Political Campaign Activities
Source: IRS e-news,
submitted by Mike Kokinos, Tax Advisor
The Internal Revenue Service recently announced it will step up efforts to enforce rules against political campaign activities. In the 2004 elections, the IRS noticed an upturn in politicking on the part of 501(c)(3) organizations. The agency responded by increasing its educational efforts and launching an enforcement program, the Political Activity Compliance Initiative (PACI), to investigate specific, credible allegations of wrongdoing.
While the vast majority of charities and churches do not engage in politicking, an increasing number did take part in prohibited activities in the 2004 election cycle, IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson said. The rule against political campaign intervention by charities and churches is long established. We are stepping up our efforts to enforce it.
The IRS has put procedures into place for the 2006 election season to more quickly address instances of potential prohibited activity on the part of charities, churches and other tax-exempt organizations. The procedures are meant to ensure that public referrals as well as activities the IRS itself uncovers are reviewed expeditiously and treated in a consistent, fair and nonpartisan manner.
As a rule, charities, religious organizations such as churches, educational organizations and other groups that are tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code may not participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.
This prohibition means 501(c)(3) organizations may not endorse candidates, distribute statements for or against candidates, raise funds for or donate to candidates or become involved in any activity that would be either supportive or opposed to any candidate.
Whether an organization is engaging in prohibited political campaign activity depends upon all the facts and circumstances in each case. For example, organizations may sponsor debates or forums to educate voters. But if the debate or forum shows a preference for or against a certain candidate, it becomes a prohibited activity.
The Fight Goes On for Public Access to Public Lands
Submitted to John Martin by Vern Cliffe
On December 8, 2004, despite a last-minute outpouring of letters and phone calls and a flood of negative editorials, an Ohio congressman with no public lands in his district succeeded in his attempt to sellout America's priceless heritage of public access to public lands. On that day, Representative Ralph Regula's bill, officially titled the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) but more accurately know as the Recreation Access Tax, or RAT, became law. The RAT authorizes permanent access fees for recreation on all land managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation. There is no denying that December 8, 2004, was a black day for lovers of public lands.
But there is good news, too. The RAT contains the seeds of its own eventual destruction, and those seeds are beginning to take root. This newsletter is an update on accomplishments by the WSNFC and our affiliated groups in the effort to oppose access fees. With your help, we will reclaim our public lands!
Documents provided by the Forest Service to the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and recently released to the public have confirmed that the vast majority of fee sites on National Forests are not in compliance with the new Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, also known as the Recreation Access Tax, or RAT. Of 1,339 sites that are located within agency-designated "High Impact Recreation Areas," 981 are Standard Amenity Fee sites that are required to have six specific amenities in order to qualify for fees. The Forest Service documents reveal that 739 of those -- a fu11 75%--do not have a11 of the amenities the law requires. In addition, 627 sites--47% of the total -- have never been previously reported to Congress as fee sites, yet have not been subjected to the public participation process that the FLREA requires for newly instituted fees.
The information is included in answers that Mark Rey, Undersecretary of Agriculture, provided in response to Supplemental Questions posed to him in writing by Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, fol1owing Rey's October 26, 2005 testimony before Craig's Subcommittee. The October hearing was held to review imp1ementation of fees by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management under the FLREA.
There is wording in the FLREA that prohibits entrance fees from being charged for Forest Service or BLM lands. Fees are also prohibited solely for parking, for access to undeveloped backcountry, for passing through without using facilities, for undeveloped camping, for scenic overlooks, or for general access. In addition, FLREA requires day-use fee sites to have six specific amenities. The restrictions were meant to deflect criticism that arose under Fee Demo's unrestricted fee authority, but are being wide1y ignored by the agencies.
Rey's responses confirm charges made in a Survey Report pub1ished last year by the Western Slope No-Fee Coa1ition. WSNFC co-founder Kitty Benzar testified at the October hearing about the Survey Report, telling Senators that the Forest Service is requiring de facto entrance fees for huge tracts of public land, is forcing visitors to pay for activities such as backcountry hiking that are supposed to be protected by 1aw from fees, and has established new fee sites without going through the law's public participation process. She pointed out in her testimony that "High Impact Recreation Areas" are not defined or authorized anywhere in the law.
"This information confirms with the Forest Service's own data their widespread disregard for the provisions in the FLREA that were supposed to protect public access and allow public participation," said Robert Funkhouser, President of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition. "BUT as bad as the HIRA situation is, it is still only the tip of the iceberg," added Funkhouser. He noted that there are more than 3,000 former Fee Demo sites outside of HIRAs that are charging fees, even though the WSNFC's Survey Report showed that many of them are not compliant with the FLREA.
The transcript of the October 26, 2005 hearing can be read at http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/ senate/senate08ch109.html . The WSNFC Survey Report and the text of the FLREA can be read at this website.
If You Care about YOUR Public Lands, Take Action!!
Here is a way you can help "Kill the RAT"
Contact your U.S Representative and both of your U.S. Senators. A letter has the most impact, and faxing it avoids the security delays of regular mail. Call their closest office or your county clerk for contact information.
Tell them that the language in the FLREA that was supposed to protect you from being charged for general access and for use of undeveloped backcountry is being disregarded by the Forest Service and BLM. We suggest you pick an example that is particularly irksome to you-a wilderness hiking trail, ATV or 4WD route, river, lake, or dispersed camping area that you use-and ask them to investigate whether access fees charged there are in violation of the law. In your letter, mention the specific sections of the law that you believe the site violates. You can read the text of the law at the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition's website.
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/ senate/senate08ch109.html
Reprinted from the Fee-Free Press May 2006
Western Slope No-Fee Coalition
PO Box 135
Durango, Colorado 81302
Some Observations From The 2006 Reno Show
By Dick Friesen, Rules Committee
This was the first time in three years I was able to attend this excellent show. I had been a regular exhibitor but a scheduling conflict with the Snyder Ranch Pow Wow prevented my attendance for two years. It also helped me to view the show more as a new event as time allowed my memory to dim somewhat.
The Reno club is unique in that it is the only club that is still having competition and allowing non-club members to enter. This, coupled with the hard work of many members to educate all members of the Reno club in good showmanship, has had a spectacular payback in the club's exhibits. All of the member's exhibits looked like they were going into competition.
While some of the cases may have had minor problems that would result in a few points off if they had been in competition, I didn't look for them nor was there any reason to. It was the overall effect that was important. When the public views our exhibits they come away with an impression of not only the exhibits themselves but the club as a whole. The public had to come away from this show with a great impression.
I would like to encourage Show Chairmen and Exhibitor Chairmen to think about what image the public will have of your show and what you can do to improve it. While most of us don't think a lot about how our club exhibits impact recruiting new members and it may not be the most important aspect of recruiting, it does have an effect. Great work can be hidden by poor showmanship. When a potential new member is impressed by what is seen in your show they will be more likely to be interested in joining.
I would like to extend my personal congratulations to the Reno Club for their efforts to raise the quality of their exhibits, they are excellent. I would also like to suggest that, when possible, club Show Chairmen and Exhibitor Chairmen make an attempt to visit future Reno shows to see for themselves how the Reno club efforts have paid off.
