduled curriculum. 3 regular faculty of quail red teachers, a El Yes Cl No egularly enrolled student body, and facilities where your educational activities 6 regularly carried n? if do not complete the remainder of Schedule B. sthe primary function of your school the presentation of formal instruction? If es," describe your Yes No dhool in terms of whether It is an elementary, secondary. college, technical, or ther type of school. do not complete the remainder of Schedule B. . - tiara?5 351%. our?z.- 23 you a public school because you are operated by a state or subdivision of aLstate? If "Yes." Yes No xplain how you are operated by a state or subdivision of a state. Do not compl te the remainder of chedule B. Are you a public school because you are operated wholly or predominantly from government funds Ci Yes No or property? If "Yes." explain how you are operated wholly or predominantly from govemment funds or property. Submit a copy of your funding agreement regarding government funding. Do not complete the remainder of Schedule B. 3 in what public school district, county, and state are you located? Were you formed or substantially expanded at the time of public school desegr gation in the above Yes No school district or county? 1 5 Has a state or federal administrative agency or judicial body ever determined that you are racially Yes No if ?Yes,? explain. Has your right to receive financial aid or assistance from a governmental agency ever been revoked El Yes No or suspended? If "Yes." explain. Do you or will you contract with another organization to develop. build. market. or finance your Ci Yes No facilities? lf ?Yes,? explain how that entity is selected, explain how the terms of ny contracts or other agreements are negotiated at arm's length. and explain how you determin that you will pay no .51: more than fair market value for services. Note. Make sure your answer is consistent with the information provided in line 7a. Lea-:2 . u. 3'13? 09 w. 55515" in? 8 'Do you or will you manage your activities or facilities through your own employ as or volunteers? If El Yes No attach a statement describing the activities that will be managed by othe the names of the gift: p'ersons or organizations that manage or will manage your activities or facilities. and how these 1151? managers were or will be selected. Also, submit copies of any contracts, propo ed contracts, or other agreements regarding the provision of management services for your acti 'ties or facilities. ?it; Explain how the terms of any contracts or other agreements were or will be no tiated. and explain how you determine you will pay no more than fair market value for services. 1: Note. Answer "Yes" if you manage or intend to manage your programs through your own employees W- or by using volunteers. Answer "No" if you engage or intend to engage a separ organization or independejnt contractor. Make sure your answer Is consistent with the informati it provided in Part Vill, line 7 . Section II Establishment of Racially Nondiscriminatory Policy Information @uired by Revenue Procedure 1'5-50. 1 Have you adopted a racially nondiscriminatory policy as to students in your anizing document, Yes No bylaws, or by resolution of your governing body? If "Yes," state where the poll can be found or supply a copy of the policy. If you must adopt a nondiscriminatory poiic as to students before submitting this application. See Publication 557. (ff? . 2 Do your brochures. application forms. advertisements, and catalogues dealing ith student Yes No admissions. programs. and scholarships contain a statement of your racially discriminatory ?i policy? a if "Yes," attach a representative sample of each document. in If by checking the box to the right you agree that all future printed mate is, including website content, will contain the required nondiscriminatory jolicy statement. 3 Have you published a notice of your nondiscriminatory policy in a newspaper ci general circulation Yes Cl No that serves all racial segments of the community? (See the instructions for spa lfic requirements.) If explain. a ?Ht: arm?.14. . 2. n??J 3-41 gauze: 4 Does or will the organization (or any department or division within it) discriminate basis of race with respect to admissions: use of facilities or exercise of student privileges; faculty or administrative staff; or scholarship or loan programs? If "Yes," for any of the at ove, explain fully. Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) 515-545.- 184 Hebruary 2008 Vol. 59, No. 2 - The Exempt Organization Tax Review 169 i' ?1 .4 .. Lu may? u; This documd nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the Form 1023 (Rev 6-2006) Name: VoterAlliance to Improve Democracy em; 20 5353545. page 15 Schedule B. Schools, Colleges, and Universities (Continued) 5 Complete: the table below to show the racial composition for the current academic year and projected for the next acaderfc year, of: the student body, the faculty, and the administrative Stiff. Provide actual numbers rather than percen gas for each racial category. if you not operational, submit an estimate based on the best information available (such as the racial composition of the community served). Racial Category Student Body Faculty - Administrative Staff Current Year Next Year Current Year Next Year Current Year Next Year Total ?r 6 In the ble below, provide the number and amount of loans and scholarships awar :led to students enrolled by racial catego es. Racial Category Number of Loans Amount of Loans Number of Scholarships Amount of Scholarships Current Year Next Year Current Year Next Year Curran?tidaNext Year Current Year Next Yea_r_ Total Attach list of your incorporators. founders, board members, and donors of land oi buildings, whethe individuals or organizations. Do any of these individuals or organizations have an objective to maintain segregat public or Yes Cl No private Fdhool education? If "Yes," explain. 8 Will yogl maintain records according to the non-discrimination provisions contained Revenue Yes No Proced Jre 75-50? If explain. (See instructions.) Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) The Exempt Organization Tax Review February 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 - 185 170 This docume wt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus onlthe Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) Name: Voter Alliance to improve Democracy EIN: 20 - 5853546 Page 16 Schedule C. Hospitals and Medical Research (Jrg?'iizations hospital. See the instructions for a de?nition of the term 'hospital," which Cl as an organization whose principal purpose or function is providing hospital oF medical care. Go plete Section i belowmedical research organization operated in conjunction with a hospital. See the nstructiOns for a definition of the term ?medical research organization," which re ers to an org nization whose principal purpose or function is medical research and which is rectly engaged in the con inuous active conduct of medical research in conjunction with a hospital. Comp to Section II. - Hospitals ?it 1 Are all the doctors in the community eligible for staff privileges? If give the reasons why and Yes No explain how the medical staff is selected. 24 Do you or will you provide medical services to all individuals in your community who can pay for El Yes No themselves or have private health insurance? If explain. in Do you or will you provide medical services to all individuals in your community who participate in Yes No Medicare? If explain. :1 a Do you or will you provide medical services to all individuals in your community who participate in Yes No Medicaid? if explain. 33 Do you or will you require persons covered by Medicare or Medicaid to pay a deposit before Ci Yes El No receiving services? if "Yes," explain. - Does the same deposit requirement, if any. apply to all other patients? If explainwill you maintain a full-time emergency room? If explain why you do not maintain a Ci Yes Cl No full-time emergency room. Also, describe any emergency services that you provide. 21.. Do you have a policy on providing emergency services to persons without apparent means to pay? if El Yes No ?Yes,? provide a copy of the policy. Do you have any arrangements with police, fire, and voluntary ambulance services for the delivery or Yes No admission of emergency cases? If "Yes," describe the arrangements, including whether they are written or oral agreements. if written, submit copies of all such agreements. 5a, Do you provide for a portion of your services and facilities to be used for charily patients? if ?Yes,? Yes CI No answer 5b through 5e. Explain your policy regarding charity cases. including how you distinguish between charity care and bad debts. Submit a copy of your written policy. Provide data on your past experience in admitting charity patients, including amounts you expand for treating charity care patients and types of services you provide to charity care patients. Describe any arrangements you have with federal, state, or local governments or government agencies for paying for the cost of treating charity care patients. Submit copies of any written ?ear-55a ribs? o. .Wm 13?: $4 - rm: .r-I F, agreements. . I: Do you provide services on a sliding fee schedule depending on ?nancial ability to pay? if ?Yes,? Yes [1 No submit your slidim fee schedule. - - Do you or wili you carry on a formal program of medical training or medical re earch? if "Yes," CI Yes Ci No describe such programs, including the type of programs offered, the scope of uch programs, and af?liations with other hospitals or medical care providers with which you carry on the medical training or research programs. Mg or .. .. . sens-4g??- 8' Do you or will you carry on a formal program of community education? if ?Yes describe such Yes No programs, including the type of programs offered, the scope of such programst, and af?liation with other hospitals or medical care providers with which you offer community education programs. Do you or will you provide office space to physicians carrying on their own me dical practices? if Yes No "Yes," describe the criteria for who may use the space, explain the means us to determine that you are paid at least fair market value. and submit representative lease agree ents. 8 Is your board of directors comprised of a majority of individuals who are repretentative of the Yes Cl No community you serve? Include a list of each board member's name and busin 55, financial, or professional relationship with the hospital. Also, identify each board member who is representative of the community and describe how that individual is a community representative . wen?4m- - r-u ~94 i-?Jgt. ?re-w. 3:31you participate in any joint ventures? if "Yes," state your ownership percentage in each joint Yes Ci No venture,-llst your investment in each joint venture, describe the tax status of 0 her participants in each joint venture (including whether they are section 501(c)(3) organizations), describe the activities of each joint venture, describe how you exercise control over the activities of each joint venture, and describe how each joint venture furthers your exempt purposes. Also, submit copies of all agreements. Note. Make sure your answer is consistent with the information provided in Part Vlil, line a. Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) 185 February 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 The Exempt Organization Tax Review 171 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the IRS Forrn1023 Flev.6-2006) Name: VoterAlliance to Improve Democracy EIN: 20 5853546 Schedule C. Hospitals and Medical Research Organizations (Continued) - - Hospitals (Continueg) 10 Do ou or will you manage your activities or facilities through your own employs or volunteers? if ?No lattach a statement describing the activities that will be managed by othe the names of the per ns or organizations that manage or will manage your activities or facilities, nd how these ma gers were or will be selected. Also, submit copies of any contracts, propo contracts, or oth agreements regarding the provision of management services for your activ ties or facilities. Exp in how the terms of any contracts or other agreements were or will be neg tiated, and explain ho you determine you will pay no more than fair market value for services. Not .Answer "Yes" if you do manage or intend to manage your programs throu your own employees or by using volunteers. Answer ?No? if you engage or intend to enga a separate orga ni'zation or independent contractor. Make sure your answer is consistent wit: the information provided in Part Vlii. line 7b. Page 17 Yes No Yeswill you offer recruitment incentives to physicians? if ?Yes.? describe your recruitment incentives and attach copies of all written recruitment incentive policies. 12 Do ou or will you lease equipment. assets, or office space from physicians who have a ?nancial or prof ssional relationship with you? if "Yes," explain how you establish a fair market value for the ieas . Yes No El Yes El No 13 Hav} you purchased medical practices, ambulatory surgery centers, or other bu iness assets from phy ioians or other persons with whom you have a business relationship. aside cm the purchase? if "Yes submit a copy of each purchase and sales contract and describe how yo arrived at fair marl: value, including copies of appraisals. 14 Have you adopted a con?ict of interest policy consistent with the sample heaih care organization conf lot of interest policy in Appendix A of the instructions? if ?Yes,? submit a copy of the policy and expl in how the policy has been adopted, such as by resolution of your governing board. if Yes No Medical Research Organizations 6 the hospitals with which you have a relationship and describe the relation hip. Attach coples' en agreements with each hospital that demonstrate continuing relationshi between you and the ospital(s). 2 'Atta a schedule describing your present and proposed activities for the direct conduct of medical rese rch; describe the nature of the activities, and the amount of money that has been or will be spe in carrying them out. - 3 Attach a schedule of assets showing their fair market value and the portion of your assets directly devc ted to medical research. Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006This documel The Exempt Organization Tax Review 172 it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp ?ebruary 2008 - Val. 59, No. 2 187 bnsive Politics (OpenSeCretsorg) Focus on the IRS pom-11025 may, 5.2005) Nuns; VoterAIliance to Improve Democracy 20 5853546 page 13 i Schedule D. Section 509(a)(3) Supportin Or anizations If Identifying Information About the Supported Organization 1 State the names, addresses, and EINs of the supported organizations. if addlti nai space is needed, attach a separate 5:11 5 sheet. at." Nana . Address EIN 2 Are all supported organizations listed in line 1 public charities under section 50 or If "Yes," Ci Yes No 90 to Section Ii. if go to line 3. 3 Do the supported organizations have tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5?Yes,? for each 501(c)(4), (5), or (6) organization supported, provide the following ?nancial information: - I . Part Statement of Revenues and Expenses, lines 1?13 and Part X, lines GbGiXa), 6b(ii)(b), and 7. if No," attach a statement describing how each organization you support is a :rubiic charity under se :tibn 509(a)(1) or (2). Relationsmp with Supported Testg sified as a supporting organization, an organization must meet one of relationship tests: Te ?Operated. supervised, or controlled by" one or more publicly supports organizations. or t2: ?Supervised or controlled in connection with" one or more publicly sup orted organizations.1: smashwag-shat: m- 3: ?Operated in connection with" one or more publicly supported organiz ions. 1 Information to establish the ?operated, supervised, or controlled by" relationshio (Test 1) "if Is majority of your governing board or officers elected or appointed by the supported Ci Yes No if "Yes," describe the process by which your governing board is appointed and I el cted: go to Section Ill. if continue to line 2. i agar?.4 .2 Information to establish the ?supervised or controlled in connection with? relationship (Test 2) Dc as a majority of your governing board consist of individuals who also serve an the governing Ci Yes No of the supported organization(s)? If "Yes." describe the process by whic'r your governing r'd is appointed and elected; go to Section if go to line 3. r- A .m 3 information to establish the ?operated in connection with" responsiveness test (Test 3) Are you a trust from which the named supported organization(s) can enforce and compel an Yes El No accounting under state law? If ?Yes,? explain whether you advised the suppo?fd organization(s) in ing of these rights and provide a copy of the written communication docu enting this; go to ction ii, line 5. If go to line 4a. . 4 In? ormation to establish the attemative ?operated in connection with? responsi ness test (Test 3) a Dr the of?cers, directors, trustees, or members of the supported organization( elect or appoint one Yes No or more of your of?cers, directors. or trustees? If "Yes,?I explain and provide cumentation; go to line 4d, below. if go to line 4b. Do one or more members of the governing body of the supported organizatio also serve as your Ci Yes Ci No of'rcers, directors, or trustees or hold other important of?ces with respect to u? If "Yes," explain and provide documentation; go to line 4d, below. if go to line 4c. Do your of?cers, directors, or trustees maintain a close and continuous workin relationship with the Ci Yes CI No of?cers, directors, or trustees of the supported organization(s)? if ?Yes,? expiai and provide documentation. Do the supported organization(s) have a significant voice in your investment policies. in the making Yes CI No ar timing of grants. and in otherwise directing the use of your income or assets? if ?Yes,? explain ar provide documentation. scribe and provide copies of written communications documenting how you made the supported organization(s) aware of your supporting activities. Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) 188 February 2008 Vol. 59, No. 2 - The Exempt Organization Tax Review 173 This documentwas obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the IRS Form 1023 (Fev. 6-2006) Name: VoterAiliance to Improve Democracy EN: 20 - 5853546 Page 19 Schedule D. Section 509(a)(3) Sgpporting Organizat' ns (Continued) - - Relationship with Supported Organizationisi?Three Tests (Continued) 5 information to establish the ?operated in connection with? integral part test (Test 3) Do you conduct activities that would othenivise be carried out by the supported crganlzation(s)? if Ci Yes No "Yes." explain and go to Section if continue to line 6a. 6 Information to establish the alternative "operated in connection with" integral part test (Test 3) a Do you distribute at least 85% of your annual net income to the supported orga ization(s)? if "Yes," Yes El No go to line 6b. (See instructions.) if state the percentage of your income that you distribute to each supporte organization. Also expl how you ensure that the supported organization(s) are attentive to your erations. How much do you contribute annually to each supported organization? Attach a chedule. Whatxs the total annual revenue of each supported organization? If you need ad itional space, attac a list. . Do you or the supported your funds for support of a pa 'cuiar program or Yes No activiiy? If ?Yes.? explain. 7a Does your organizing document specify the supported organization(s) by name? l1 ?Yes,? state the Cl Yes No article and paragraph number and go to Section if answer line 7b. Attact a statement describing whether there has been an historic and continuing relationship. between you and the supported organization(s). Organizational Test If yo met relationship Test 1 or Test 2 in Section II, your organizing document mist-specify the Cl Yes CI No rted organization(s) by name, or by naming a similar purpose or charitable less of ciaries. if your organizing document complies with this requirement, answer "Yes." If your organzing document does not comply with this requirement, answer and the instructions. If you met relationship Test 3 in Section ii. your organizing document must gener lly specify the Yes El No suppc'rted organization(s) by name. if your organizing document complies with requirement, - - anew 1' ?Yes,? and go to Section N. if your organizing document does not comply with this requl ment, answer and see the instructions. - - Disqualified Person Test You do not qualify as a supporting organization if you are controlled directly or indireo?ly by one or more disquali?ed persons (as defined in section 4946) other than foundation managers or one or more organiza ons that you support. Foundation managers ho are also disqualified persons for another reason are disqualified person with respect to youpersons who have a family or business relationship with any disquali?ed rsons with El Yes El No Do an persons who are disqualified persons, (except individuals who are disquali ed persons only Yes El No beca a they are foundation managers). have any in?uence regarding your operati ns, including your plain how control than disquali?ed Form 1023 (Fiev. 6-2008) The Exempt Organization Tax Review Ffbruary 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 189 174 This documert was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) 15* Focus on the - $1.91 . Form 102 (Rev. 6-2006) Name: Voter Alliance to Improve Democracy 20 -- 5353546 page 20 Schedule E. Organizations Not Filing Form 1023 Within 27 Mo 1ths of Formation Schedu 9.5 is intended to determine whether you are eligible for tax exemption und 3r section 501(c)(3) from the postmark date of your pplication or from your date of Incorporation or formation. whichever is ea ier. if you are not eligible for tax exemption under ction 501(c)(3) from your date of incorporation or formation, Schedule is ISO intended to determine whether you are eligible or tax exemption under section 501(c)(4) for the period between your date cf incorporation or and the postm date of your application. a In?? . "J's .. - 3.church, association of churches, or integrated auxiliary of a church? If "Yes," complete Cl Yes Cl No Schedule A and stop here. Do not complete the remainder of Schedule public charity with annual gross receipts that are normally $5,000 or less? If "Yes," stop Yes No he re. Answer ?No? if you are a private foundation, regardless of your gross receipts. if your gross receipts were normally more than $5,000, are you ?ling this application within 90 days Yes No rifle fr m' the end of the tax year in which your gross receipts were normally more i han $5,000? If "Yes." at here. 3a A 'a re you included as a subordinate in a group exemption application or letter? If go to line were included as a subordinate in a group exemption letter. are you ?ling this application [3 Yes Cl No hin 27 months from the date you werenotified by the organization holding the group exemption is er or the lntemal Revenue Service that you cease to be covered by the group exemption letterwere included as a subordinate in a timely ?led group exemption request that was denied, are El Yes Cl No ?ling this application within 27 months from the postmark date of the internal Revenue Service ti ai adverse ruling letter? If ?Yes,? stop here. 4 re you created on or before October 9, 1969? If ?Yes.? stop here. Do not complete the remainder El Yes CI No 0 this schedule. ation unless you qualify for an extension of time to apply for exemption. you wish to request a extension of time to apply to be recognized as exempt from the date you are formed? if ?Yes,? ach a statement explaining why you did not ?le this application within the -month period. Do not 5 If ou answered "No" to lines 1 through 4, we cannot recognize you as tax ex from your date swer lines line 6a. as if cu answered ?No? to line 5, you can only be exempt under section 501 )from the postmark Ci Yes No . te of this application. Therefore, do you want us to treat this application as request for tax emption from the postmark date? if "Yes," you are eligible for an advance ruling. Complete Part X, ii 9 6a. If you will be treated as a private foundation. to. Be sure your ruling eligibility agrees with your answer to Part X, line 6. you anticipate signi?cant changes in your sources of support in the future' If ?Yes,? complete El Yes Cl No ii 7 below. Form 1023 (Rev. same). 190 Fiebruary zoos - Vol.59, No.2 _The Exempt Organization Tax Review 175 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) .. Focus on the IRS Form 1023 (He 1. 6?2006) Name: Voter Alliance to Improve Democracy 20 - 5853546 Page 21 chedule E. O_rganizations Not Filing Form 1023 Within 27 Mont of Formation (Continued) CUITO 7 Comp tax year. ate this item only if you answered ?Yes? to line so. Include projected revenue for the ?rst two full years following the Type of Revenue Projected revenue for 2 years following current tax year .5 Sm ift's, grants. and contributions received (do oti include unusual grants) From (13) From To - To Total 2 Membership fees received 3 ross investment income 4 l\et unrelated business income 5 TExes levied for your bene?t lue of services or facilities furnished by a vemmentai unit without charge (not including eivalue of services generally furnished to the biic without charge) 7 Arty revenue not otherwise listed above or in li es 9-12 below (attach an itemized list) 8 Tatal of lines 1 through 7 m-Hng) mil-er mas receipts from admissions. merchandise Id, or services performed, or furnishing of Ilitles in any activity that is related to your rempt purposes (attach itemized list) 10 I tal of lines 8 and 9 11 ez?I gain or loss on sale of capital assets ttaoh an itemized list) 12 U1usual grants 13 Total revenue. Add lines 10 through 12 8 Accor postm 501(a). 501 section contrib requesi Attach a completed Page 1 of Form 1024, Application for Recognition of Exemptior to this application. ng to your answers, you are only eligible for tax examption under section from the date of your application. However, you may be eligible for tax exemption under section L) from your date of formation to the postmark date of the Form 1023. Tax 501(c)(4) allows exemption from federal income tax, but generally not dedu ?bility of Jtions under Code section 170. Check the box at right if you want us to tre this as a for exemption under 501(c)(4) from your date of formation to the postmark emption under :late. Under Section Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) The Exempt This documer was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp Organization Tax Review 176 Fjbruary 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 191 onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the Form 1023 (Flev. 6-2006) Name: Voter Alliance to Improve Democracy 5m; 20 5353545 page 22 Schedule F. Homes for the Elderly or Handicapped an Low-income Housing General Information About Your Housing . cribe the type of housing you provide. 2 Provide copies of any application forms you use for admission. 3 Ex; lain how the public is made aware of your facility. 4a Provide a description of each facility. is the total number of residents each facility can accommodate? ttis your current number of residents in each facility? De cribe each facility in terms of whether residents rent or purchase housing from you. 5 ?sh a sample copy of your residency or homeownership contract or agreement. 6 you participate in any joint ventures? if ?Yes,? state your ownership percent ge in each joint El Yes El No ver ture, list your investment in each joint venture, describe the tax status of at er participants in eac joint venture (including whether they are section 501(c)(3) organizations), scribe the activities of cash joint venture, describe how you exercise control over the activities of ch joint venture, and describe how each joint venture furthers your exempt purposes. Also, submit copies of all joint verture agreements. Note. Make sure your. answer is consistent with the information provided in Part Vill, line 8. 7 Do you or will you contract with another organization to develop, build, market, or ?nance your Yes El No ho sing? if "Yes," explain how that entity is selected, explain how the terms of ny contract(s) are ne otlated at arm?s length. and explain how you determine you will pay no mo than fair market val e? for services. a. Make sure your answer is consistent with the information provided in Part line 7a. 8 Do you or will you manage your activities or facilities through your own employ as or volunteers? if Yes Cl No attach a statement describing the activities that will be managed by-othe the names of the pe one or organizations that manage or will manage your activities or facilities and how these agers were or will be .selected. Also. submit copies of any contracts, prop ed contracts, or at riagreements regarding the provision of management services for your acti ities or facilities. Ex lain how the terms of any contracts or other agreements were or will be ne otiated, and explain ho you determine you will pay no more than fair market value for services. Answer ?Yes? if you do manage or intend to manage your programs through your own 9 lpyees or by using volunteers. Answer ?No? if you engage or intend to engage a separate or_ anization or independent contractor. Make sure your answar is consistent th the information vided in Part line 7b. 9 Do you participate in any government housing programs? if ?Yes,? describe these programs. Yes No 10a Do you own the facility? if describe any enforceable rights you possess t8 purchase the facility Yes El No in ihe future; go to line 10c. if ?Yes,? answer line 10b. How;did you acquire the facility? For example, did you develop it yourself, purchase a project. etc. Attach all contracts. transfer agreements, or other documents connected with the acquisition of the facility. Do you lease the facility or the land on which it is located? If "Yes," describe ti'e parties to the Yes CI No iease(s) and provide copies of all leases. . Form 1023 (Rev. 5-2006) 192 February 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 The Exempt Organization Tax Review 177 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the Form1023 (sq. 5-2005) Name: VoterAlliance to Improve Democracy EIN: 20 - 5853546 Page 23 Schedule F. Homes for the Elderly or Handicapped and Low-in ome Housing (ContinueoD Homes for the Elderly or Handicapped 1a Do yo provide housing for the elderly? If ?Yes,? describe who quali?es for your housing in terms of Yes No age. i firmity, or other criteria and explain how you select persons for your housi: in Do yo: provide housing for the handicapped? If ?Yes.? describe who qualifies for our housing in Yes No terms of disability. income levels. or other criteria and explain how you select pe ns for your housir g. 23 Do yo .l charge an entrance or founder's fee? if ?Yes,? describe what this charge covers, whether it is El Yes No a one-time fee, how the fee is determined, whether It is payable in a lump sum or on an installment basis. whether it is refundable. and the circumstances, if any, under which it may be waived. Do yo: charge periodic fees or maintenance charges? If "Yes," describe what these charges cover Yes No and how they are determined. I Is you housing affordable to a signi?cant segment of the elderly or handicapped persons in the Yes No comm unity? Identify your community. Also, if "Yes," explain how you determine yaur houeing is afford bie. 33 Do yo have an established policy concerning residents who become unable to pay their regular Yes No charg 5? if ?Yes.? describe your established policy. Do yo have any arrangements with government welfare agencies or others to absorb all or part of Ci Yes No the of maintaining residents who become unable to pay their regular charges? If ?Yes,? describe these rrangements. 4 Do yo haVe arrangements for the healthcare needs of your residents? if "Yes," describe these Yes No arran ments. facilities designed to meet the physical. emotional. recreational. social. re igious, and/or Yes No features. ing in terms of Cl Yes No incom levels or other criteria, and describe how you select persons for your housTng. 2 In add tion to rent or mortgage payments. do residents pay, periodic fees or maintenance charges? If Ci Yes No "Yes," describe what these charges cover and how they are determined. 3a is you housing affordable to low income residents? if ?Yes.? describe how your housing is made Yes No afford ble to low-income residents. Note. evenue Procedure 96?32, 1996-1 CB. 717. provides guidelines for providir low-income housi 9 that will be treated as charitable. (At least 75% of the units are occupied by low-income tenan or 40% are occupied by tenants earning not more than 120% of the very low-income levels forth area.) Do yo .1 impose any restrictions to make sure that your housing remains affordable to low-income Yes Ci No residents? if "Yes." describe these restrictions. 4 Do yo 1' provide social services to residents? if "Yes." describe these services. El Yes I No Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) The Exempi Organization Tax Review Frebruary 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 193 178 This docume it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the IRS Form 1022 (Fiev. 5-2005) Name: Voter Alliance to improve Democracy an; 20 5853546 Page 24 Schedule G. Successors to Other Organizations 1a Are you a successor to afar-pro?t organization? If "Yes," explain the relationship with the Yes No predecessor organization that resulted in your creation and complete line 1b. Ex alain why you took over the activities or assets of a for-profit organization or converted from for -profit to nonprofit status. 23 Am you a successor to an organization other than a for?pro?t organization? Anger "Yes" if you have Yes El No ta an or will take over the activities of another organization; or you have taken will take over 25% or 'ore of the fair market value of the net assets of another organization. if explain the rel tipnship with the other organzatlon that resulted in your creation. - Pr vide the tax status of the predecessor organization. Di you or did an organization to which you are a successor previously apply for tax exemption Yes No i un or section 501(c)(3) or any other section of the Code? If "Yes," explain how the application was i, re oiVed. i 3 your prior tax exemption or the tax exemption of an organization to which you are a successor Yes No revoked or suspended? if ?Yes,? explain. Include a description of the corrections you made to reestablish tax exemption. Explain why you took over the activities or assets of another organization. 3 Provide the name, last address, and BM of the predecessor organization and its activities. me: EIN: Aqdress: Fi- 4 Li tthe owners, partners, principal stockholders, officers, and governing board members of the predecessor organization. At ach a separate sheet If additional 5 ace ls needed. Name Address Sharellnterest (If a for-profit) -. ii? 2.3.5; 5 Di) or will any of the persons listed in line 4, maintain a working relationship with you? If "Yes," Yes No scribe the relationship in detail and include copies of any agreements with any of these persons or any for?profit organizations in which these persons own more than a 35% interest. 6a re any assets transferred, whether by gift or sale, from the predecessor org nization to you? Yes El No Fir? r. if Yes," provide a list of assets, indicate the value of each asset, explain how he value was termined, and attach an appraisal, if available. For each asset listed, also lain if the transfer by gift, sale,'or combination thereof. re any restrictions placed on the use or sale of the assets? If "Yes," explai the restrictions. Yes El No ovide a copy of the agreement(s) of sale or transfer. .. aza? ere any debts or liabilities transferred from the predecessor for-pro?t organi tion'to you? Yes Cl No If "Yes," provide a list of the debts or liabilities that were transferred to you, in icating the amount of oh, how the amount was determined, and the name of the person to whom he debt or liability is 0 ed. f? -I llyou lease or rent any property or equipment previously owned or used by the predecessor Cl Yes No r-pro?t organization, or from persons listed in line 4, or from for-pro?t organi tions in which these rsons own more than a 35% interest? if "Yes," submit a copy of the lease rental agreement(s). i dicate how the lease or rental value of the property or equipment was date lned. you lease or rent property or equipment to persons listed in line 4, or to for-profit organizations Cl Yes Cl No if I which these persons own more than a 35% interest? If "Yes," attach a list of the property or i uipment, provide a copy of the lease or rental agreement(s), and indicate the lease or rental lue of the property or equipment was determined. Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) 11:1: 2.- 29;: - 194 February 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 The Exempt Organization Tax Review 179 .. W. This docume nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the RS Form 1023 (R av- 6-2006) Name: Voter Alliance to Improve Democracy EIN: 20 - 5853546 Page 25 1a Schedul Grants Individuals and Private Foundations Requesting Advance Approval H. Organizations Providing Scholarships, Fellowships, Educational I Names of individual recipients are not required to be listed in Si instructions to Part if you are not sure whether you are a pub foundation. Desc be the types of educational grants you provide to individuals, such as scholars Desc be the purpose and amount of your scholarships, fellowships, and other educat awar . Public charities and private foundations complete lines 'la throdg .oans, or Other Educational of Individual Grant Procedures :heduie H. 7 of this section. See the is charity or a private ips, fellowships, loans, etc. onal grants and loans that you 1a if yo award educational loans, explain the terms of the loans (interest rate, length, fc giveness. etc.). Spec how your program is publicized. Provi copies of any solicitation or announcement materials. 1' Provide a sample copy of the application used. 2 Do yc maintain case histories showing recipients of your scholarships, fellowships, educational Yes No loans or other educational grants, including names, addresses, purposes of awards, mount of each grant manner of selection, and relationship (if any) to of?cers. trustees. or donors of-f to you? if refer to the instructions. 3 Desc be the specific criteria you use to determine who is eligible for your program. (F or example, eligibility selection crite could consist of graduating high school students from a particular high school who will attend college, writers of schol works about American history, etc.) 4a Descibe the speci?c criteria you use to select recipients. (Forexampie, specific selection criteria could consist of prior acad mic performance, ?nancial need, etc.) Desc be how you determine the number of grants that will be made annually. Desc be how you determine the amount of each of your grants. (For ample, speci?c requirements or conditions could consist of attendance at a to grad point average. teaching in public school after graduation from college, etc.) Desc be any requirement or condition that you impose on recipients to obtain. maintql n, or qualify for renewal of a grant. r-year college, maintaining a certain Desc ibe your procedures for supervising the scholarships, fellowships, educational loans, or other educational grants. Desc ?be whether you obtain reports and grade transcripts from recipients, or you pay an a ngement whereby the school will apply the grant funds only for enrolled studer desc be your procedures for taking action if the terms of the award are violated. Who on the selection committee for the awards made under your program, includin memters, criteria for committee membership, and the method of replacing committee Are latives of members of the selection committee. or of your officers. directors or cont butors eligible for awards made under your program? If "Yes," what measures ensu unbiased selections? pers ns. Disquali?ed persons include your substantial contributors and foundation man certai family members of disqualified persons. Private foundations complete lines 1a through 4f of this section complete this section. if we etennine that you are a private foundation, do you want this application to be consi ered as a request for advance approval of grant making procedures? For hich section(s) do you wish to be considered? 4 or fellowship grant to an individual for study at an educatio grants directly to a school under is who are in good standing. Also, 3 names of current committee members? ubstantial 9 taken to El Yes El No ers and Note If you are a private foundation, you are not permitted to provide educational graniaLto disqualified Public charities do not DYes EINIA nai institution 4 purposes, to enhance a particular skill of the grantee or to produce a _specific prod grants, Including loans, to an individual for travel, study, or Cl ct 'Doyr and pon completion of the purpose for which the grant was awarded, (2) investigate diversions of funds from their intended purposes, and (3) take all reasonable and steps to recover diverted funds, ensure other grant funds held by a grant are ed for their intended purposes, and withhold further payments to grantees until obtaIF grantees? assurances that future diversions will not occur and that grantees wii take extraordinary precautions to prevent future diversions from occurring? iu represent that you will (1) arrange to receive and review grantee reports annudlly inforr persc unde >u.represent that you will maintain all records relating to individual grants, includi "ration obtained to evaluate grantees, identify whether a grantee is a disquali?ed n, establish the amount and purpose of each grant. and establish that you took the supervision and investigation of grants described in line 2? Yes No 9 Form 1023 (Flev. 6-2006) The Exempt This docume Organization Tax Review 180 February 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 195 it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the - 3 89 Form 1023 (Rev. 6-2006) Name: VoterAlliance to Improve Democracy em; 20 5353545 page 25 Schedule H. Organizations Providing Scholarships. Fellowships, Educational Loans, or Other Educational Grants to individuals and Private Foundations Requesting Advance Approval of individual Grant Procedures r. (Contin ed) Private foundations complete lines ta through 4f of this section. Public charities do not complete this section. (Continued) you or will you award scholarships, fellowships. and educational loans to atl end an Yes No cational institution based on the status of an individual being an employee of a Wil you comply with the seven conditions and either the percentage tests orf . and Yes CI No cir umstances test for scholarships, fellowships. and educational loans to atte ility irements, objective basis of selection, employment. course of studyob' ctives? (See lines 4c, 4d, and 4e, regarding the percentage tests.) i Do you or will you provide scholarships,? fellowships, or educational loans cational institution to employees of a particular employer? lf as," will you award grants to 10% or fewer of the eligible applicants who are El Yes No ac ally considered by the selection committee In selecting recipients of grants in that ye as provided by Flevenue Procedures 76?47 and 80-39? Do you provide scholarships, fellowships, or educational loans to attend an ad cational Yes No NIA itutlon to children of employees of a particular employer? aft-1"- use?" In a as," will you award grants to 25% or fewer of the eligible applicants who ere Yes No ally considered by the selection committee in selecting recipients of grants in that ye as provided by Revenue Procedures 76-47 and 80-39? if go to line a. it}. provide scholarships, fellowships, or educational loans to attend an edu tional Yes No El NIA in itution to children of employees of a particular employer, will you award gr ts to 10% or ewer of the number of employees? children who can be shown to be eliglbl for grants ether or not they submitted an application) in that year, as provided by Rev nue cedures 76-47 and 80-39? If Yes,? describe how you will determine who can be shown to be eligible for grants without submitting an application. such as by obtaining written statements or other Information about the expectations of employees' children to attend an educational in itution. if go to line 4famtStatistical or sampling techniques are not acceptable. See Revenue Procedure 85 51, 1985?2 CB. 717, for additional information. If ou provide scholarships, fellowships, or educational loans to attend an educational El Yes No limitation described in line 4d, or the 10% limitation described in line 4e, ill you grants based on facts and circumstances that demonstrate that the gra cir umstances that you believe will demonstrate that the grants are neither cor no a signi?cant bene?t to the particular employer. in your explanation, descri ca not satisfy either the 25% test described in line 4d or the 10% test describ in itution to children of employees of a particular employer without regard to Tiber the ts will not orovide a 1pensatory why you in line 4e. Form 1023 (Rev. 6?2006)_ 196 February 2008 Vol.59, No.2 181 The Exempt Organization Tax Review This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the MS Form (Revis Applicat Internal 1023 Checklist ed June 2006) ion for Recognition of Exemption under Section 501 (c Revenue Code of the Note. Reta regarding I Check ea: in a copy of the completed Form 1023 In your permanent records. Dublic Inspection of approved applications. :h box to ?nish your application iForm 1023). Send this comjplet efer to the General Instructions Checklist with your filled-in gaplicatio 1. if you have not answered all the items below, your application "Ev be returned to you as incomplet Ass Fc Fc E): 3 nil mbie the application and materials in this order: rm 1023 Checklist rm 2848, Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative (if filir rm 8821, Tax Information Authorization (if ?ling) pedite request (if requestingplication (Form 1023 and Schedules A through H, as required) icies of organization endments to articles of organization in chronological order laws or other rules of operation and amendments cumentation of nondiscriminatory policy for schools, as required by rm 5768, Election/Revocation of Election by an Eligible Section 501(1 penditures To influence Legislation (if filing) other attachments, including explanations, financial data, and printe page with name and EIN. fee payment placed in envelope on top of' checklist. NOT STAP order to your application. instead, just place it in the envelope. oyer identi?cation Number pleted Parts i through Xi of the application, including any requested dules A through H. must provide Speci?c details about your past, present, and planne 9) Schedule Organization To Make materials or publications. Label -E or otherwise attach your check or information and any required activities. neralizations or failure to answer questions in the Form 1023 applic ion will prevent us from recognizing as tax exempt. scribe your purposes and proposed activities in specific easily unde stood terms. ancial information should correspond with proposed activities. dules. Submit only those schedules that apply to you and check eith dule A A Schedule Schedule Yes_ No_ Yes_ No._ der Yes_ No__ Yes_. No duie Yes_ Schedule Yes_ No? Yes_ Schedule er ?Yes? or ?No? below. The Exempt Organization Tax Review 182 This documer it was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Resp FeToruary zoos Vol. 59, No. 2 197 onsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) . mm: we Focus on the A exact copy of your complete articles of organization (creating document). Absence of the proper purpose a dissolution clauses is the number one reason for delays in the lssuan of determination letters. 'ocation of Purpose Clause from Part line 1 (Page, Article and Para raph Number) 0 ocation of Dissolution Clause from Part line 2b or 2c (Page, Article nd Paragraph Number) or by peration of state law [3 Si ?ature of an of?cer, director, trustee, or other of?cial who is authorized 0 ignature at Part Xi of Form 1023. :0 sign the application. name on the application must be the same as your legal name as it appears in your articles of a'nization. Send o%npleted Form 1023. user fee payment, and all other required information, to: Intern Bevenue Service PO. 192 Covin o'n, KY41012-0192 intern Revenue Service 201 West Rivercenter Blvd. Attn: Extracting Stop 312 Covington, KY 41011 If you Ire using express mail or a delivery service. send Form 1023, user fee payment. and attachments to: 198 February 2008 Vol. 59, No. 2 The Exempt Organization Tax Review 183 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the IRS Voter Allianc E.I.N. 20-5851 Form 1023 A Part 11, line 1 to Improve Democracy 3546 ttachment A - Articles of Incorporation See Exhith A Part 11, line - Bylaws See Exhibit PartIV-Nai rative Description of Activities The Vote: was to range of pro; Alliance to Improve Democracy ("Vote rmed to raise Americans' awareness about a gressive issues and to encourage AmeriCans to vote and 6 Speci?cally, ngage in other forms of civic participation. organization will conduct public opinion research; no partisan issue advocacy, including educat- ing voters encourage and engage voter regis AID will raising their issues that tc as war and 1 the environrr Through this Vote AID int that impact 2 out candidates? positions on issues and didates for public office to adopt positions public debate on particular issues; and tion and get?out?the?vote activities. Vote age Americans in civic participation by awareness and advocating positions on uch their lives and their communities such aeace, health care, unemployment, poverty, Lent, reproductive health and human rights. pairing of issues and civic participation, ends to in?uence state and federal policies J1 Americans. Polling and Opinion Research Vote AID plans to conduct polling and other survey research to its programs and determine public views on is conducted by interest in ues. While some of the research will be 'Vote AID exclusively, there is also an allaborating with other organizations that work on sim lar issues. In some cases Vote AID will share In order to conduct public research in a cost effective manner, Vote AID iitends to buy questions on polls being conducted by other organizations and conduct joint research projects. For example, Vote AID will identify other organizatio that may be interested in similar issues and work 'th them to conduct polls and focus groups. Vote AID review public Opinion research and information that 5 available through public sources including the Int et. Vote AID intends to provide links from its website to ther organizations? websites to make this information ore readily available. Particularly given Vote ?ted budget, providing ready access to other relevant 3 and research will be critical to the group?s educa onal objectives. Voter Registra 11 Vote AID inten to motivate the general public to register to vote ough discussion of critical issues. Research demons ates that by raising current issues of importance, org ations are likely to increase their success in getting individuals to register to vote and become active in democratic process. Based on public opinion research, te AID will select the issues that that have the greatest cc of motivating voters to vote. After identifying most compelling issues, Vote Aid will design mate 'als that ask prosPective voters to register to vote in order to have their voices heard on these issues. In so cases the issues will be presented with Vote ition stated. For example, a pamphlet might state: "It is time to el ct public officials who understand our issues and protect our environment and right to afforda le health care. The threat of global unaddressed; of Americans e. Register and vote this year so - you can point this country in a different direction.? "Many of us in the community are fed up with- the results of its research with the media and general public; in 0 er cases the research will be used exclu- sively to inf rm its programs and the activities of other organizatio . Congress giving taxbreaks to the rich and failing to fund our schools adequately to give children a better education. We lcnow the only way to get the Vote AID intends to ask a range of questions to determine eoples? attitudes about speci?c issues. The issues covers in the surveys will be identified by staff or consultants approval by who will make recommendations for ?nal the Board of Directors. The most important criteria for selection will be whether an issue has the potential to other types results, Vote Vote motivate individuals to vote or engage in of civic participation. Based on the survey AID will identify 2-3 issues that will be the intends to ask questions about attitudes focus of its irork for a 2-year period. toward pub individuals individuals of?cials, celebrities and other well-known order to determine who might motivate to vote. The research will also attempt to identify attitudes toward current elected officials, who may also be office in the or are likely to become candidates for public election cycle. Vote AID could provide a sample survey questionnaire. attention of politicians is to increase the numbers of people voting. Are you registered to vote or can I help you register today so your voice is heard when we vote in November?? Vote AID will esign and target its voter registration and other activiti based on demographic information as well as issue terests. Extensive and sophisticated information is no available to better understand demo- graphic groups even identify specific individual interests. This tar ting and microtargeting data will be used to select particular groups of prospective registrants and voters and to tailor messages that' are most likely to be successful in motivating them to vote. Vote AID will use information from a state voter file, such as previous voting history on ballot initiatives, as well as, for ex- ample, church membership, membership in environmen- tal organizations, magazine subscriptions, and other data available through vendors to target its voter registration activities and messages. The message listed above on global warming, example, may be used to reach out to The Exempt Organization Tax Review - February 2008 - Val. 59, No. 2 184 199 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) .. .- .. . . Focus on the individuals who are members of environmental organi- zaiions order to motivate them to register and vote. Similarly, communications highlighting the issues sur- rounding public school education and encouraging people to register and vote might be targeted to parents of school age children. It is anticipated that using micro- targeting techniques will increase (1) the likelihood of individuals responding to the messages to vote and (2) the cost effectiveness of the programs by avoiding hap- hazard approaches to general p0pulations. Voter Guides Vote ID will prepare and distribute a series of voter guides to the general public through canvasses and the Internet. the races for which the guides will be prepared will be ta rgeted based on a variety of factors including: areas where there are signi?cant numbers of Vote AID members or activists or where Vote AID might be likely to attract new supporters based on its analysis of micro- targeting data geographic diversity (at least one race will be se.ected in each geographic region of the country); districts of important incumbent legislators such as chairs of key committees that work on issues of impor- tance to Vote and areas where the issues that Vote AID has identified have the greatest likelihood of becom- ing part of the public debate. ?des will provide a nonpartisan presentation of all viabl candidates in a particular race. The candidate informa will include: biographical information, sources campaign contributions, ratings by interest groups positions on the issues identified through the public 0 inion research discussed above. In light of the historic 'culty in getting candidates to respond to these qu stionnaires, Vote AID does not plan to send questio es to candidates seeking responses. Vote AID will con net research on every candidate using a broad range of ources (many of which were listed in IRS Fact Sheet 20 6?17, including: periodicals, public statements, campai literature, websites, Project Vote Smart and ations. Each issue covered in a guide will be candidat 5' positions. If a candidate has no publicly aVailable position on an issue, the guide will note that the candidat ?3 position is unknown. Over course of the election cycle, Vote AID will send out 3-4 guides covering the candidates in each race selected. guides will be distributed in the fall leading up to th election and will be available on the website through lection Day. Each guide will cover one issue or a few is ue areas. For example, the ?rst guide might cover en 'onmental issues, followed by guides on edu- cation, alth issues (including reproductive health), and jobs. Vo AID will distribute some of the guides by I ending on the duration and coverage of the households will get one or more of the voter guides. 1e guides will also be disseminated through e?mail on the Vote AID website. Individuals may select th campaigns and issues in which they have an interest <1 View that information. Through the site, Vote AID provide links to the resources used to prepare the guid and other information available on the Inter- 200 bruary 2008 - V01. 59, Na. 2 185 net that might assist people seeking to learn more about the issues covered in the guide. Educating Candidates and Encouraging Public . Debate As part of its public education campaign, Vote AID will encourage members of the general public to learn more about key issues and to ask candidates for public office to addr those issues in their campaigns. The objective of issue campaign is to more effectively control and the level of public debate about issues by asking the blic to bring the issues to the candidates. Once the can dates understand that the public cares about their p0 'tions on issues, the candidates are more likely to play role in making them part of the public debate as well 5 take action if elected. To kick off this initiative, Vote AID will circulate, through the ternet and at public events, a pledge related to one of its key issues. For example, the pledge on public education will be: will not vote for any candidate for President or Congress who does not have an immediate plan and public I: osition to address the critical needs of our public education system.? . The pledge on the environment will be: will not vote for or support any candidate for public office who does not have a plan to immedi- ately addres: the threat of global warming and take a public po ition on this issue in his or her cam- - The pledge are intended to highlight one or more important issu that should be addressed by candidates without indicating in any way which candidate or can- didates agree 'or disagree with the organization?s position and, therefore, should be supported or opposed. The pledge will no: identify candidates whose positions on these. issues are consistent (or inconsistent) with the views of the organizations supporting the pledge. Fur- thermore, the generality of the pledge will provide considerable room for candidates to take a wide range of positions with aspect to the issue in ways a voter might deem to meet pledge. Vote AID ill circulate the pledge to voters and members of th public with the objective of raising these issues to publi prominence. A tally of the total number of pledge sup rters will be maintained on the website. Vote AID also identify a network of volunteers who are willin to pose questions and discuss key issues at candidates' ublic appearances such as forums and speeches. Vote AID will identify 1-2 key issues that it wishes to big 'ght in the media and among the public. Volunteers be encouraged to attend public appear- ances of the andidates, to ask candidates questions about the iss and to report the responses to the organization e-mail. The responses will be posted on the Internet visitors to review and gain a better understanding of the c'andidates? positions on these issues. - The Exempt Organization Tax Review This docume twas obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus on the 1R8 Part V, line 3a Quali?cations, etc. Nam a Title Qualifications W?ldy Hours Duties Nan Aron President, Director President and founder of na- 4 Develop organizational vision; tional advocacy nonpro?t or lead board meetings; preside ganization; attorney. at annual meeting; form alli- ances with other organiza- ?ons. Jeff Malachowsky Treasurer; Director President and founder of ad? 1 Oversee budget; prepare vocacy nonprofit organization; nancial reports; make pay- trainer of nonprofit leaders. ments as appropriate. Shannon rett Secretary, Director Conducted public advocacy 1 Attend and keep record of work at nonpro?t organiza- board and annual meetings; tions; attorney. - oversee Vote AID correspon- dence. Part V, line Ea Con?icts of Interest ?4 Accept donatio on your website: The Organization?s The Board of Directors passed a resolution by unani? website may contain a section which provides contact mous conse adopting the Con?ict of Interest policy, information about how to make a contribution or which which is att ed as Exhibit C. allows visitors to make contributions directly to the Part VIE, . 2a Attempts to In?uence Legislation Organization Via the Internet. If the Organization . . . . . launches a blog, i1 may also encourage blog readers to The Org ation Will engage in attempts to influence . . legislation within the limits imposed by I.R.C. Sections contribute to the org ahon' . . Receive donaticns from another or anization?s web- and 4911' Form 5768 15 endosed' site: The Organiza :ion does not anticipgate seeking other Part V111, line 4a Description of Fundraising Program organizations that will accept contributions on its behalf, Mailsolic .tations: Periodically, but no more than twice but Will receive nations if another entity chooses to a year, the Organization may send letters request-mg accept donations arked for the Orgaruzation. contributions to support its educational and charitable . . . . . . . purposes. Thealetters will be sent to those individuals, Eg?ggne 4d Of States organizatio and other entities on the Organizationlist in its database. Currently none but ant1c1pated in California, Mary Email 5 .dta?ons: Periodically, the or Nation land, New York, Vrgnua, Washington, DC, and 130551ny . . . . . all local jurisdictiows within these states. may send seems conmhitions to .056 mdl' In each jurisdiction, the Organization will fundraise ?duals! org agons? and Other mute? Who Slgned? up for itself. It is possible that Alliance for Justice may to receive 1 emails or Who are omme on the Orga? fundraise as well. The Organization will not fundraise for mzation?s In list or in its database. another or ma?on Personal ,olicitations: Staff and or board members - and voluntee rswill solicit friends, family members, vol- Part V111, line 15 Close Connection to Other Organi- unteers, and others through mail, email, phone and face zation to face meetings. Alliance for Justice will provide limited staff assis- Foundation grant solicitations: The Organization may tance to the Organization in its stages, as well as a submit proposals to private foundations or other grant to cover start-up expenses. One of the Organiza- 501(c)(3) public charities seeking funding for its educa- tion's board members, Nan Aron, is the President of tional and 'table purposes. Alliance for Justice Alliance for Justice does not exercise in?uence over the Organization's activities. - The Exempt Organization Tax Review . Fepruary 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 201 186 This documert was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Politics (OpenSecrets.org) Focus 0 the IRS Part? T'F?nafmml Line 23 Itemized Expenses 2005 2007 2003 Lme 1.3 Itemlzed L181: of Expenses. Adver?sing $320 $2,000 $2200 4. 4. 4. Promotions 'i Bank Charges $50 $200 $220 Books and $50 $200 $220 Periodical 1311, Printing a: $400 $2,400 $2,540 Irisurance $100 $600 $660 Internet Fees $200 $1,000 $1,100 List Rental $0 $5,000 $5,500 Meetings and $160 $1,000 $1,100 Conferences avel Expenses $1,024 $6,400 $7,040 Of?ce Supplies $130 $854 $939 ostage a: $140 $880 $968 Deliveries Miscellaneous $150 $1,000 $1,100 Total $2,734 $21,534 $23,687 i 202 Fiebrtiary 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 The Exempt Organization Tax Review 187 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) EKEIBIT 3: LETTER TO LOIS LERNER RE: VOTE AID 14, 2007] 188 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecretsorg) Focus on the RS Full Text Correspondence Atto eys Ask IRS for Political Activit' 5 Guidance That Re?ects etermination Letter In a Decemb 14 letter, several attorneys recommend that Polling: Vote AID proposes to conduct polling to determine peoples attitudes about speci?c issues and the most important criteria used to identify those issues will be ?wiether the issue has a potential to motivate individu of civic participati questions about pi. individuals some didates. The orgar nities to publicize by other organize ls to vote or engage in other types on.? Similarly, Vote AID will ask blic of?cials and other well-known 3f whom are likely to become can- ization will also identify opportu- public Opinion research conducted .tions and establish links to this research. Voter Registration: Vote AID intends to identify cur- rent issues of interest that are most likely to increase success in getting individuals to register and vote. The application provides two examples using issues that are central in the public debate, describing the moti- vational messages and indicating that Vote position may be stated in some cases. Voter registra- tion will be targeted based on demographic as well as issue interests. Using sophisticated demographic data as well as micro-targeting, Vote AID will be able to' select particular groups of prosPectlve registrants based on their interest in speci?c issues and tailor messages that are likely to be successful in motivating them to vote. Voter Guides: Vote AID will prepare and distribute voter guides that are based on research of the candi- date?s records, not questionnaires completed by the candidates as contemplated in the Service?s guidance. While there will be a series of guides distributed throughout the election cycle, each guide will cover one issue area. In the course of the series, Vote AID will be covering Kerous, but certainly not all, of th the IRS promnl ate formal guidance that articulates the positions it took a recent determination letter for a section 501(c)(3) organi tion that plans to conduct polling, voter registration, and :ther activities designed to encourage Ameri- cans to vote. December 14, 2007 VIA Hand Delivery and US. Mail Ms. Lois Lerner Director of Exempt Organiza?Ons Division Internal Revenu Service 1750 Avenue, NW Washington, D. 3. 20224 Dear Ms. Lemar: The undersigned practitioners urge the Service to promulgate fornal guidance re?ecting the administra. tive positions underlying the recent determination letter issued to Voter Alliance to Improve Democracy ("Vote Vote ?led an application for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that con ed a detailed description of its pro- posed ac?vi?afifiivolving issue advocacy in the context 'of an election ampaign. On May 31, 2007, the Service issued a determination letter recognizing Vote tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. A copy of the Form 1023 and the deter- mination letter attached. Vote AID is rganized to "raise Americans? awareness about a range of progressive issues and to encourage _Americans to ote and engage in other forms of civic participation.? ote proposed activities, described in detail in A chment A to the Form 1023, include polling, voter gistration, voter guides and educational activities dire to candidates. Many of the proposed activities are Currently addressed in Internal Revenue Service or Treasury guidance. Helpfully, in the context of the pplication for exemption, the IRS deter- mined that the activities are consistent with tax-exempt status under . While ReVe ue Ruling 2007?41 has been useful to charitable org ations, additional clarity, particularly in the context f-a modern election, is needed to ensure that organizati us understand the activities that may be undertaken 'out jeopardizing their exemptions or triggering exci tax under section 4955. The approval of the application or Vote ADD provided answers to some of the most co on activities. We request they be used as the basis for 'dance on the following fact patterns: issues pertinent a given race. . - Education of the did-ates: Finally, Vote AID intends to encourage members of the public to ask candidates for public of?ce to address key issues of interest to Vote AID in the campaign in order to raise the level of attention devoted to these issues in the campaign. This project will begin with a pledge that Vote AID will circulate for signatures through the Internet and at public events. Individuals will be asked to pledge not to vote for a candidate who does not address a particular issue. The pledge will not identify any candidate or discuss the position of any particular candidate. Instead, it is intended to encourage indi- viduals to ?nd out where the candidates stand. Many public charities are interested in conducting similar activities but, without sufficient guidance, have been reluctant to undertake them for fear of je0pardizing their exemptions or incurring excise tax. We are taking steps to publicize application and the determination letter as the packag provides additional information to the exempt corrununity about activities that have been approved by the Service in a form that is more reassuring to the charitable ctor than a fact sheet or similar communication, su as the Service has used in the past to communicate its administrative positions. The docu- ments will be posted on the Alliance for Iustice website to inform public discussion at conferences and meetings The Exempt Organization Tax Review February 2008 - Vol. 59, No. 2 169 189 This document was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecretsorg) I I. i I ., carat-z - -.- 1-5- Iii-n: .- "thaw?zwlv. I 7 "gr ?x .V ?rt-:51- .-. I ?$137 - - xv- . 319' 1 -- ?kin?- 1:7. Jar-,? 2 ?a i Focus on the IRS i and to guiie' planning in this election cycle. We respect- fully requ as": that. the Service consider amplifying its formal gui iance to incorporate these types of activities as examples of?the issue-based initiatives that are available to chariti to assist them in achieving their exempt purposes. I Please ontact Holly Schadler at 202-464-0352 if you would lik to discuss these issues further. We would be glad to ahge a meeting if that would be helpful. Sincerely, Gregory Colvin Silk, Adler Colvin Gail Harmon Harmon, Curran, Spielberg Eisenberg, LLP Holly Schadler Lichtman, Trister 8: Ross, PLLC Marcus Owens Caplin 3: 1 James Joseph 1 Arnold 8: l?orter LLP Ros Fei 1 Silk, Adler 8: Colvin l? Elizabeth Kingsley Harmon, Curran Spielberg 8r Eisenberg, LLP Michael Trister Lichtman, 'It'ister 8r Ross, PLLC Douglas Varley Caplin 8: Liz Towne Alliance for Justice Form 1023 Letter of Determination cc: Rober?i .Choi Director, E0 Rulings and Agreements Judith E. Kindell Ta) ITaw Specialist, E0 Rulings and Agreements bruary 2008 - Val. 59, No. 2 170 190 The Exempt Organization Tax Review This docum nt was obtained and uploaded by the Center for Res ponsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org)