Well, that didn't take long. (Crime Victims United scrubs their website.)
Kari Chisholm
Just a quick follow-up to Carla's post about Crime Victims United (and their involvement in various judicial races.)
Carla noted that Crime Victims United PAC was soliciting contributions on their website - even though the Elections Division reports that the PAC was shut down years ago.
From her post:
When I checked Orestar to find out how much, if any, Crime Victims United PAC had given to Erwin, I came up bupkis. But not bupkis meaning that CVU hadn't given money. I mean bupkis in that CVU's PAC doesn't exist anymore. When I couldn't find it in Orestar I called the Secretary of State's office to see if I was doing the search incorrectly. They say CVU PAC went defunct in 2004. Which is also odd, given that CVU is still soliciting donations for the PAC on their website.
And just like that, Crime Victims United has updated their website - removing references to the PAC.
Here's the current contribution page. And, for the moment, here's the Google cache - with the PAC language still intact.
The first version of the page said:
* Oregon law requires that Crime Victims United PAC report this information to the Secretary of State.Contributions to Crime Victims United PAC are not tax-deductible as charitable contributions.
And now it just says:
Contributions to Crime Victims United are not tax-deductible as charitable contributions.
So, here's my question: If Crime Victims United isn't a PAC and it isn't a 501c3 charity, what is it? Is it a for-profit entity? Is it just Steve Doell's personal bank account?
I suppose it could be organized as a 501c4 nonprofit - which would mean that donations would not be tax-deductible, and yet it would be tax-exempt. Except that 501c4 organizations can't endorse candidates -- which is exactly what they did in the primary election.
Update: OK, I stand corrected. A 501c4 may be able to endorse candidates "as long as its partisan political activity is a secondary activity of the organization." Hmmm.... Not sure if Crime Victims United meets that standard. (Thanks to Dan P. for the heads up.)
Something smells very funny here.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
7:56 a.m.
Sep 30, '08
501c4 organizations can't endorse candidates
That's incorrect, Carla - c(4)s can endorse candidates and publicize those endorsements - but candidate work cannot be their primary purpose. Many sources on this - here's one; and the Alliance for Justice also has a lot of helpful resources.
7:57 a.m.
Sep 30, '08
oops - should have said "Kari" not "Carla."
8:06 a.m.
Sep 30, '08
Thanks, Dan. I've corrected my post. I was going to disclaim "I'm not a lawyer, blah blah blah..." but that's fairly obvious, eh?
Sep 30, '08
It appears that CVU is registered with the SOSas a domestic non-profit since 2005. But if you go to guidestar.org or foundationcenter.org, there are no Form 990's on file. All nonprofits with gross receipts over $25k are supposed to file them, so unless CVU had receipts of under $25k (which I doubt), you're right Kari- there's something fishy going on.
Kari- did you request 990's from them already?
8:25 a.m.
Sep 30, '08
It's worth pointing out that here in Oregon, C4's can act just like Pac's and never have to report any of their campaign expenditures to the state.
Sep 30, '08
Steve Doell turned the tremendous personal tragedy of his daughter's murder into a public-policy nightmare for all Oregonians. I wonder if he ever thinks about this.
10:45 a.m.
Sep 30, '08
It would be a real shame if an organization which purports to oppose scofflaws is itself a scofflaw.
3:15 p.m.
Sep 30, '08
Sal writes:
It's worth pointing out that here in Oregon, C4's can act just like Pac's and never have to report any of their campaign expenditures to the state.
That's not true. As somebody who runs both a 501c4 and a PAC, I've delved a lot into this area. If the 501c4 is expending money independently to elect a candidate (e.g. mailing to people beyond their own membership), it becomes a PAC under state law and must report like any other PAC. If a 501c4 donates money or spends in-kind (e.g. coordinated) to help a PAC (including a candidate's PAC), the PAC in question must legally report that donation. So technically it's true the c4 never reports it, but it's reported by the PAC being helped.
The only spending a 501c4 can do without reporting is to its own membership or reasonable efforts to inform the press (eg. press releases).
Whether some 501c4s are out there doing political stuff like this and nonetheless not following the states reporting rules is another question entirely.
3:32 p.m.
Sep 30, '08
Kari- did you request 990's from them already?
No, that's an excellent idea.
And thank you, Jonathan, for the great info.
3:57 p.m.
Sep 30, '08
That's not true. As somebody who runs both a 501c4 and a PAC, I've delved a lot into this area. If the 501c4 is expending money independently to elect a candidate (e.g. mailing to people beyond their own membership), it becomes a PAC under state law and must report like any other PAC.
Jonathan, there is no question that OLCV plays by the book, and what you have said is fully consistent with Oregon's disclosure laws as I have come to understand them, but that's not what the SOS decided when the office chose not to require Our Oregon to file as a political action committee and to disclose their donors and campaign expenditures on ballot measures in 2006.
Sep 30, '08
Steve Doell's engagement is shameful. CVU operates with such a sense of righteousness and yet they are regularly engaging in underhanded strategies. For many years, Steve Doell could be see at the capitol practically on a daily basis and yet he only registered with the state as a lobbyist two sessions ago. Apparently he thinks he is above the laws that he so bullishly tries to toughen.
Sep 30, '08
Another comment about the mystery behind CVU. Steve Doell recently submitted a public records request of several legislators who supported the development of Measure 57, the alternative to Mannix's Measure 61. Doell hired the services of the law office Davis Wright Tremaine to facilitate the public records request. That bill couldn't have been cheap. So where is Doell getting the money?
Well Doell is now a primary spokesperson for Mannix's horrible Measure 61 and the website of Mannix's shell organization (Oregon Anti-Crime Alliance) posted a bunch of the documents Doell got his hands on through the records request. Soit doesn't take much to see the flow of money. In other words, Mannix is using Loren Parks' money to pay Doell to do a opposition research for his horrible measure through the public records request. So Shouldn't the services of Davis Wright Tremaine show up Mannix's C & E reports?
Sep 30, '08
This is simply fascinating.
And on top of the Tom Brian, CVU PAC or NOT PAC, Loren Parks, Kevin Mannix intrigue, David writes:
"... he only registered with the state as a lobbyist two sessions ago. Apparently he thinks he is above the laws that he so bullishly tries to toughen."
Oh my goodness, is this correct? Steve Doell -- not a lobbyist prior to 2005? This is the guy who was able to reach the Speaker immediately in the wee hours of sine die during one of the many 2002 "special sessions".
11:16 p.m.
Sep 30, '08
Apparently he thinks he is above the laws that he so bullishly tries to toughen.
OMG, truer words have never been spoken. Stay tuned.
9:08 a.m.
Oct 1, '08
Apparently he thinks he is above the laws that he so bullishly tries to toughen.
Isn't that consistent with the ethical compass used by conservatives - do as I say, not as I do?
Oct 1, '08
Posted by: joel dan walls | Sep 30, 2008 9:20:55 AM
Joel, thanks for that.
Some people here might not remember (prob. not Measure 40, but after the Supreme Court required Measure 40 to be broken up in pieces due to the single subject rule) that there was once some kind of a broadcast debate between Doell and someone who opposed the measure(s) in question. There was a woman who happened to be confined to a wheelchair due a hit and run or something. The woman in the wheelchair was a crime victim. Doell claimed to speak for all crime victims, but the woman begged to differ. She was a crime victim, she could think and speak for herself, thank you very much!
As I recall, the news story was that during a break he showed her a picture of his dead daughter and said she should be sad about her and thus backing the anti-crime measure.
I can't imagine the level of grief he lives through, even though I have attended 3 funerals for old friends this summer. But there are positive and negative ways of handling grief, and bullying others does not seem to be a constructive way of dealing with grief.
Helping to strengthen victim and witness assistance programs would seem to be a better way than seeking vengance on all who don't support the CVU agenda.
Oct 1, '08
LT,
<h2>The woman you mention is Arwen Bird, a class act. And know that the Partnership for Safety & Justice has a Crime Survivors for Community Safety section. I think they were responsible for getting more funding from the legislature in 2007 for victim services.</h2>