{"id":1041,"date":"2010-08-17T04:29:12","date_gmt":"2010-08-17T04:29:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bluoz.com\/blog\/?p=1041"},"modified":"2010-08-17T04:29:12","modified_gmt":"2010-08-17T04:29:12","slug":"D-6-candidate-meeting-excludes-candidates-at-250-Brannan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bluoz.com\/blog\/2010\/08\/17\/D-6-candidate-meeting-excludes-candidates-at-250-Brannan\/","title":{"rendered":"D-6 candidate meeting excludes candidates at 250 Brannan"},"content":{"rendered":"

and now there’s a video. Update > LiveSoma<\/a> attended this forum and also has a story about this, read their take on it<\/a> which includes comments from the missing candidates, as well as the invited ones<\/p>\n

<\/param><\/param><\/param><\/embed><\/object><\/p>\n

Here’s a bit of context for what happened tonight<\/p>\n

Heavy security at Examiner Forum rejects Bulldog!
\nFilm to follow. Producer\/videographer Tony De Renzo
\nand I went to the 250 Brannan event celebrating D-6
\ncandidates Elaine Zamora and Theresa Sparks and were
\ndenied entry. Since it’s illegal for the half dozen
\nor so CBD’s who sponsored the event to use taxpayer
\nmoney (they’re tax exempt via 501 (c) 3 status … to
\nfavor one or a group of candidates in any forum, the
\nmeeting was illegal on its face. The video will speak for itself and Tony and I
\nwill have it available to you tomorrow.<\/p>\n

Imagine having guards and a guest list for a public
\npolitical debate. They actually had an on duty
\nSF cop ready to arrest me.<\/p>\n

On the upside, they were letting candidates who
\nweren’t invited in. Pics with Anna Conda and
\nTerrance Alan and bunch of others.<\/p>\n

We shook em a bit. I’m deeply disappointed that
\ncandidates like Jim Meko and Debra Walker are supporting
\nthis exclusion of minority candidates.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

boys and girls,<\/p>\n

Anna Conda has a thread going on Facebook
\nregarding her and another 9 D-6 candidates being
\nshut out of a forum at 250 Brannan this evening
\nfrom 6pm til 8:30pm. It didn’t occur to me
\nthat this might be illegal but poster, Colleen
\nRivecca thinks maybe. There are at least a
\nhalf dozen groups sponsoring this including
\nElaine Zamora’s North of Market CBD which I’m
\ncertain has non-profit status (even though they
\npay Elaine over $160,000 a year). She’s
\ninvited and we aren’t? What a surprise.<\/p>\n

How do we file a complaint about this?<\/p>\n

h.<\/p>\n

Facebook post:<\/p>\n

#
\n#
\nColleen Rivecca Is Market Street Assn a 501c3 nonprofit? IRS guidelines for 501c3
\nnonprofits state that “voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias
\nthat: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner;
\nor (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute
\nprohibited participation or intervention.
\nhttp:\/\/www.irs.gov\/charities\/article\/0,,id=141538,00.html
\nabout an hour ago \u00c2\u00b7 Like<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The IRS code
\nhttp:\/\/www.irs.gov\/charities\/charitable\/article\/0,,id=163395,00.html<\/a><\/p>\n

The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations<\/p>\n

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. <\/p>\n

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.<\/p>\n

The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

simply saying ‘top candidates’ before an election is itself expressing an opinion, implicitly favoring certain candidates over others, which is not allowed for the non profits. The poster, and all those listed on it are saying which<\/strong> candidates are the top candidates<\/strong> three months before the election takes place<\/p>\n

Here’s the flier for the event. Indeed there are numerous CBD’s as co-sponsors. All of the ones in PDF (form 990 embedded here) are tax payer funded non-profits and 501c3, the others are not. There are three charitable organizations listed as co-sponsors for the District 6 candidates forum<\/p>\n

The Yerba Buena Community Benefits District, Market Street Association, South Beach\/Mission Bay Association, Tenderloin merchants Association are not listed<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/object>