28.08.2019 Views

The 508(c)(1)(a) Initiative Workshop

The 508(c)(1)(a) Initiative Workshop

The 508(c)(1)(a) Initiative Workshop

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Page 2 of 183


Turning the Improbable<br />

Into the Exceptional!<br />

Page 3 of 183


Page 4 of 183


<strong>The</strong> Advocacy Foundation, Inc.<br />

Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities<br />

Achieve <strong>The</strong>ir Full Potential<br />

Since its founding in 2003, <strong>The</strong> Advocacy Foundation has become recognized as an effective<br />

provider of support to those who receive our services, having real impact within the communities<br />

we serve. We are currently engaged in community and faith-based collaborative initiatives,<br />

having the overall objective of eradicating all forms of youth violence and correcting injustices<br />

everywhere. In carrying-out these initiatives, we have adopted the evidence-based strategic<br />

framework developed and implemented by the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency<br />

Prevention (OJJDP).<br />

<strong>The</strong> stated objectives are:<br />

1. Community Mobilization;<br />

2. Social Intervention;<br />

3. Provision of Opportunities;<br />

4. Organizational Change and Development;<br />

5. Suppression [of illegal activities].<br />

Moreover, it is our most fundamental belief that in order to be effective, prevention and<br />

intervention strategies must be Community Specific, Culturally Relevant, Evidence-Based, and<br />

Collaborative. <strong>The</strong> Violence Prevention and Intervention programming we employ in<br />

implementing this community-enhancing framework include the programs further described<br />

throughout our publications, programs and special projects both domestically and<br />

internationally.<br />

www.<strong>The</strong>Advocacy.Foundation<br />

ISBN: ......... ../2017<br />

......... Printed in the USA<br />

Advocacy Foundation Publishers<br />

Philadelphia, PA<br />

(878) 222-0450 | Voice | Data | SMS<br />

Page 5 of 183


Page 6 of 183


Dedication<br />

______<br />

Every publication in our many series’ is dedicated to everyone, absolutely everyone, who by<br />

virtue of their calling and by Divine inspiration, direction and guidance, is on the battlefield dayafter-day<br />

striving to follow God’s will and purpose for their lives. And this is with particular affinity<br />

for those Spiritual warriors who are being transformed into excellence through daily academic,<br />

professional, familial, and other challenges.<br />

We pray that you will bear in mind:<br />

Matthew 19:26 (NLT)<br />

Jesus looked at them intently and said, “Humanly speaking, it is impossible.<br />

But with God everything is possible.” (Emphasis added)<br />

To all of us who daily look past our circumstances, and naysayers, to what the Lord says we will<br />

accomplish:<br />

Blessings!!<br />

- <strong>The</strong> Advocacy Foundation, Inc.<br />

Page 7 of 183


Page 8 of 183


<strong>The</strong> Transformative Justice Project<br />

Eradicating Juvenile Delinquency Requires a Multi-Disciplinary Approach<br />

<strong>The</strong> Juvenile Justice system is incredibly overloaded, and Solutions-Based programs<br />

are woefully underfunded. Our precious children, therefore, particularly young people of<br />

color, often get the “swift” version of justice whenever they come into contact with the<br />

law.<br />

<strong>The</strong> way we accomplish all this is as follows:<br />

Decisions to build prison facilities are often based<br />

on elementary school test results, and our country<br />

incarcerates more of its young than any other<br />

nation on earth. So we at <strong>The</strong> Foundation labor to<br />

pull our young people out of the “school to prison”<br />

pipeline, and we then coordinate the efforts of the<br />

legal, psychological, governmental and<br />

educational professionals needed to bring an end<br />

to delinquency.<br />

We also educate families, police, local businesses,<br />

elected officials, clergy, and schools and other<br />

stakeholders about transforming whole<br />

communities, and we labor to change their thinking<br />

about the causes of delinquency with the goal of<br />

helping them embrace the idea of restoration for<br />

the young people in our care who demonstrate<br />

repentance for their mistakes..<br />

1. We vigorously advocate for charges reductions, wherever possible, in the<br />

adjudicatory (court) process, with the ultimate goal of expungement or pardon, in<br />

order to maximize the chances for our clients to graduate high school and<br />

progress into college, military service or the workforce without the stigma of a<br />

criminal record;<br />

2. We then enroll each young person into an Evidence-Based, Data-Driven<br />

Restorative Justice program designed to facilitate their rehabilitation and<br />

subsequent reintegration back into the community;<br />

3. While those projects are operating, we conduct a wide variety of ComeUnity-<br />

ReEngineering seminars and workshops on topics ranging from Juvenile Justice<br />

Page 9 of 183


to Parental Rights, to Domestic issues to Police friendly interactions, to mental<br />

health intervention, to CBO and FBO accountability and compliance;<br />

4. Throughout the process, we encourage and maintain frequent personal contact<br />

between all parties;<br />

5 Throughout the process we conduct a continuum of events and fundraisers<br />

designed to facilitate collaboration among professionals and community<br />

stakeholders; and finally<br />

6. 1 We disseminate Quarterly publications, like our e-Advocate series Newsletter<br />

and our e-Advocate Quarterly electronic Magazine to all regular donors in order<br />

to facilitate a lifelong learning process on the ever-evolving developments in the<br />

Justice system.<br />

And in addition to the help we provide for our young clients and their families, we also<br />

facilitate Community Engagement through the Restorative Justice process,<br />

thereby balancing the interests of local businesses, schools, clergy, social assistance<br />

organizations, elected officials, law enforcement entities, and all interested<br />

stakeholders. Through these efforts, relationships are rebuilt & strengthened, local<br />

businesses and communities are enhanced & protected from victimization, young<br />

careers are developed, and our precious young people are kept out of the prison<br />

pipeline.<br />

Additionally, we develop Transformative “Void Resistance” (TVR) initiatives to alleviate<br />

concerns of our successes resulting in economic hardship for those employed by the<br />

penal system.<br />

TVR is an innovative-comprehensive process that works in conjunction with our<br />

Transformative Justice initiatives to transition the original use and purpose of current<br />

systems into positive social impact operations, which systematically retrains current<br />

staff, renovates facilities, creates new employment opportunities, increases salaries and<br />

is data proven to enhance employee’s mental wellbeing and overall quality of life – an<br />

exponential Transformative Social Impact benefit for ALL community stakeholders.<br />

This is a massive undertaking, and we need all the help and financial support you can<br />

give! We plan to help 75 young persons per quarter-year (aggregating to a total of 250<br />

1<br />

In addition to supporting our world-class programming and support services, all regular donors receive our Quarterly e-Newsletter<br />

(<strong>The</strong> e-Advocate), as well as <strong>The</strong> e-Advocate Quarterly Magazine.<br />

Page 10 of 183


per year) in each jurisdiction we serve) at an average cost of under $2,500 per client,<br />

per year. *<br />

Thank you in advance for your support!<br />

* FYI:<br />

1. <strong>The</strong> national average cost to taxpayers for minimum-security youth incarceration,<br />

is around $43,000.00 per child, per year.<br />

2. <strong>The</strong> average annual cost to taxpayers for maximum-security youth incarceration<br />

is well over $148,000.00 per child, per year.<br />

- (US News and World Report, December 9, 2014);<br />

3. In every jurisdiction in the nation, the Plea Bargain rate is above 99%.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Judicial system engages in a tri-partite balancing task in every single one of these<br />

matters, seeking to balance Rehabilitative Justice with Community Protection and<br />

Judicial Economy, and, although the practitioners work very hard to achieve positive<br />

outcomes, the scales are nowhere near balanced where people of color are involved.<br />

We must reverse this trend, which is right now working very much against the best<br />

interests of our young.<br />

Our young people do not belong behind bars.<br />

- Jack Johnson<br />

Page 11 of 183


Page 12 of 183


Advocacy Foundation Ministries, Inc.<br />

A <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) Compliant Faith-Based Organization<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a)<br />

Proactive Positioning & Preparation<br />

for Faith-Based Organizations<br />

“Turning the Improbable Into the Exceptional”<br />

Atlanta<br />

Philadelphia<br />

______<br />

Dea. John C. Johnson III, JD<br />

Founding Partner & CEO<br />

Rev. Mark L. Merrill<br />

Partner - Northeast Regional Director<br />

(878) 222-0450<br />

Voice | Data | SMS<br />

www.Advocacy.Foundation<br />

Page 13 of 183


Page 14 of 183


Biblical Authority<br />

______<br />

Isaiah 50:8<br />

He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with me? let us stand together: who is<br />

mine adversary? let him come near to me.<br />

5 = GRACE<br />

8 = New Beginning<br />

Ephesians 6:11-13 & Matthew 9:16-17<br />

Put on the full armor of God, so that you may be able to stand up against all the<br />

schemes and the strategies and the deceits of the devil. For our struggle is not against<br />

flesh and blood [contending only with physical opponents], but against the rulers,<br />

against the powers, against the world forces of this [present] darkness, against the<br />

spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly (supernatural) places. <strong>The</strong>refore, put on<br />

the complete armor of God, so that you will be able to [successfully] resist and stand<br />

your ground in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm [in your place,<br />

fully prepared, immovable, victorious]…no one puts a piece of unshrunk (new) cloth on<br />

an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear<br />

results. Nor is new wine put into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and<br />

the wine spills and the wineskins are ruined. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins,<br />

so both are preserved.”<br />

Acts 1:6-8<br />

So when they had come together, they asked Him repeatedly, “Lord, are You at this<br />

time reestablishing the kingdom and restoring it to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for<br />

you to know the times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority. But<br />

you will receive power and ability when the Holy Spirit comes upon you; and you will be<br />

My witnesses [to tell people about Me] both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria,<br />

and even to the ends of the earth.”<br />

Psalm 91:1<br />

He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High Will remain secure and rest in the shadow<br />

of the Almighty [whose power no enemy can withstand].<br />

Acts 6:10<br />

But they were not able to successfully withstand and cope with the wisdom and the<br />

intelligence [and the power and inspiration] of the Spirit by whom he was speaking.<br />

Page 15 of 183


Matthew 3:2 (ESV)<br />

2<br />

“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”<br />

Matthew 4:17<br />

17<br />

From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom<br />

of heaven is at hand.”<br />

Mark 1:15<br />

15<br />

and saying, “<strong>The</strong> time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at<br />

hand; [a] repent and believe in the gospel.”<br />

Page 16 of 183


Table of Contents<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a)<br />

Proactive Positioning & Preparation<br />

for Faith-Based Organizations<br />

Biblical Authority<br />

Day 1<br />

I. <strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) Faith-Based Organization…..…………………………… 19<br />

Does <strong>The</strong> Church Need to Be 501(c)(3) Approved?<br />

II. <strong>The</strong> Statutes, <strong>The</strong> 15/16 Determination Test and Landmark Cases…. 25<br />

III. Self Organizational-Evaluation(s)…………………………………………. 41<br />

IV. Amended State Filing(s) Exercise………………………………………… 45<br />

Day 2<br />

V. Political Lobbying for Nonprofits and Faith-Based Organizations…. 53<br />

VI. Critical Thinking for Transformative Social Impact……………………. 79<br />

VII. Ongoing Seminars and <strong>Workshop</strong>s………………………………………. 87<br />

________<br />

Attachments<br />

A. Why All Churches Should Be A <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a)<br />

B. IRS Tax Guide for Churches & Religious Organizations<br />

C. Lobbying Rules for Houses of Worship<br />

Copyright © 2003-2019 <strong>The</strong> Advocacy Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.<br />

Page 17 of 183


Page 18 of 183


I. Introduction<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) Faith-Based Organization<br />

Does <strong>The</strong> Church Need to Be 501(c)(3) Approved?<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) Faith Based Organization (FBO) is a religious, nonprofit, tax exempt<br />

organization. <strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) FBO is separate and distinct from a 501(c)(3) charity and<br />

unincorporated FBO’s. An unincorporated FBO by definition is a First Amendment<br />

Church/Organization.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) is recognized by the Federal Government, by all 50 states and<br />

recognized internationally under the Hague Convention of the United Nations Charter.<br />

Since its inception in 1954 with the Johnson Amendment, the 501(c)(3) has been<br />

promoted and advertised by many as the only option to organizing a FBO. This is<br />

incorrect. Federal law, IRS publications, and court cases all confirm and establish the<br />

rights and protection of the <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) FBO.<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) FBO enjoys a “mandatory exemption” from all the restrictions a<br />

501(c)(3) FBO has including free speech restrictions, IRS reporting requirements,<br />

rules and regulations that the IRS may from time to time prescribe and providing<br />

testimony under oath.<br />

With that being said, a <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) is a registered state entity just as a 501(c)(3) is a<br />

State and Federal sanctioned entity. Keep this in mind as we proceed further in this<br />

document. A <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) is a 501(c)(3) with special exemptions:<br />

A <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) Faith Based Organization is a not-for-profit in the same context as a<br />

501(c)(3). <strong>The</strong> general context of operation for this form of organization is as follows:<br />

1. <strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) is registered at the state level only. It is exempt from all Federal<br />

filing requirements of the 501(c)(3), including tax returns for the church itself. This<br />

is United States Code 26 <strong>508</strong> and United States Code 26 6033.<br />

2. <strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) FBO enjoys a “mandatory exception” from all the restrictions a<br />

501(c)(3) FBO has including free speech restrictions, IRS reporting<br />

requirements, rules and regulations that the IRS may from time to time<br />

prescribe and providing testimony under oath.<br />

3. <strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) is registered as a not-for-profit with the state, and hence<br />

provides for limited liability. While not perfect, and no law is, you do have some<br />

Page 19 of 183


private asset protection. Under Federal law a <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) is automatically tax<br />

exempt at the Federal level.<br />

4. Can give tax deductible receipts for donations.<br />

5. Freedom of Speech, as indicated in item 2 above, including, but not limited<br />

to, politics, referendums, initiatives, and candidates.<br />

6. Can ordain and license it’s own leaders.<br />

7. With proper filing with the state, it may receive a sales tax exemption<br />

certificate.<br />

Note: Not all states will allow a <strong>508</strong> to be sales tax exempt. Contact your<br />

Dept. of Revenue for details.<br />

8. Providing the state certificate of organization and state exemption of sales tax<br />

can be proof of exemption from property tax on a church related structure<br />

(This is true for only a single property).<br />

9. <strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) operating as a church, may or may not have paid employees or<br />

clergy. Best case is to not have payed employees. It is best case to have<br />

clergy who have a secular job to secure their private income. (exception is<br />

listed in Note 9a)<br />

Note 9a: <strong>The</strong>re is an exception to having clergy or persons in the capacity of paid<br />

employees. It is possible to have clergy or employees as “Private Contractors”.<br />

<strong>The</strong> benefit is they are not employees, and the only paperwork required of the<br />

church is to file a 1099 Misc Income Statement. This will still require filing for an<br />

Employer Identification Number (EIN). This is the recommended way to distribute<br />

compensation.<br />

In the case where there is a need for a paid employee, the rules of Employment<br />

Tax in IRS publication 1828 must be met (starting on page 21)<br />

(https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf). This is not the recommended<br />

procedure, see Note 9a.<br />

In the instance of a paid clergy, the Special Rules for Ministers must be met<br />

(starting on page 22) (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irspdf/p1828.pdf). This is not the<br />

recommended procedure, see Note 9a.<br />

In either case, this would REQUIRE the <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) church to file the SS4<br />

Federal form to obtain an Employer Identification Number (EIN). This is a free<br />

filing and can be done online.<br />

10. It is highly recommended that all who wish to form a <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) church and<br />

have paid staff or priest (rather than private contractors) that they should read<br />

IRS Publication 1828 in it’s entirety.<br />

Page 20 of 183


11. It is highly recommended that the clergy, if they perform any counseling or<br />

confession tasks, to take it upon themselves to obtain personal liability insurance.<br />

This is not overly expensive, and is simply good practice. None the less, it is a<br />

personal decision.<br />

How to form a <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a)<br />

<strong>The</strong>se are general guidelines of the process. It may vary from state to state. Most of the<br />

information required, including forms, may be obtained from the Secretary of State in<br />

your state of residence.<br />

1. Verify the names of a minimum of three (3) members who will be listed as the<br />

Board of Directors or whatever you may wish to name that board. Some states<br />

may require more.<br />

2. You may or may not write an Affidavit of Intent to create your church. It can be<br />

signed by the board and two or more church members. This can then be<br />

notarized as a legal document. <strong>The</strong>re is much controversy as to whether this is<br />

required (especially for a <strong>508</strong> church).<br />

3. Write your Charter of Operation and Bylaws. Make sure to indicate if the board is<br />

“clergy” led or “board led”. If clergy led, the clergy uses the board ONLY as<br />

advisers. This is not unusual for many smaller church groups. Assign one of the<br />

members as the Secretary/Treasurer. <strong>The</strong> clergy member, who is on the board,<br />

along with the Secretary/Treasurer must sign and cosign this document. Make<br />

sure to state that you are operating as a <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a).<br />

4. Obtain the Statement of Resignation of Registered Agent By a Foreign or<br />

Domestic For Profit / Non Profit Corporation from your State Attorney<br />

Generals office or the state website. This person should be someone who will be<br />

with the church for an extended period, and the priest or a board member may be<br />

the best option. <strong>The</strong>re may be a small fee to file this document.<br />

5. Obtain the Articles of Incorporation of a Nonprofit Corporation from your<br />

State Attorney Generals office or the state website. This form MUST be filled out<br />

exact with no errors. If you do create an error, you may be required to submit a<br />

special change form. This form should be signed by the incorporator, in this case<br />

the registered agent. This form may require a filing fee. Be sure that on the form,<br />

it asked for your primary purpose of operation, you will indicate you are operating<br />

as a <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a). See Note 1 at the end of this chapter.<br />

6. Make your own copies and send the signed originals of Statement of<br />

Resignation of Registered Agent By a Foreign or Domestic For Profit / Non<br />

Profit Corporation, Articles of Incorporation of a Nonprofit Corporation and<br />

your Charter and Bylaws to your State Attorney Generals Office.<br />

Page 21 of 183


7. If you desire to have Sales Tax Exemption locate the Sales Tax Exemption<br />

document. <strong>The</strong> Dept. of Revenue may or may not require you send in a 1 year<br />

financial projection of income. <strong>The</strong>re may or may not be a filing fee on this<br />

document. NOTE: Not all states will allow a <strong>508</strong> to be sales tax exempt.<br />

Contact your Dept. of Revenue for details.<br />

8. Make a determination if you need an Employer Identification Number (EIN) from<br />

the Federal Government. It is possible to file the SS4 online with the Federal<br />

Government, and is free. You will only need an EIN if:<br />

a. You pay any employees or clergy; and/or<br />

b. Your bank requires it to open a business account.<br />

You may or may not need to disclose that you are a <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a), they may not<br />

understand in many cases what that is. Simply hand them the EIN Number and you<br />

Charter/Bylaws. Banks generally do not, and are not required to, understand the IRS 26<br />

(501/<strong>508</strong>) “exceptions”. <strong>The</strong>re are some that indicate that having the EIN gives more<br />

credibility to the formation and validity of your church. While this may seem appropriate,<br />

the idea of a <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) is to attempt to be removed from the Federal Government as<br />

much as possible.<br />

9. DO NOT, unless specified by your Secretary of state, fill out a form for a fictitious<br />

name. This is usually reserved for a sole proprietor business.<br />

If in the event you choose to have paid clergy or payed employees, make sure to read<br />

the entire IRS publication 1828 (especially pages 21-22) (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irspdf/p1828.pdf).<br />

You may also wish to visit with a Tax Consultant (CPA) for details.<br />

Please locate the Secretary of State website, or contact their office to determine exactly<br />

what forms they require. <strong>The</strong>y are very helpful once you explain this is a not-for-profit<br />

church filing.<br />

Fees will vary.<br />

In ending, what are the pros and cons of a <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) church versus a First<br />

Amendment church:<br />

1. <strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) FBO is the best option for a church startup that will have a<br />

physical congregation.<br />

2. <strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) FBO is NOT a candidate for a sole proprietorship, such as a<br />

priest who performs only weddings. By definition the <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) should be used<br />

for a church with congregation.<br />

3. <strong>The</strong> First Amendment FBO is best for a sole proprietorship, using the example of<br />

a priest performing only weddings.<br />

Page 22 of 183


4. <strong>The</strong> First amendment church does work well with a small group, with no intent on<br />

any paid staff, and have no concerns about tithes not being tax deductible.<br />

5. <strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong> lends itself to a higher level of personal protection regarding liability.<br />

6. <strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong> may allow for sales tax exemption. NOTE: Not all states will allow a<br />

<strong>508</strong> to be sales tax exempt however. Contact your Dept. of Revenue for<br />

details.<br />

7. <strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong> will allow for property tax exemption (on the first property). If your church<br />

has a second property or possible support a subordinate “collection” of churches,<br />

filing a 501(c)(3) is also recommended.<br />

NOTE: Not all states will allow a <strong>508</strong> to be property tax exempt. Contact<br />

your Dept. of Revenue for details.<br />

8. <strong>The</strong> First Amendment Church allows for total and complete separation from any<br />

state or federal influence<br />

9. <strong>The</strong> First Amendment Church has no protection against personal liability.<br />

10. <strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong> makes a legally clean path in case of paid employees.<br />

11. <strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong> will allow for non church income in some cases, for example, church<br />

related clothing sales, church related bake sales, etc. This is also spelled out in<br />

IRS Publication 1828.<br />

12. <strong>The</strong> <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) establishes the church as a not-for-profit entity, and protects the<br />

church itself from government reporting and taxation. None the less, it does not<br />

protect against the requirement to report income paid to clergy or employees.<br />

Note1: All 50 states allow you to register as a <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) Faith Based<br />

Organization or Church. Here is how it works:<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is no such thing as a separate law to form a <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a). A <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a) is<br />

actually a 501(c)(3) REGISTERED WITH THE STATE ONLY. You go to their<br />

website, and I assume all allow online filings, and you will go to the link to create<br />

a nonprofit or not-for-profit.<br />

On the Articles of incorporation, you will fill it out exactly as you would a 501(c)(3)<br />

with the organization name. <strong>The</strong>y will ask on the form what your primary<br />

purpose is, simply enter “We are operating as a <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a)”. Poof, you<br />

organization is now a <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a). Specify this in your charter/bylaws also.<br />

That is it, you do not need to file for any status to the Federal Government. <strong>The</strong><br />

exception is if you have a paid priest or employees, and that was discussed in<br />

detail earlier in this document.<br />

Now you have the right to file for sales tax exemption and possibly property tax<br />

exemption if you decide to own a physical building.<br />

Page 23 of 183


Note: Not all states will allow a <strong>508</strong> to be sales tax exempt. Contact<br />

your Dept. of Revenue for details.<br />

Page 24 of 183


II. <strong>The</strong> Statutes,<br />

<strong>The</strong> 15/16 IRS Determination Test<br />

and Landmark Cases<br />

<strong>The</strong> Statutes<br />

26 U.S. Code § 501.Exemption from Tax on Corporations,<br />

Certain Trusts, etc.<br />

(a) Exemption from Taxation An organization described in subsection (c) or (d)<br />

or section 401(a) shall be exempt from taxation under this subtitle unless such<br />

exemption is denied under section 502 or 503.<br />

(b) Tax on Unrelated Business Income and Certain Other Activities<br />

An organization exempt from taxation under subsection (a) shall be subject<br />

to tax to the extent provided in parts II, III, and VI of this subchapter, but<br />

(notwithstanding parts II, III, and VI of this subchapter) shall be considered<br />

an organization exempt from income taxes for the purpose of any law which<br />

refers to organizations exempt from income taxes.<br />

(c) List of exempt organizations <strong>The</strong> following organizations are referred to in<br />

subsection (a):<br />

(1) Any corporation organized under Act of Congress which is an instrumentality of<br />

the United Statesbut only if such corporation—<br />

(A) is exempt from Federal income taxes—<br />

(i) under such Act as amended and supplemented before July 18, 1984, or<br />

(ii) under this title without regard to any provision of law which is not<br />

contained in this title andwhich is not contained in a revenue Act, or<br />

(B) is described in subsection (l).<br />

(2) Corporations organized for the exclusive purpose of holding title<br />

to property, collecting incometherefrom, and turning over the entire amount<br />

thereof, less expenses, to an organization which itself is exempt under this<br />

section. Rules similar to the rules of subparagraph (G) of paragraph (25) shall<br />

apply for purposes of this paragraph.<br />

Page 25 of 183


(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation,<br />

organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for<br />

public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or<br />

international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve<br />

the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to<br />

children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of<br />

any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which<br />

is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to<br />

influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which<br />

does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of<br />

statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to)<br />

any candidate for public office.<br />

(4)<br />

(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated<br />

exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations<br />

of employees, the membership of which is limited to theemployees of a<br />

designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net<br />

earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or<br />

recreational purposes.<br />

(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an entity unless no part of the net<br />

earnings of such entity inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or<br />

individual.<br />

________<br />

26 U.S. Code § <strong>508</strong>. Special Rules with Respect To Section<br />

501(C)(3) Organizations<br />

(a) New organizations must notify Secretary that they are applying for recognition of<br />

section 501(c)(3) status Except as provided in subsection (c), an organization organized<br />

after October 9, 1969, shall not be treated as an organization described in section<br />

501(c)(3)—<br />

(1) unless it has given notice to the Secretary in such manner as the Secretary<br />

may by regulations prescribe, that it is applying for recognition of such status, or<br />

(2) for any period before the giving of such notice, if such notice is given after the<br />

time prescribed by the Secretary by regulations for giving notice under this<br />

subsection.<br />

(b) Presumption that organizations are private foundations<br />

Page 26 of 183


Except as provided in subsection (c), any organization (including an organization in<br />

existence on October 9, 1969) which is described in section 501(c)(3) and which does<br />

not notify the Secretary, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may by<br />

regulations prescribe, that it is not a private foundation shall be presumed to be a<br />

private foundation.<br />

(c) Exceptions<br />

(1) Mandatory exceptions Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to—<br />

(A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations<br />

of churches, or<br />

(B) any organization which is not a private foundation (as defined in<br />

section 509(a)) and the gross receipts of which in each taxable year are<br />

normally not more than $5,000.<br />

(2) Exceptions by regulations <strong>The</strong> Secretary may by regulations exempt (to the<br />

extent and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in such regulations)<br />

from the provisions of subsection (a) or (b) or both—<br />

(A) educational organizations described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii), and<br />

(B) any other class of organizations with respect to which the Secretary<br />

determines that full compliance with the provisions of subsections (a) and<br />

(b) is not necessary to the efficient administration of the provisions of this<br />

title relating to private foundations.<br />

________<br />

<strong>The</strong> 15/16 IRS Determination Test<br />

Applying for 501(c)(3) status is optional for churches, but to not do so can prove to be<br />

costly.<br />

We see in court cases, such as Jack Lane Taylor v. Commissioner, T.C. memo 2000-<br />

17 (Jan. 2000) the burden that is placed on donors of churches without 501(c)(3) status.<br />

If a donor is audited, he/she must establish or prove that the church meets<br />

the requirements and qualifications of a section 501(c)(3) organization.<br />

What a burden for an individual to carry!<br />

For this reason, many donors may choose not to donate to organizations without a<br />

501(c)(3) approval.<br />

Page 27 of 183


In addition, the presumption of tax-exempt status does not exist unless the<br />

church has been officially recognized by the IRS to meet the requirements of<br />

section 501(c)(3).<br />

Churches that have never applied for 501(c)(3) status have not proven they are<br />

compliant with the law. If a church is ever caught functioning outside of the law, the<br />

revocation of its tax exemption will likely go back to the inception date of the church.<br />

In the case of Brach Ministries v. Rossotti, Branch Ministries, a church applied for and<br />

obtained 501(c)(3) exemption. <strong>The</strong> church was later found guilty of intervening in a<br />

political campaign, and its tax-exempt status was revoked.<br />

In this instance, the revocation went back to the beginning of the tax year where it was<br />

found to be out of compliance. Had the church not applied for 501(c)(3) exemption,<br />

it would have likely been deemed a non tax-exempt organization from the<br />

beginning of its existence.<br />

Do you meet the criteria for church status?<br />

Obtaining 501(c)(3) status is one of the most protective steps a church can take, not<br />

only for itself, but also for its donors. For this reason, our NpA Program takes churches<br />

through both processes of incorporation and 501(c)(3) approval.<br />

Some churches come to us years after their first service and already have hundreds of<br />

attendees. Other churches we work with are still in the planning phases or have just<br />

begun meeting in a home with a handful of congregants.<br />

No matter how big or small the church is, the IRS uses the same standards and<br />

criteria when determining whether or not an organization is a church for tax<br />

purposes.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is no official definition of “church” in the tax code. When the IRS examines a<br />

501(c)(3) application for church status, it uses a set of criteria known as the 14/15 Point<br />

Test.<br />

This “test” provides basic guidelines to help the IRS and courts determine which<br />

organizations can be classified as a church for tax purposes. Some of the points are<br />

weighted more heavily than others. <strong>The</strong>se points include:<br />

1. A distinct legal existence - Does your church have its own incorporation and<br />

Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN)?<br />

2. A definite and distinct ecclesiastical government - Does your church have its<br />

own pastor, minister, or ecclesiastical board?<br />

Page 28 of 183


3. A formal code of doctrine and discipline - Does your church have a set of<br />

doctrines and beliefs that your congregants are expected to follow?<br />

4. Established places of worship - Do your worship services take place in a<br />

stable location, preferably a public facility instead of one’s home?<br />

5. Regular congregations - Do your worship services contain more than 20<br />

people? Are multiple families represented?<br />

6. Regular religious services - Does your church have regularly scheduled<br />

worship services?<br />

Now, there is no set number of “points” that must be met. However, the more points you<br />

are able to meet of the 14/15 Point Test, the better chances you have of your<br />

organization being classified as a church for federal income tax purposes.<br />

3 benefits of incorporating your church now<br />

Perhaps you are only in the beginning stages of starting your church, or maybe you<br />

have not held any official meetings or gatherings, and the idea of taking any official legal<br />

steps has yet to cross your mind.<br />

You are thinking to yourself, “We will get incorporated once our church is more<br />

established.”<br />

To that, I want to give you some benefits of being proactive and establishing your<br />

church corporation sooner rather than later.<br />

Benefit #1: Forming a corporation at the state level establishes a corporate veil that<br />

separates the actions of the corporation from the actions of you and your church<br />

members. Without the corporate veil, members’ personal assets may be at risk in the<br />

instance of a lawsuit.<br />

Benefit #2: Once incorporated, your church can adopt important governing documents<br />

like bylaws, written doctrines, and policies. Likewise, your church’s governing body can<br />

legally ordain ministers and begin functioning in an ecclesiastical manner.<br />

Benefit #3: Once incorporated, you will be able to open a bank account in the church’s<br />

name. This important step will allow you to properly deposit donations and monitor<br />

income and expenses of your church. Keep in mind that most banks will ask for both the<br />

approved articles of incorporation and the FEIN. That number, also known as a Tax ID<br />

Number, can be obtained online from the IRS.<br />

________<br />

Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches. <strong>The</strong>se attributes of a<br />

church have been developed by the IRS and by court decisions. <strong>The</strong>y include:<br />

Page 29 of 183


• Distinct legal existence<br />

• Recognized creed and form of worship<br />

• Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government<br />

• Formal code of doctrine and discipline<br />

• Distinct religious history<br />

• Membership not associated with any other church or denomination<br />

• Organization of ordained ministers<br />

• Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study<br />

• Literature of its own<br />

• Established places of worship<br />

• Regular congregations<br />

• Regular religious services<br />

• Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young<br />

• Schools for the preparation of its members<br />

<strong>The</strong> IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics, together with other facts<br />

and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church for<br />

federal tax purposes.<br />

________<br />

Landmark Cases<br />

Jack Lane Taylor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2000-17 (Jan. 2000)<br />

UNITED STATES TAX COURT<br />

JACK LANE TAYLOR, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent<br />

Docket No. 14021-98. Filed January 18, 2000.<br />

Jack Lane Taylor, pro se.<br />

Russell D. Pinkerton, for respondent.<br />

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION<br />

ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal<br />

income tax for the taxable year 1996 in the amount of $1,298. <strong>The</strong> issue for decision is whether<br />

petitioner is entitled to a deduction for a charitable contribution under section 170.1 We hold<br />

that he is not.<br />

Page 30 of 183


FINDINGS OF FACT<br />

Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so found. Petitioner resided in<br />

Indianapolis, Indiana, at the time that his petition was filed with the Court. During the year in<br />

issue, petitioner donated $8,647 to the Indianapolis Baptist Temple (IBT). In the previous year,<br />

on May 8, 1995, the Service had determined that IBT no longer qualified as an organization<br />

described in section 170(c)(2) and by Announcement 95-35, 1995-19 I.R.B. 14, deleted IBT<br />

from the list of organizations contributions to which are deductible under section 170.<br />

On his joint 1996 Federal income tax return, petitioner claimed a deduction in the amount of<br />

$8,647 for a charitable contribution. By notice of deficiency, respondent determined that<br />

petitioner was not entitled to any deduction for a charitable contribution because petitioner had<br />

failed to substantiate any such contribution, and further, that IBT was not an organization<br />

described in section 170(c)(2). At trial, respondent conceded the substantiation issue.<br />

1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule<br />

references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.<br />

2. Throughout this opinion we use the words “donation” and “donate” for convenience only<br />

and not to imply any legal conclusion.<br />

OPINION<br />

Section 170(a) allows as a deduction any charitable contribution, as defined in section 170(c),<br />

that is made during the taxable year. As pertinent here, section 170(c) defines a charitable<br />

contribution as a contribution or gift to or for the use of a corporation, trust, or community chest,<br />

fund, or foundation which is organized and operated exclusively for religious purposes, provided<br />

that none of the net earnings inures to the benefit of any private individual. See sec. 170(c)(2);<br />

see also sec. 501(c)(3). Qualified entities under section 170 are essentially those organizations<br />

that qualify for an exemption from tax under section 501(c)(3). See, e.g., Dew v. Commissioner,<br />

91 T.C. 615, 623 (1988); Kessler v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1285, 1288 (1986), affd. without<br />

published opinion 838 F.2d 1215 (6th Cir. 1988).<br />

Deductions are a matter of legislative grace and taxpayers must satisfy the specific<br />

requirements of the deductions they claim. See New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S.<br />

435 (1934). Taxpayers bear the burden of proving their entitlement to the deductions they<br />

claim. See Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Welch v.<br />

Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933); Davis v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 806, 815 (1983), affd. without<br />

published opinion 767 F.2d 931 (9th Cir. 1985).<br />

<strong>The</strong>se rules apply with equal force to deductions claimed for charitable contributions. See Davis<br />

v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioner concedes that during the year in issue IBT was not an<br />

organization defined in section 501(c)(3) and, by implication, we understand him not to assert<br />

that IBT is an organization defined in section 170(c)(2). Rather, petitioner contends that his<br />

donations to IBT are deductible because IBT is not a “corporation”, but a “church”. As a<br />

church, petitioner contends, IBT is exempt from having to meet the requirements of section<br />

170(c)(2). He relies on section <strong>508</strong>(c)(1) for support for his position.<br />

Section <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(A) provides that churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or<br />

associations of churches are excepted from the general rule of section <strong>508</strong>(a). Section <strong>508</strong>(a)<br />

Page 31 of 183


provides that organizations described in section 501(c)(3) and organized after October 9, 1969,<br />

are required to apply formally for recognition of their tax-exempt status. Thus, section <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)<br />

simply relieves churches from applying for a favorable determination letter regarding their<br />

exempt status as required by section <strong>508</strong>(a). Nothing in section <strong>508</strong>(c)(1) relieves a church from<br />

having to meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3). 2 In fact, it is clear that when the<br />

Commissioner determines that an organization is not entitled to an exemption as a church, as is<br />

the case for IBT, its contributors must prove the church’s right to an exemption under section<br />

501(c)(3) in order to be entitled to a deduction for their contributions. See Riemers v.<br />

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-456; Hall v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-576, affd. 676<br />

F.2d 692 (4th Cir. 1982); Brown v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-553; sec. 1.<strong>508</strong>-1(a)(3),<br />

(4), Income Tax Regs.<br />

Petitioner’s position is based on the assertion that IBT was not required to meet the<br />

requirements of sections 170(c)(2) and 501(c)(3), and he did not introduce any evidence at trial<br />

to establish that IBT was an organization defined in those sections.<br />

Having failed to carry his burden of proving that IBT qualifies as a religious organization under<br />

section 170(c)(2), petitioner is not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction for his<br />

donations to IBT. Cf. Hall v. Commissioner, supra. Cf. sec. 7428(c), which validates up to<br />

$1,000 per contributor where the donee has instituted proceedings under sec. 7428 to contest<br />

the revocation of the donee’s status. <strong>The</strong>re is nothing in the record to suggest that this provision<br />

has any application in the present case.<br />

To reflect our disposition of the disputed issue, Decision will be entered for respondent.<br />

________<br />

Branch Ministries v. Rossatti, 211 F. 3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2000)<br />

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.<br />

BRANCH MINISTRIES and Dan Little, Pastor, Appellants, v. Charles O. ROSSOTTI,<br />

Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service, Appellee.<br />

No. 99-5097.<br />

Decided: May 12, 2000<br />

Before SILBERMAN and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLEY, Senior Circuit<br />

Judge. Mark N. Troobnick, with whom Jay Alan Sekulow and Colby M. May were on the<br />

briefs, argued the cause for appellants. Thomas J. Sawyer, Attorney, U.S. Department<br />

of Justice, with whom Loretta C. Argrett, Assistant Attorney General, and Kenneth L.<br />

Greene, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, and Wilma A. Lewis, United States<br />

Attorney, were on the brief, argued the cause for appellee. Richard P. Hutchison, Mark<br />

R. Levin and Janet LaRue were on the brief for amici curiae Landmark Legal<br />

Foundation and Family Research Council Ayesha N. Khan,Elliot M. Mincberg and Alma<br />

C. Henderson were on the brief for amici curiae Americans United for Separation of<br />

Church and State and People for the American Way Foundation.<br />

2<br />

Cf. sec. 7491, effective for court proceedings arising in connection with examinations commencing after July 22, 1998.<br />

Page 32 of 183


Four days before the 1992 presidential election, Branch Ministries, a tax-exempt church,<br />

placed full-page advertisements in two newspapers in which it urged Christians not to<br />

vote for then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton because of his positions on certain<br />

moral issues. <strong>The</strong> Internal Revenue Service concluded that the placement of the<br />

advertisements violated the statutory restrictions on organizations exempt from taxation<br />

and, for the first time in its history, it revoked a bona fide church's tax-exempt status<br />

because of its involvement in politics. Branch Ministries and its pastor, Dan Little,<br />

challenge the revocation on the grounds that (1) the Service acted beyond its statutory<br />

authority, (2) the revocation violated its right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed<br />

by the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and (3) it was the<br />

victim of selective prosecution in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Because these<br />

objections are without merit, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to<br />

the Service.<br />

I. Background<br />

A. Taxation of Churches<br />

<strong>The</strong> Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) exempts certain organizations from taxation,<br />

including those organized and operated for religious purposes, provided that they do not<br />

engage in certain activities, including involvement in “any political campaign on behalf of<br />

(or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” 26 U.S.C. § 501(a), (c)(3) (1994).<br />

Contributions to such organizations are also deductible from the donating taxpayer's<br />

taxable income. Id. § 170(a). Although most organizations seeking tax-exempt<br />

status are required to apply to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS” or “Service”) for an<br />

advance determination that they meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3), id. §<br />

<strong>508</strong>(a), a church may simply hold itself out as tax exempt and receive the benefits of<br />

that status without applying for advance recognition from the IRS. Id. § <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(A).<br />

<strong>The</strong> IRS maintains a periodically updated “Publication No. 78,” in which it lists all<br />

organizations that have received a ruling or determination letter confirming the<br />

deductibility of contributions made to them. See Rev. Proc. 82-39, 1982-1 C.B. 759,<br />

§§ 2.01, 2.03. Thus, a listing in that publication will provide donors with advance<br />

assurance that their contributions will be deductible under section 170(a). If a listed<br />

organization has subsequently had its tax-exempt status revoked, contributions that are<br />

made to it by a donor who is unaware of the change in status will generally be treated<br />

as deductible if made on or before the date that the revocation is publicly announced.<br />

Id. § 3.01. Donors to a church that has not received an advance determination of its<br />

tax-exempt status may also deduct their contributions; but in the event of an audit, the<br />

taxpayer will bear the burden of establishing that the church meets the requirements of<br />

section 501(c)(3). See generally id. § 3.04; Rev. Proc. 80-24, 1980-1 C.B. 658, § 6<br />

(discussing taxpayers' obligations in seeking a ruling or determination letter).<br />

<strong>The</strong> unique treatment churches receive in the Internal Revenue Code is further reflected<br />

in special restrictions on the IRS's ability to investigate the tax status of a church. <strong>The</strong><br />

Church Audit Procedures Act (“CAPA”) sets out the circumstances under which the IRS<br />

Page 33 of 183


may initiate an investigation of a church and the procedures it is required to follow in<br />

such an investigation. 26 U.S.C. § 7611. Upon a “ reasonable belief” by a high-level<br />

Treasury official that a church may not be exempt from taxation under section 501, the<br />

IRS may begin a “church tax inquiry.” Id. § 7611(a). A church tax inquiry is defined,<br />

rather circularly, as<br />

any inquiry to a church (other than an examination) to serve as a basis for determining<br />

whether a church-<br />

(A) is exempt from tax under section 501(a) by reason of its status as a church, or<br />

(B) is ․ engaged in activities which may be subject to taxation․<br />

Id. § 7611(h)(2). If the IRS is not able to resolve its concerns through a church tax<br />

inquiry, it may proceed to the second level of investigation: a “church tax examination.”<br />

In such an examination, the IRS may obtain and review the church's records or examine<br />

its activities “to determine whether [the] organization claiming to be a church is a church<br />

for any period.” Id. § 7611(b)(1)(A), (B).<br />

B. Factual and Procedural History<br />

Branch Ministries, Inc. operates the Church at Pierce Creek (“Church”), a Christian<br />

church located in Binghamton, New York. In 1983, the Church requested and received<br />

a letter from the IRS recognizing its tax-exempt status. On October 30, 1992, four<br />

days before the presidential election, the Church placed full-page advertisements in<br />

USA Today and the Washington Times. Each bore the headline “Christians Beware”<br />

and asserted that then-Governor Clinton's positions concerning abortion,<br />

homosexuality, and the distribution of condoms to teenagers in schools violated Biblical<br />

precepts. <strong>The</strong> following appeared at the bottom of each advertisement:<br />

This advertisement was co-sponsored by the Church at Pierce Creek, Daniel J. Little,<br />

Senior Pastor, and by churches and concerned Christians nationwide. Tax-deductible<br />

donations for this advertisement gladly accepted. Make donations to: <strong>The</strong> Church at<br />

Pierce Creek. [mailing address].<br />

Appendix (“App.”) at Tab 5, Ex. E.<br />

<strong>The</strong> advertisements did not go unnoticed. <strong>The</strong>y produced hundreds of contributions to<br />

the Church from across the country and were mentioned in a New York Times article<br />

and an Anthony Lewis column which stated that the sponsors of the advertisement had<br />

almost certainly violated the Internal Revenue Code. Peter Applebome, Religious<br />

Right Intensifies Campaign for Bush, N.Y. Times, Oct. 31, 1992, at A1; Anthony Lewis,<br />

Tax Exempt Politics?, N.Y. Times, Dec. 1, 1992, at A15.<br />

<strong>The</strong> advertisements also came to the attention of the Regional Commissioner of the<br />

IRS, who notified the Church on November 20, 1992 that he had authorized a church<br />

Page 34 of 183


tax inquiry based on “a reasonable belief ․ that you may not be tax-exempt or that you<br />

may be liable for tax” due to political activities and expenditures. Letter from Cornelius<br />

J. Coleman, IRS Regional Commissioner, to <strong>The</strong> Church at Pierce Creek (Nov. 20,<br />

1992), reprinted in App. at Tab 5, Ex. F. <strong>The</strong> Church denied that it had engaged in any<br />

prohibited political activity and declined to provide the IRS with certain information the<br />

Service had requested. On February 11, 1993, the IRS informed the Church that it<br />

was beginning a church tax examination. Following two unproductive meetings<br />

between the parties, the IRS revoked the Church's section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status<br />

on January 19, 1995, citing the newspaper advertisements as prohibited intervention in<br />

a political campaign.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Church and Pastor Little (collectively, “Church”) commenced this lawsuit soon<br />

thereafter. This had the effect of suspending the revocation of the Church's tax<br />

exemption until the district court entered its judgment in this case. See 26 U.S.C. §<br />

7428(c). <strong>The</strong> Church challenged the revocation of its tax-exempt status, alleging that<br />

the IRS had no authority to revoke its tax exemption, that the revocation violated its right<br />

to free speech and to freely exercise its religion under the First Amendment and the<br />

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb (“RFRA”), and that the<br />

IRS engaged in selective prosecution in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the<br />

Fifth Amendment. After allowing discovery on the Church's selective prosecution<br />

claim, Branch Ministries, Inc. v. Richardson, 970 F.Supp. 11 (D.D.C.1997), the district<br />

court granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS. Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 40<br />

F.Supp.2d 15 (D.D.C.1999).<br />

<strong>The</strong> Church filed a timely appeal, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §<br />

1291. We review summary judgment decisions de novo, see Everett v. United States,<br />

158 F.3d 1364, 1367 (D.C.Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1132, 119 S.Ct. 1807, 143<br />

L.Ed.2d 1010 (1999), and will affirm only if there is no genuine issue as to any material<br />

fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P.<br />

56(c).<br />

II. Analysis<br />

<strong>The</strong> Church advances a number of arguments in support of its challenges to the<br />

revocation. We examine only those that warrant analysis.<br />

A. <strong>The</strong> Statutory Authority of the IRS<br />

<strong>The</strong> Church argues that, under the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS does not have the<br />

statutory authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of a bona fide church. It reasons as<br />

follows: section 501(c)(3) refers to tax-exempt status for religious organizations, not<br />

churches; section <strong>508</strong>, on the other hand, specifically exempts “churches” from the<br />

requirement of applying for advance recognition of tax-exempt status, id. §<br />

<strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(A); therefore, according to the Church, its tax-exempt status is derived not<br />

from section 501(c)(3), but from the lack of any provision in the Code for the taxation of<br />

churches. <strong>The</strong> Church concludes from this that it is not subject to taxation and that the<br />

Page 35 of 183


IRS is therefore powerless to place conditions upon or to remove its tax-exempt status<br />

as a church.<br />

We find this argument more creative than persuasive. <strong>The</strong> simple answer, of course,<br />

is that whereas not every religious organization is a church, every church is a religious<br />

organization. More to the point, irrespective of whether it was required to do so, the<br />

Church applied to the IRS for an advance determination of its tax-exempt status. <strong>The</strong><br />

IRS granted that recognition and now seeks to withdraw it. CAPA gives the IRS this<br />

power.<br />

That statute, which pertains exclusively to churches, provides authority for revocation of<br />

the tax-exempt status of a church through its references to other sections of the Internal<br />

Revenue Code. <strong>The</strong> section of CAPA entitled “Limitations on revocation of tax-exempt<br />

status, etc.” provides that the Secretary of the Treasury may “determine that an<br />

organization is not a church which [ ] (i) is exempt from taxation by reason of section<br />

501(a), or (ii) is described in section 170(c).” 26 U.S.C. § 7611(d)(1)(A)(i), (ii). Both<br />

of these sections condition tax-exempt status on non-intervention in political campaigns.<br />

Section 501(a) states that “[a]n organization described in subsection (c) ․ shall be<br />

exempt from taxation․” Id. § 501(a). Those described in subsection (c) include<br />

corporations ․ organized and operated exclusively for religious ․ purposes ․ which do[ ]<br />

not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements),<br />

any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.<br />

Id. § 501(c)(3). Similarly, section 170(c) allows taxpayers to deduct from their taxable<br />

income donations made to a corporation<br />

organized and operated exclusively for religious ․ purposes ․ which is not disqualified for<br />

tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) by reason of attempting to ․ intervene in<br />

(including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf<br />

of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.<br />

Id. § 170(c)(2)(B), (D).<br />

<strong>The</strong> Code, in short, specifically states that organizations that fail to comply with the<br />

restrictions set forth in section 501(c) are not qualified to receive the tax exemption that<br />

it provides. Having satisfied ourselves that the IRS had the statutory authority to<br />

revoke the Church's tax-exempt status, we now turn to the free exercise challenges.<br />

B. First Amendment Claims and the RFRA<br />

<strong>The</strong> Church claims that the revocation of its exemption violated its right to freely<br />

exercise its religion under both the First Amendment and the RFRA. To sustain its<br />

claim under either the Constitution or the statute, the Church must first establish that its<br />

free exercise right has been substantially burdened. See Jimmy Swaggart Ministries<br />

v. Board of Equalization, 493 U.S. 378, 384-85, 110 S.Ct. 688, 107 L.Ed.2d 796 (1990)<br />

Page 36 of 183


(“Our cases have established that the free exercise inquiry asks whether government<br />

has placed a substantial burden on the observation of a central religious belief or<br />

practice and, if so, whether a compelling governmental interest justifies the burden.”)<br />

(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a), (b) (<br />

“Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion” in the<br />

absence of a compelling government interest that is furthered by the least restrictive<br />

means.). We conclude that the Church has failed to meet this test.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Church asserts, first, that a revocation would threaten its existence. See Affidavit<br />

of Dan Little dated July 31, 1995 at 22, reprinted in App. at Tab 8 (“<strong>The</strong> Church at<br />

Pierce Creek will have to close due to the revocation of its tax exempt status, and the<br />

inability of congregants to deduct their contributions from their taxes.”). <strong>The</strong> Church<br />

maintains that a loss of its tax-exempt status will not only make its members reluctant to<br />

contribute the funds essential to its survival, but may obligate the Church itself to pay<br />

taxes.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Church appears to assume that the withdrawal of a conditional privilege for<br />

failure to meet the condition is in itself an unconstitutional burden on its free exercise<br />

right. This is true, however, only if the receipt of the privilege (in this case the tax<br />

exemption) is conditioned<br />

upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or ․ denie[d] ․ because of conduct<br />

mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to<br />

modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.<br />

Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 493 U.S. at 391-92, 110 S.Ct. 688 (internal quotation marks<br />

and citation omitted). Although its advertisements reflected its religious convictions on<br />

certain questions of morality, the Church does not maintain that a withdrawal from<br />

electoral politics would violate its beliefs. <strong>The</strong> sole effect of the loss of the tax<br />

exemption will be to decrease the amount of money available to the Church for its<br />

religious practices. <strong>The</strong> Supreme Court has declared, however, that such a burden “is<br />

not constitutionally significant.” Id. at 391, 110 S.Ct. 688; see also Hernandez v.<br />

Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 700, 109 S.Ct. 2136, 104 L.Ed.2d 766 (1989) (the<br />

“contention that an incrementally larger tax burden interferes with [ ] religious activities ․<br />

knows no limitation”).<br />

In actual fact, even this burden is overstated. Because of the unique treatment<br />

churches receive under the Internal Revenue Code, the impact of the revocation is likely<br />

to be more symbolic than substantial. As the IRS confirmed at oral argument, if the<br />

Church does not intervene in future political campaigns, it may hold itself out as a<br />

501(c)(3) organization and receive all the benefits of that status. All that will have<br />

been lost, in that event, is the advance assurance of deductibility in the event a donor<br />

should be audited. See 26 U.S.C. § <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(A); Rev. Proc. 82-39 § 2.03.<br />

Contributions will remain tax deductible as long as donors are able to establish that the<br />

Church meets the requirements of section 501(c) (3).<br />

Page 37 of 183


Nor does the revocation necessarily make the Church liable for the payment of taxes.<br />

As the IRS explicitly represented in its brief and reiterated at oral argument, the<br />

revocation of the exemption does not convert bona fide donations into income taxable to<br />

the Church. See 26 U.S.C. § 102 (“Gross income does not include the value of<br />

property acquired by gift․”). Furthermore, we know of no authority, and counsel<br />

provided none, to prevent the Church from reapplying for a prospective determination of<br />

its tax-exempt status and regaining the advance assurance of deductibility-provided, of<br />

course, that it renounces future involvement in political campaigns.<br />

We also reject the Church's argument that it is substantially burdened because it has no<br />

alternate means by which to communicate its sentiments about candidates for public<br />

office. In Regan v. Taxation With Representation, 461 U.S. 540, 552-53, 103 S.Ct.<br />

1997, 76 L.Ed.2d 129 (1983) (Blackmun, J., concurring), three members of the<br />

Supreme Court stated that the availability of such an alternate means of communication<br />

is essential to the constitutionality of section 501(c)(3)'s restrictions on lobbying. <strong>The</strong><br />

Court subsequently confirmed that this was an accurate description of its holding. See<br />

FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364, 400, 104 S.Ct. 3106, 82 L.Ed.2d 278<br />

(1984). In Regan, the concurring justices noted that “TWR may use its present §<br />

501(c)(3) organization for its nonlobbying activities and may create a § 501(c)(4)<br />

affiliate to pursue its charitable goals through lobbying.” 461 U.S. at 552, 103 S.Ct.<br />

1997.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Church has such an avenue available to it. As was the case with TWR, the<br />

Church may form a related organization under section 501(c)(4) of the Code. See 26<br />

U.S.C. § 501(c)(4) (tax exemption for “[c]ivic leagues or organizations not organized for<br />

profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare”). Such<br />

organizations are exempt from taxation; but unlike their section 501(c)(3) counterparts,<br />

contributions to them are not deductible. See id. § 170(c); see also Regan, 461 U.S.<br />

at 543, 552-53, 103 S.Ct. 1997. Although a section 501(c)(4) organization is also<br />

subject to the ban on intervening in political campaigns, see 26 C.F.R. § 1.501(c)(4)-<br />

1(a)(2)(ii) (1999), it may form a political action committee (“PAC”) that would be free to<br />

participate in political campaigns. Id. § 1.527-6(f), (g) (“[A]n organization described in<br />

section 501(c) that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) may, [if it is not a<br />

section 501(c)(3) organization], establish and maintain such a separate segregated fund<br />

to receive contributions and make expenditures in a political campaign.”).<br />

At oral argument, counsel for the Church doggedly maintained that there can be no<br />

“Church at Pierce Creek PAC.” True, it may not itself create a PAC; but as we have<br />

pointed out, the Church can initiate a series of steps that will provide an alternate<br />

means of political communication that will satisfy the standards set by the concurring<br />

justices in Regan. Should the Church proceed to do so, however, it must understand<br />

that the related 501(c)(4) organization must be separately incorporated; and it must<br />

maintain records that will demonstrate that tax-deductible contributions to the Church<br />

have not been used to support the political activities conducted by the 501(c)(4)<br />

organization's political action arm. See 26 U.S.C. § 527(f)(3); 26 C.F.R. § 1.527-<br />

6(e), (f).<br />

Page 38 of 183


That the Church cannot use its tax-free dollars to fund such a PAC unquestionably<br />

passes constitutional muster. <strong>The</strong> Supreme Court has consistently held that, absent<br />

invidious discrimination, “Congress has not violated [an organization's] First Amendment<br />

rights by declining to subsidize its First Amendment activities.” Regan, 461 U.S. at<br />

548, 103 S.Ct. 1997; see also Cammarano v. United States, 358 U.S. 498, 513, 79<br />

S.Ct. 524, 3 L.Ed.2d 462 (1959) (“Petitioners are not being denied a tax deduction<br />

because they engage in constitutionally protected activities, but are simply being<br />

required to pay for those activities entirely out of their own pockets, as everyone else<br />

engaging in similar activities is required to do under the provisions of the Internal<br />

Revenue Code.”).<br />

Because the Church has failed to demonstrate that its free exercise rights have been<br />

substantially burdened, we do not reach its arguments that section 501(c)(3) does not<br />

serve a compelling government interest or, if it is indeed compelling, that revocation of<br />

its tax exemption was not the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.<br />

Nor does the Church succeed in its claim that the IRS has violated its First<br />

Amendment free speech rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination. <strong>The</strong><br />

restrictions imposed by section 501(c)(3) are viewpoint neutral; they prohibit<br />

intervention in favor of all candidates for public office by all tax-exempt organizations,<br />

regardless of candidate, party, or viewpoint. Cf. Regan, 461 U.S. at 550-51, 103 S.Ct.<br />

1997 (upholding denial of tax deduction for lobbying activities, in spite of allowance of<br />

such deduction for veteran's groups).<br />

C. Selective Prosecution (Fifth Amendment)<br />

<strong>The</strong> Church alleges that the IRS violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth<br />

Amendment by engaging in selective prosecution. In support of its claim, the Church<br />

has submitted several hundred pages of newspaper excerpts reporting political<br />

campaign activities in, or by the pastors of, other churches that have retained their taxexempt<br />

status. <strong>The</strong>se include reports of explicit endorsements of Democratic<br />

candidates by clergymen as well as many instances in which favored candidates have<br />

been invited to address congregations from the pulpit. <strong>The</strong> Church complains that<br />

despite this widespread and widely reported involvement by other churches in political<br />

campaigns, it is the only one to have ever had its tax-exempt status revoked for<br />

engaging in political activity. It attributes this alleged discrimination to the Service's<br />

political bias.<br />

To establish selective prosecution, the Church must “prove that (1) [it] was singled out<br />

for prosecution from among others similarly situated and (2) that [the] prosecution was<br />

improperly motivated, i.e., based on race, religion or another arbitrary classification.”<br />

United States v. Washington, 705 F.2d 489, 494 (D.C.Cir.1983). This burden is a<br />

demanding one because “in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts<br />

presume that [government prosecutors] have properly discharged their official duties.”<br />

Page 39 of 183


United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996)<br />

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).<br />

At oral argument, counsel for the IRS conceded that if some of the church-sponsored<br />

political activities cited by the Church were accurately reported, they were in violation of<br />

section 501(c)(3) and could have resulted in the revocation of those churches' taxexempt<br />

status. But even if the Service could have revoked their tax exemptions, the<br />

Church has failed to establish selective prosecution because it has failed to<br />

demonstrate that it was similarly situated to any of those other churches. None of the<br />

reported activities involved the placement of advertisements in newspapers with<br />

nationwide circulations opposing a candidate and soliciting tax deductible contributions<br />

to defray their cost. As we have stated,<br />

[i]f ․ there was no one to whom defendant could be compared in order to resolve the<br />

question of [prosecutorial] selection, then it follows that defendant has failed to make<br />

out one of the elements of its case. Discrimination cannot exist in a vacuum; it can be<br />

found only in the unequal treatment of people in similar circumstances.<br />

Attorney Gen. v. Irish People, Inc., 684 F.2d 928, 946 (D.C.Cir.1982); see also United<br />

States v. Hastings, 126 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.1997) ( “[D]efendants are similarly<br />

situated when their circumstances present no distinguishable legitimate prosecutorial<br />

factors that might justify making different prosecutorial decisions with respect to them.”)<br />

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).<br />

Because the Church has failed to establish that it was singled out for prosecution from<br />

among others who were similarly situated, we need not examine whether the IRS was<br />

improperly motivated in undertaking this prosecution.<br />

III. Conclusion<br />

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the revocation of the Church's tax-exempt status<br />

neither violated the Constitution nor exceeded the IRS's statutory authority. <strong>The</strong><br />

judgment of the district court is therefore<br />

Affirmed.<br />

Opinion for the court filed by Senior Judge bUCKLEY.<br />

…<br />

Page 40 of 183


III. Self Organizational Evaluation(s)<br />

Strategic Triangle Model<br />

Organizational Analysis Models<br />

This model relies on three key calculations to determine the efficiency and effectiveness<br />

of an organization. First, is the value, or mission, that guides the organization. Second,<br />

is operational capacity, the knowledge and capability to carry out the mission. Third, is<br />

legitimacy and support, or the environment, that authorize the value of the organization,<br />

and offer support, (specifically financial support). Using this model, a strategy for an<br />

organization is considered good if these three components are in alignment.<br />

SWOT Model<br />

A SWOT analysis (alternatively SWOT matrix) is a structured planning method used to<br />

evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats involved in a project or in<br />

a business venture. A SWOT analysis can be carried out for a product, place, industry<br />

or person. It involves specifying the objective of the business venture or project and<br />

identifying the internal and external factors that are favorable and unfavorable to<br />

achieve that objective. <strong>The</strong> degree to which the internal environment of the entity<br />

matches with the external environment is expressed by the concept of strategic fit.<br />

Strengths: characteristics of the business or project that give it an advantage over<br />

others.<br />

Weaknesses: characteristics that place the business or project at a disadvantage<br />

relative to others<br />

Opportunities: elements that the project could exploit to its advantage<br />

Threats: elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the business or<br />

project<br />

First, the decision makers should consider whether the objective is attainable, given the<br />

SWOTs. If the objective is not attainable a different objective must be selected and the<br />

process repeated. Users of SWOT analysis need to ask and answer questions that<br />

generate meaningful information for each category (strengths, weaknesses,<br />

opportunities, and threats) to make the analysis useful and find their competitive<br />

advantage.<br />

<strong>The</strong> McKinsey 7S Model<br />

<strong>The</strong> McKinsey 7S Framework emphasizes balancing seven key aspects of an<br />

organization, operating unit, or project. Three of the seven elements—strategy,<br />

structure, and systems—are considered "hard" elements, easily identified, described,<br />

Page 41 of 183


and analyzed. <strong>The</strong> remaining four elements—shared value, staff, skill, and style—are<br />

fluid, difficult to describe, and dependent upon the actors within the organization at any<br />

given time. <strong>The</strong> 7S organizational analysis framework is based on the premise that all<br />

seven elements are interdependent, and must be mutually reinforcing in order to be<br />

successful. Changes in a single element can result in misalignment and dysfunction<br />

throughout the organization, disrupting organizational harmony.<br />

Rational Model<br />

<strong>The</strong> rational model stems from the Frederick W. Taylor's (1911) Structural Perspective.<br />

Taylor was the father of time-and-motion studies and founded an approach he called<br />

"scientific management." It was Taylor's stance that organisations should be as<br />

mechanistic and efficient as possible.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se Scientific Management principles served a valuable purpose for the Ford Motor<br />

Company, where the first American, mass-produced automobiles were being<br />

created. <strong>The</strong> rational model views organizations as a mechanism that is made up of<br />

various parts that can be modified in order to create an output in the shortest amount of<br />

time and without deviation.<br />

Natural System Model<br />

<strong>The</strong> natural system model is in many ways the opposite of the rational model in that it<br />

focuses on the activities that may negatively impact the organization and therefore aims<br />

at maintaining an equilibrium in order to meet its goals. <strong>The</strong> Natural System model<br />

views organizations as an organic organism which is holistically interconnected. <strong>The</strong><br />

parts of the organization are not seen as independent units but rather as a whole that<br />

can orchestrate together to prepare for inevitable change.<br />

Sociotechnical Model<br />

<strong>The</strong> sociotechnical model, also known as Sociotechnical Systems (STS), is an<br />

approach to complex organizational work design that recognizes the interaction<br />

between people and technology in workplaces. <strong>The</strong> term also refers to the interaction<br />

between society's complex infrastructures and human behavior. This model identifies<br />

the environment as a key factor that interacts with the organization.<br />

Cognitive Model<br />

Behavior, cognitive, and other personal factors as well as environmental events,<br />

operate as interacting determinants that influence each other bi-directionally. Personal<br />

goals of the managers and staff are seen as assisting in the effort toward organizational<br />

objective attainment. Decision making processes are focused on and specialization is<br />

deemed as important to the flow of information.<br />

Page 42 of 183


Meta Models<br />

Attempts have also been made to put elements of the above models into a kind of metamodel.<br />

Based on a theorized blindness of a single perspective, Lee Bolman and<br />

Terrence Deal have designed a model that splits analysis into four distinct paradigms.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se 'frames' are to be used as a pluralistic model, and therefore allow analysts to<br />

change thinking by re-framing understanding and points of reference.<br />

Structural Frame Here organizations are to be understood by role definitions and clear<br />

hierarchy. Problems come from overlapping responsibilities and unclear instructions.<br />

<strong>The</strong> assumptions are similar to the rational model shown above and Taylorism.<br />

Human Resource Frame According to this frame organizations exist to serve society,<br />

they are places for growth and development. Problems come from when people are not<br />

motivated or trained sufficiently. This is Similar to the Sociotechnical model, or the work<br />

of Daniel Pink.<br />

Political Frame this frame posits that organizations are cutthroat jungles, where only<br />

the strongest survive. Problems come from poor power coalitions or overly centralized<br />

power.<br />

Symbolic Frame This frame supposes that organizations are deeply symbolic and<br />

successful business is about the representation genuine meaning. Problems occur<br />

when actors fail to play their parts.<br />

Bolman and Deal lay out these frames in their book Reframing Organizations: Artistry,<br />

Choice and Leadership the authors also provide many examples of how best to apply<br />

their four frames analysis.<br />

Organizational Network Analysis<br />

Organizational network analysis (ONA) is a method for studying communication within a<br />

formal organization to make invisible patterns of information flow and collaboration in<br />

strategically important groups visible. <strong>The</strong> method is applied by first mapping the<br />

relationships among people, tasks, groups, knowledge and resources of organizational<br />

systems. <strong>The</strong>n, analyzing the collected data with a social network analysis software in<br />

order to find organic clusters, opinion leaders, peripheral and bridging actors, indirect<br />

relations that are otherwise invisible.<br />

________<br />

Organizational Analysis Examples<br />

Reflective Practitioner Model: Washington D.C. School System<br />

In the early 2000s, the Washington D.C. public schools (DCPS) faced an organizational<br />

crisis. D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty sought advice to determine what was the best way to<br />

effectively improve the Washington D.C. public schools. Fenty employed Michelle<br />

Page 43 of 183


Rhee as the DCPS superintendent. Rhee initiated her job by analyzing all the factors<br />

that affected the DCPS. After evaluating all the factors Rhee decided to restructure the<br />

DCPS. Rhee set defined metrics in order to hold teachers accountable and measure<br />

whether they were reaching goals. Rhee wanted to eliminate tenure for teachers in<br />

order to increase teacher accountability. Rhee wanted to increase the DCPS efficiency,<br />

and believed that restructuring the teachers would achieve this. <strong>The</strong> process and results<br />

were controversial but illustrate an organizational approach to overcoming a policy<br />

crisis.<br />

Strategic Triangle Model OK: Casa de Esperanza<br />

In 1982, a group of women formed a shelter in St. Paul, Minnesota to address the<br />

needs of Latina women in the community that were victims of domestic violence. Casa<br />

de Esperanza immediately reached capacity, but the majority of occupants were<br />

Caucasian and African-American women. <strong>The</strong> Board of Directors was surprised to<br />

realize that very few women from the Latina community were utilizing the shelter. Casa<br />

de Esperanza continued to serve women from all backgrounds, and received<br />

government stipends for their work. <strong>The</strong> organization strove to be multicultural, while<br />

also maintaining the same mission of empowering Latinas. Many of the staff members<br />

identified with the mission of helping all women, while the Board of Directors maintained<br />

their stance on specifically helping Latinas.<br />

<strong>The</strong> theoretical model of the, "strategic triangle," can be applied in order to better<br />

understand the organizational challenges of Casa de Esperanza. <strong>The</strong> mission and<br />

capacity of the organization are misaligned due to a few key factors. <strong>The</strong> mission of the<br />

organization is vague and overly broad, which led the staff and Board to develop<br />

opposing views of the mission. Most importantly, they could not agree on who their<br />

target demographic was. <strong>The</strong> organization’s capacity is rooted in helping women from<br />

all backgrounds with a variety of services, while the mission seems to indicate they<br />

serve Latina women predominantly. <strong>The</strong> environment suggests that there is a need<br />

amongst a broader population than just Latina women. In addition, the government is<br />

the main source of funding for the organization and they are failing at financial<br />

sustainability. In order to bring these three components into alignment, the organization<br />

would need to make a clear and specific mission statement, tailor their capacity to reach<br />

that mission, and look for alternate forms of funding. Other recommendations could be<br />

made using the strategic triangle model. <strong>The</strong> model is a useful tool to examine the<br />

organizations in a crisis situation.<br />

Page 44 of 183


IV. Amended State Filing(s)<br />

Exercise<br />

Pennsylvania<br />

STEP BY STEP GUIDE TO PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION AMENDMENTS<br />

How to file a Pennsylvania Corporation Amendment:<br />

To make amendments to your Pennsylvania Corporation, you must provide the<br />

completed Articles of Amendment-Domestic Corporation (DSCB: 15-1915) form to<br />

the Department of State Corporation Bureau by mail or in person. If your amendment<br />

does not fit on the two lines of section 7, attach them as Exhibit A. Include with your<br />

filing, two copies of a completed DSCB: 15-134B, Docketing Statement-Changes.<br />

Can you re-state the initial articles instead of filing an amendment?<br />

Yes but it is more expensive to do so.<br />

Are there any specifics you can or can’t include with a Pennsylvania Corporation<br />

amendment?<br />

No.<br />

How much does a Pennsylvania Corporation amendment cost?<br />

To amend your Pennsylvania corporation, there is a $70.00 filing fee required.<br />

Expedited service within 1 day is available for an additional $70.00 fee with an<br />

accompanying cover letter that highlights the request for expedited processing.<br />

How long does it take the state to process a Pennsylvania Corporation<br />

amendment?<br />

Normal Processing: 3-5 working days, plus additional time for return mailing.<br />

In Person Processing: 3-5 working days, plus additional time for return mailing.<br />

Expedite Processing: 1 day, plus additional time for return mailing notice.<br />

How will the corporation amendment be returned?<br />

You will receive a confirmation of processing notice by mail.<br />

What state agency do you file an amendment with?<br />

Page 45 of 183


Pennsylvania Department of State<br />

Corporation Bureau<br />

PO Box 8722<br />

Harrisburg, PA 17105-8722<br />

Phone: (717) 787-1057<br />

Website: http://www.dos.state.pa.us<br />

Can you change the Pennsylvania Corporation members or managers on an<br />

amendment?<br />

Yes.<br />

Can you change the Pennsylvania registered agent on the amendment?<br />

No. To change your Pennsylvania registered agent, you will need to provide the<br />

completed Statement of Change of Registered Office form, to the Department of<br />

State Corporation Bureau by mail or in person. <strong>The</strong>re is a $70.00 filing fee for<br />

processing that form. <strong>The</strong> registered office provider does not sign this form. An<br />

officer of the corporation needs to sign it.<br />

Can you change the principal office address and/or the mailing address on a<br />

corporation amendment?<br />

Yes.<br />

Page 46 of 183


New Jersey<br />

STEP BY STEP GUIDE TO NEW JERSEY CORPORATION AMENDMENTS<br />

How to amend New Jersey Certificate of Incorporation:<br />

Filing corporate amendments in New Jersey is complicated by the fact that you can<br />

submit several different forms to make changes to your New Jersey corporation. <strong>The</strong><br />

division provides three different amendment forms for domestic corporations. You are<br />

not required to use the New Jersey Division of Revenue forms to amend your<br />

certificate of incorporation. You may draft your own amendment. However, the division<br />

recommends using their forms because if the filing does not include all the required<br />

information, it will be rejected.<br />

• C-102, Certificate of Amendment by Incorporator(s) is for profit and nonprofit<br />

corporations that have not yet held an organizational meeting of the first board of<br />

directors or trustees.<br />

• C-102A, Certificate of Amendment by Shareholders(s) is for profit<br />

corporations. C-102B, Certificate of Amendment by Members or Trustees is for<br />

nonprofit corporations.<br />

• Another option is to file one of the forms included in the New Jersey Business<br />

Registration Packet. <strong>The</strong>se forms are also available on the Division of Revenue<br />

website (see link below). <strong>The</strong> Business Entity Amendment Filing form (page 39)<br />

can be used to change numbered articles in the original certificate of any entity.<br />

How do I actually file the amendment form with the New Jersey Division of<br />

Revenue?<br />

You can submit the amendment form by mail, fax, or in person. <strong>The</strong>re are specific<br />

filing instructions for each option. You should always include a filing coversheet.<br />

Mail or in person<br />

You may submit the amendment to the Division of Revenue by regular mail, USPS<br />

overnight, express mail, courier, or in person. You need submit the original<br />

amendment and a duplicate.<br />

<strong>The</strong> filing cover letter must include:<br />

1. <strong>The</strong> name of firm or individual submitting the amendment;<br />

2. Payment method:<br />

• Credit card, number, cardholder name, billing address,<br />

• Division of Revenue depository account number, or<br />

• Check;<br />

Page 47 of 183


3. Description of the filing (“Certificate of Amendment”);<br />

4. If filing in person, choose expedited or same day processing;<br />

5. <strong>The</strong> entity’s name;<br />

6. <strong>The</strong> entity’s business ID; and<br />

7. Return instructions:<br />

8.<br />

• Include a return address for mailed documents, or<br />

• If you delivered documents by express or courier and you want them<br />

returned that way, include completed air bill<br />

Checks should be payable to the Treasurer, State of New Jersey. <strong>The</strong> Division of<br />

Revenue does not accept cash.<br />

Fax<br />

Complete the amendment form, prepare a fax coversheet and fax your form to the<br />

division. Your fax coversheet must be entitled DIVISION OF REVENUE FACSIMILE<br />

FILING SERVICE REQUEST.<br />

<strong>The</strong> fax filing coversheet needs to include:<br />

1. <strong>The</strong> name of the firm or individual filing the form;<br />

2. Date of submission;<br />

3. Method of payment:<br />

• Visa, MasterCard, or Discover Card number, name, address, and<br />

expiration; or<br />

• Division of Revenue depository account number;<br />

4. Description of the service requested;<br />

5. Choice of expedited or same day service;<br />

6. Business name;<br />

7. Total number of pages (including coversheet); and<br />

8. Fax number to fax filed documents back to<br />

Fax the form and the coversheet to the New Jersey Division of Revenue at 609-984-<br />

6851.<br />

If your document is accepted, it will be stamped “filed” and faxed back to the filer with<br />

a receipt. If it is rejected, the unfiled document will be returned with a rejection notice<br />

and the fee is refunded.<br />

Can you re-state the initial certificate instead of filing an amendment?<br />

Yes. You would file Restated Certificate form to restate or restate and amend the<br />

certificate of incorporation. For profit corporations would file form C-100A Restated<br />

Certificate of Incorporation. <strong>The</strong>re are two pages required to restate the certificate.<br />

Make sure you submit both pages to the Division of Revenue.<br />

Page 48 of 183


<strong>The</strong> filing fee for a restated certificate is $75.<br />

Are there any specifics you can or can’t include with a New Jersey corporation<br />

amendment?<br />

You can change your business name and change your New Jersey registered agent<br />

information. You also can change any other original articles.<br />

How much does a New Jersey corporation amendment cost?<br />

<strong>The</strong> certificate of amendment filing fee is $75.<br />

If you file over-the-counter, there is an additional $15 fee for 8.5 business hour<br />

expedited service.<br />

If you fax the certificate of amendment, you pay the filing fee, an expedite fee, and a<br />

$1 per page fax back fee for returning filed documents. <strong>The</strong> additional expedite fee for<br />

8.5 business hour processing is $15. <strong>The</strong> expedite fee for same day processing of<br />

faxed documents is $50<br />

How long does it take the state to process a New Jersey corporation amendment?<br />

Mailing documents is the slowest way to file with the Division of Revenue. Expect 3-10<br />

business days for Division of Revenue processing plus 3-6 days mail time each way.<br />

Include a self addressed stamped envelope to minimize processing time.<br />

Over the counter filings are processed in 8.5 business hours. Fax filing is also<br />

expedited. You can choose 8.5 business hour or same day processing. Documents<br />

submitted for same day processing by 12:30 done by 5:00 (on business days).<br />

How will the New Jersey corporation amendment be returned?<br />

Mailed documents are mailed to the registered office address. If you request that<br />

documents be mailed to a different address, (on a self-addressed envelope or cover<br />

letter) the division of revenue will send documents to that address.<br />

If you select expedited processing, you can include instructions as to how you would<br />

like the filing returned to you. You may choose to have expedited documents picked<br />

up by a courier or express mail service if you include a package and air bill.<br />

Page 49 of 183


What state agency do you file an amendment with?<br />

Mail or USPS overnight:<br />

New Jersey Division of Revenue<br />

Corporate Filing<br />

PO Box 308<br />

Trenton, NJ 08625-0308<br />

Over the counter, express mail, or courier:<br />

33 West State Street, 5th Floor<br />

Trenton, NJ 08608-1214<br />

Phone: (609)292-9292<br />

Fax filings: (609) 984-6851<br />

Can you change the New Jersey corporation officers or directors on an<br />

amendment?<br />

Yes you can file an amendment to the article of the certificate that lists officers and<br />

directors.<br />

You will have to list the corporations officers and directors in the annual report.<br />

Can you change the New Jersey registered agent on the amendment?<br />

Yes. You can change the corporation’ registered agent when you file an amendment.<br />

You can also change the New Jersey registered agent when you file the New Jersey<br />

corporation annual report.<br />

Can you change the principal office address and/or the mailing address on an<br />

corporation amendment?<br />

Yes. You can change the corporations principal address when you file an amendment.<br />

You can also change the principal address on the corporations annual report.<br />

New Jersey Division of Revenue forms<br />

New Jersey Business Registration Package<br />

Page 50 of 183


Delaware<br />

STEP BY STEP GUIDE TO DELAWARE CORPORATION AMENDMENTS<br />

How to file a Delaware Corporation Amendment:<br />

To make amendments to your Delaware Stock Corporation, you submit the completed<br />

State of Delaware Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation form to the<br />

Department of State by mail, fax or in person, along with the filing fee and the Filing<br />

Cover Memo. Non-stock corporations use a separate amendment form.<br />

If you are amending more than one article, you may attach a list of the articles being<br />

amended with the amendments stated.<br />

Can you restate the initial articles instead of filing an amendment?<br />

Yes. <strong>The</strong> filing fee for a restated certificate is $194 without amendments. If you wish to<br />

re-state the initial articles you must draft your own restated articles. <strong>The</strong>re is no form<br />

available for restated articles.<br />

Are there any specifics you can or can’t include with a Delaware Corporation<br />

amendment?<br />

<strong>The</strong> original articles of incorporation may be amended as desired; however, if you<br />

wish to change your original registered agent, you are required to use the Statement<br />

of Agent Change form.<br />

How much does a Delaware Corporation amendment cost?<br />

To amend your corporation in Delaware, there is a $194 filing fee required. You may<br />

request expedited processing for an additional $1000 for one-hour service, $500 for<br />

two-hour service, $200 for same day service, or within 24 working hours for an<br />

additional $100 fee.<br />

How long does it take the state to process a Delaware Corporation amendment?<br />

Normal processing in Delaware is approximately two to three weeks. You may request<br />

expedited service with processing from 24 hours to one hour.<br />

How will the corporation amendment be returned?<br />

You will receive a confirmation copy of your filing by the return service method that<br />

you indicate on your Filing Cover Memo.<br />

Page 51 of 183


What state agency do you file an amendment with?<br />

Delaware Department of State<br />

Division of Corporations<br />

John G. Townsend Building<br />

401 Federal Street – Suite 4<br />

Dover, DE 19901<br />

Phone: (302)739-3073<br />

Fax: (302)739-3812<br />

Email: corp@delaware.gov<br />

Website: http://www.corp.delaware.gov<br />

Can you change the Delaware Corporation officers or directors on an<br />

amendment?<br />

You do not list corporate officers on a Delaware Certificate of Incorporation. You may<br />

change your officers on your annual report that you file online every year prior to<br />

March 1st.<br />

Can you change the Delaware registered agent on the amendment?<br />

You are not able to change your Delaware registered agent on the Amendment form.<br />

You will need to provide the completed Certificate of Change of Agent form and fee, to<br />

the Department of State.<br />

Can you change the principal office address and/or the mailing address on a<br />

corporation amendment?<br />

<strong>The</strong> Delaware Department of State does not keep principal office or mailing address<br />

information on file.<br />

Page 52 of 183


V. Political Lobbying for Nonprofits<br />

and Faith-Based Organizations<br />

“Churches” (which is how the Internal Revenue Code describes all houses<br />

of worship, including churches, temples, synagogues, and mosques), as<br />

with all other public charities, can lobby. Federal tax law draws a<br />

distinction between activities intended to influence public policy, and<br />

campaigning for a specific candidate. Campaigning for a candidate is<br />

strictly prohibited, while influencing the passage of legislation is allowed.<br />

- See AFJ’s “Election Checklist for Houses of Worship” for more information on<br />

what churches can and cannot do in the context of elections.<br />

________<br />

Lobbying in the United States<br />

describes paid activity in which special<br />

interests hire well-connected<br />

professional advocates, often lawyers,<br />

to argue for specific legislation in<br />

decision-making bodies such as the<br />

United States Congress. It is a highly<br />

controversial phenomenon, often seen<br />

in a negative light by journalists and the<br />

American public. While lobbying is<br />

subject to extensive and often complex<br />

rules which, if not followed, can lead to<br />

penalties including jail, the activity of<br />

lobbying has been interpreted by court<br />

rulings as free speech and is therefore<br />

protected by the Constitution. Since the<br />

1970s, lobbying activity has grown<br />

immensely in terms of the numbers of<br />

lobbyists and the size of lobbying<br />

budgets, and has become the focus of<br />

much criticism of American governance.<br />

Since lobbying rules require extensive<br />

disclosure, there is a large amount of<br />

information in the public sphere about<br />

which entities lobby, how, at whom, and<br />

for how much. <strong>The</strong> current pattern<br />

suggests much lobbying is done by<br />

corporations although a wide variety of<br />

coalitions representing diverse groups is<br />

possible. Lobbying happens at every<br />

level of government, including federal,<br />

state, county, municipal, and even local<br />

governments. In Washington, lobbying<br />

usually targets congresspersons,<br />

although there have been efforts to<br />

influence executive agency officials as<br />

well as Supreme Court appointments. It<br />

has been the subject of academic<br />

inquiry in various fields, including law,<br />

public policy, and economics. While the<br />

number of lobbyists in Washington is<br />

over twelve thousand, those with real<br />

clout number in the dozens, and a small<br />

group of firms handles much of lobbying<br />

in terms of expenditures. A report in <strong>The</strong><br />

Nation in 2014 suggested that while the<br />

number of 12,281 registered lobbyists<br />

was a decrease since 2002, lobbying<br />

activity was increasing and "going<br />

underground" as lobbyists use<br />

"increasingly sophisticated strategies" to<br />

obscure their activity. Analyst James<br />

Thurber estimated that the actual<br />

number of working lobbyists was close<br />

to 100,000 and the industry brings in $9<br />

billion annually.<br />

Page 53 of 183


Political scientist Thomas R. Dye once<br />

said that politics is about battling over<br />

scarce governmental resources: who<br />

gets them, where, when, why and how.<br />

Since government makes the rules in a<br />

complex economy such as the United<br />

States, it is logical that various<br />

organizations, businesses, individuals,<br />

nonprofits, trade groups, religions,<br />

charities and others—which are affected<br />

by these rules—will exert as much<br />

influence as they can to have rulings<br />

favorable to their cause. And the battling<br />

for influence has happened in every<br />

organized society since the beginning of<br />

civilization, whether it was Ancient<br />

Athens, Florence during the time of the<br />

Medici, Late Imperial China, and the<br />

present-day United States. Modern-day<br />

lobbyists in one sense are like the<br />

courtiers of the Ancien Régime. If voting<br />

is a general way for a public to control a<br />

government, lobbying is a more specific,<br />

targeted effort, focused on a narrower<br />

set of issues.<br />

<strong>The</strong> term lobby has etymological roots in<br />

the physical structure of the British<br />

Parliament, in which there was an<br />

intermediary covered room outside the<br />

main hall. People pushing an agenda<br />

would try to meet with members of<br />

Parliament in this room, and they came<br />

to be known, by metonymy, as lobbyists,<br />

although one account in 1890<br />

suggested that the application of the<br />

word "lobby" is American and that the<br />

term is not used as much in Britain.<br />

<strong>The</strong> term lobbying in everyday parlance<br />

can describe a wide variety of activities,<br />

and in its general sense, suggests<br />

advocacy, advertising, or promoting a<br />

cause. In this sense, anybody who tries<br />

to influence any political position can be<br />

thought of as "lobbying", and sometimes<br />

the term is used in this loose sense. A<br />

person who writes a letter to a<br />

congressperson, or even questions a<br />

candidate at a political meeting, could<br />

be construed as being a lobbyist.<br />

However, the term "lobbying" generally<br />

means a paid activity with the purpose<br />

of attempting to "influence or sway" a<br />

public official - including bureaucrats<br />

and elected officials - towards a desired<br />

specific action often relating to specific<br />

legislation. If advocacy is disseminating<br />

information, including attempts to<br />

persuade public officials as well as the<br />

public and media to promote the cause<br />

of something and support it, then when<br />

this activity becomes focused on<br />

specific legislation, either in support or<br />

in opposition, then it crosses the line<br />

from advocacy and becomes lobbying.<br />

This is the usual sense of the term<br />

"lobbying." One account suggested that<br />

much of the activity of nonprofits was<br />

not lobbying per se, since it usually did<br />

not mean changes in legislation.<br />

A lobbyist, according to the legal sense<br />

of the word, is a professional, often a<br />

lawyer. Lobbyists are intermediaries<br />

between client organizations and<br />

lawmakers: they explain to legislators<br />

what their organizations want, and they<br />

explain to their clients what obstacles<br />

elected officials face. One definition of a<br />

lobbyist is someone "employed to<br />

persuade legislators to pass legislation<br />

that will help the lobbyist's employer."<br />

Many lobbyists work in lobbying firms or<br />

law firms, some of which retain clients<br />

outside lobbying. Others work for<br />

advocacy groups, trade associations,<br />

companies, and state and local<br />

governments. Lobbyists can be one type<br />

of government official, such as a<br />

governor of a state, who presses<br />

Page 54 of 183


officials in Washington for specific<br />

legislation. A lobbyist may put together a<br />

diverse coalition of organizations and<br />

people, sometimes including lawmakers<br />

and corporations, and the whole effort<br />

may be considered to be a lobby; for<br />

example, in the abortion issue, there is a<br />

"pro-choice lobby" and a "pro-life lobby".<br />

An estimate from 2007 reported that<br />

more than 15,000 federal lobbyists were<br />

based in Washington, DC; another<br />

estimate from 2011 suggested that the<br />

count of registered lobbyists who have<br />

actually lobbied was closer to 12,000.<br />

While numbers like these suggest that<br />

lobbying is a widespread activity, most<br />

accounts suggest that the Washington<br />

lobbying industry is an exclusive one run<br />

by a few well-connected firms and<br />

players, with serious barriers to entry for<br />

firms wanting to get into the lobbying<br />

business, since it requires them to have<br />

been "roaming the halls of Congress for<br />

years and years."<br />

Different Types of Lobbying<br />

<strong>The</strong> Focus of Lobbying Efforts<br />

Generally, lobbyists focus on trying to<br />

persuade decision-makers: Congress,<br />

executive branch agencies such as the<br />

Treasury Department and the Securities<br />

and Exchange Commission, the<br />

Supreme Court, state governments<br />

(including governors). Federal agencies<br />

have been targeted by lobbyists since<br />

they write industry-specific rules;<br />

accordingly, interest groups spend<br />

"massive sums of money" trying to<br />

persuade them to make so-called<br />

"carve-outs" or try to block specific<br />

provisions from being enacted. A large<br />

fraction of overall lobbying is focused on<br />

only a few sets of issues, according to<br />

one report. It is possible for one level of<br />

government to lobby another level; for<br />

example, the District of Columbia has<br />

been lobbying Congress and the<br />

President for greater power, including<br />

possible statehood or voting<br />

representation in Congress; one<br />

assessment in 2011 suggested that the<br />

district needed to rethink its lobbying<br />

strategy, since its past efforts have only<br />

had "mixed results". Many executive<br />

branch agencies have the power to write<br />

specific rules and are a target of<br />

lobbying. Federal agencies such as the<br />

State Department make rules such as<br />

giving aid money to countries such as<br />

Egypt, and in one example, an<br />

Egyptian-American businessman named<br />

Kais Menoufy organized a lobby to try to<br />

halt U.S. aid to Egypt. Since the<br />

Supreme Court has the power of judicial<br />

review and can render a congressional<br />

law unconstitutional, it has great power<br />

to influence the course of American life.<br />

For example, in the Roe v. Wade<br />

decision, it ruled on the legality of<br />

abortion. A variety of forces use<br />

lobbying tactics to pressure the court to<br />

overturn this decision.<br />

Lobbyists represent their clients' or<br />

organizations' interests in state capitols.<br />

An example is a former school<br />

superintendent who has been lobbying<br />

state legislatures in California, Michigan<br />

and Nevada to overhaul teacher<br />

evaluations, and trying to end the "Last<br />

In, First Out" teacher hiring processes;<br />

according to one report, Michelle Rhee<br />

Page 55 of 183


is becoming a "political force." State<br />

governments can be lobbied by groups<br />

which represent other governments<br />

within the state, such as a city authority;<br />

for example, the cities of Tallahassee<br />

and St. Petersburg lobbied the Florida<br />

legislature using paid lobbyists to<br />

represent the city's interests. <strong>The</strong>re is<br />

lobbying activity at the county and<br />

municipal levels, especially in larger<br />

cities and populous counties. For<br />

example, officials within the city<br />

government of Chicago called aldermen<br />

became lobbyists after serving in<br />

municipal government, following a oneyear<br />

period required by city ethics rules<br />

to abstain from lobbying.<br />

Paid Versus Free Lobbying<br />

While the bulk of lobbying happens by<br />

business and professional interests who<br />

hire paid professionals, some lobbyists<br />

represent non-profits pro-bono for<br />

issues in which they are personally<br />

interested. Pro bono publico clients offer<br />

activities to meet and socialize with local<br />

legislators at events like fundraisers and<br />

awards ceremonies.<br />

Single Issue vs<br />

Multiple Issue Lobbying<br />

Lobbies which push for a single issue<br />

have grown in importance during the<br />

past twenty years, according to one<br />

source. Corporations generally would be<br />

considered as single issue lobbies. If a<br />

corporation wishes to change public<br />

policy, or to influence legislation which<br />

impacts its success as a business, it<br />

may use lobbying as a "primary avenue"<br />

for this purpose. One research study<br />

suggested that single issue lobbies<br />

often operate in different kinds of<br />

institutional venues, sometimes bringing<br />

the same message to different groups.<br />

Lobbies which represent groups such as<br />

labor unions, business organizations,<br />

trade associations and such are<br />

sometimes considered to be multiple<br />

issue lobbies, and to succeed they must<br />

be somewhat more flexible politically<br />

and be willing to accept compromise.<br />

Inside vs Outside Lobbying<br />

• Inside lobbying, or sometimes<br />

called direct lobbying, describes<br />

efforts by lobbyists to influence<br />

legislation or rule-making directly<br />

by contacting legislators and their<br />

assistants, sometimes called<br />

staffers or aides.<br />

• Outside lobbying, or sometimes<br />

indirect lobbying, includes<br />

attempts by interest group<br />

leaders to mobilize citizens<br />

outside the policymaking<br />

community, perhaps by public<br />

relations methods or advertising,<br />

to prompt them to pressure public<br />

officials within the policymaking<br />

community. One example of an<br />

outside lobbying effort is a film<br />

entitled InJustice, made by a<br />

group promoting lawsuit reform.<br />

Page 56 of 183


Key Players<br />

Lobbyists<br />

<strong>The</strong> number of registered Washington lobbyists is substantial. In 2009, the Washington<br />

Post estimated that there were 13,700 registered lobbyists, describing the nation's<br />

Capitol as "teeming with lobbyists.". In 2011, <strong>The</strong> Guardian estimated that in addition to<br />

the approximately 13,000 registered lobbyists, thousands more unregistered lobbyists<br />

could exist in Washington. <strong>The</strong> ratio of lobbyists employed by the healthcare industry,<br />

compared with every elected politician, was six to one, according to one account.<br />

Nevertheless, the numbers of lobbyists actively engaged in lobbying is considerably<br />

less, and the ones occupied with lobbying full-time and making significant money is<br />

even less.<br />

• Law firms. Several law firms, including Patton Boggs, Akin Gump and Holland & Knight, had sizable<br />

departments devoted to so-called "government relations". One account suggested that the lobbying arms of<br />

these law firms were not held as separate subsidiaries, but that the law practices involved in government<br />

lobbying were integrated into the overall framework of the law firm. A benefit to an integrated arrangement<br />

was that the law firm and the lobbying department could "share and refer clients back and forth". Holland &<br />

Knight earned $13.9 million from lobbying revenue in 2011. One law firm employs so-called "power brokers"<br />

including former Treasury department officials such as Marti Thomas, and former presidential advisers such<br />

as Daniel Meyer. <strong>The</strong>re was a report that two law firms were treating their lobbying groups as separate<br />

business units, and giving the non-lawyer lobbyists an equity stake in the firm.<br />

• Lobbying firms. <strong>The</strong>se firms usually have some lawyers in them, and are often founded by former<br />

congressional staffers, legislators, or other politicians. Some lobbying groups have been bought by large<br />

advertising conglomerates.<br />

Corporations<br />

Corporations which lobby actively tend to be few in number, large, and often sell to the<br />

government. Most corporations do not hire lobbyists. One study found that the actual<br />

number of firms which do lobbying regularly is fewer than 300, and that the percent of<br />

firms engaged in lobbying was 10% from 1998–2006, and that they were "mainly large,<br />

rich firms getting in on the fun." <strong>The</strong>se firms hired lobbyists year after year, and there<br />

was not much evidence of other large firms taking much interest in lobbying.<br />

Corporations considering lobbying run into substantial barriers to entry: corporations<br />

have to research the relevant laws about lobbying, hire lobbying firms, and cultivate<br />

influential people and make connections. When an issue regarding a change in<br />

immigration policy arose, large corporations currently lobbying switched focus<br />

somewhat to take account of the new regulatory world, but new corporations—even<br />

ones likely to be affected by any possible rulings on immigration—stayed out of the<br />

lobbying fray, according to the study.<br />

Still, of all the entities doing lobbying in Washington, the biggest overall spenders are, in<br />

fact, corporations. In the first decade of the 2000s, the most lucrative clients for Gerald<br />

Cassidy's lobbying firm were corporations, displacing fees from the appropriations<br />

Page 57 of 183


usiness. Wall Street lobbyists and the financial industry spent upwards of $100 million<br />

in one year to "court regulators and lawmakers", particularly since they were "finalizing<br />

new regulations for lending, trading and debit card fees." One academic analysis in<br />

1987 found that firms were more likely to spend on lobbying if they were both large and<br />

concerned about "adverse financial statement consequences" if they did not lobby. Big<br />

banks were "prolific spenders" on lobbying; JPMorgan Chase has an in-house team of<br />

lobbyists who spent $3.3 million in 2010; the American Bankers Association spent $4.6<br />

million on lobbying; an organization representing 100 of the nation's largest financial<br />

firms called the Financial Services Roundtable spent heavily as well. A trade group<br />

representing Hedge Funds spent more than $1 million in one quarter trying to influence<br />

the government about financial regulations, including an effort to try to change a rule<br />

that might demand greater disclosure requirements for funds. Amazon.com spent<br />

$450,000 in one quarter lobbying about a possible online sales tax as well as rules<br />

about data protection and privacy. Corporations which sell substantially to the<br />

government tend to be active lobbiers. For example, aircraft manufacturer Boeing,<br />

which has sizeable defense contracts, pours "millions into lobbying":<br />

Boeing Co. is one of the most influential companies in airline manufacturing and has<br />

continually shown its influence in lobbying Congress ... Between January and<br />

September, Boeing spent a total of $12 million lobbying according to research by the<br />

Center for Responsive Politics. Additionally, Boeing has its own political action<br />

committee, which donated more than $2.2 million to federal candidates during the 2010<br />

Page 58 of 183


election cycle. Of that sum, 53 percent went to Democrats. ...Through September,<br />

Boeing's PAC has donated $748,000 to federal politicians.<br />

—Chicago Sun-Times quoting OpenSecrets.org, 2011<br />

Unions<br />

One report suggested the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union<br />

spent $80,000 lobbying the federal government on issues relating to "the tax code, food<br />

safety, immigration reform and other issues."<br />

Other Players<br />

Other possible players in the lobbying arena are those who might influence legislation:<br />

House & Senate colleagues, public opinion in the district, the White House, party<br />

leaders, union leaders, and other influential persons and groups. Interest groups are<br />

often thought of as "nonparty organizations" which regularly try to change or influence<br />

government decision-making.<br />

Lobbying Methods and Techniques<br />

Lobbying has much in common with highly people-intensive businesses such as<br />

management consulting and public relations, but with a political and legal sensibility.<br />

Like lawmakers, many lobbyists are lawyers, and the persons they are trying to<br />

influence have the duty of writing laws. That the disciplines of law and lobbying are<br />

intertwined could be seen in the case of a Texas lawyer who had been seeking<br />

compensation for his unfairly imprisoned client; since his exonerated-prisoner client had<br />

trouble paying the legal expenses, the lawyer lobbied the Texas state legislature to<br />

raise the state's payment for unfairly imprisoned prisoners from $50,000 per year to<br />

$80,000 per year; it succeeded, making it possible for his newly freed client to pay the<br />

lawyer's fees.<br />

Well-connected lobbyists work in Washington for years, know the issues, are highly<br />

skilled advocates, and have cultivated close connections with members of Congress,<br />

regulators, specialists, and others. <strong>The</strong>y understand strategy and have excellent<br />

communication skills; many are well suited to be able to choose which clients they<br />

would like to represent. Lobbyists patiently cultivate networks of powerful people, over<br />

many years, trying to build trust and maintain confidence and friendships. When a client<br />

hires them to push a specific issue or agenda, they usually form coalitions to exert<br />

political pressure. Lobbying, as a result, depends on trying to be flexible to new<br />

opportunities, but at the same time, to act as an agent for a client. As one lobbyist put it:<br />

It's my job to advance the interests of my association or client. Period.<br />

—comment by a lobbyist<br />

Page 59 of 183


Access is important and often means a one-on-one meeting with a legislator. Getting<br />

access can sometimes be difficult, but there are various avenues: email, personal<br />

letters, phone calls, face-to-face meetings, meals, get-togethers, and even chasing after<br />

congresspersons in the Capitol building:<br />

My style of lobbying is not to have big formal meetings, but to catch<br />

members on the fly as they're walking between the House and the office<br />

buildings.<br />

—Lobbyist, commenting on access<br />

When getting access is difficult, there are ways to wear down the walls surrounding a<br />

legislator. Jack Abramoff explained:<br />

Access is vital in lobbying. If you can't get in your door, you can't make<br />

your case. Here we had a hostile senator, whose staff was hostile, and we<br />

had to get in. So that's the lobbyist safe-cracker method: throw<br />

fundraisers, raise money, and become a big donor.<br />

—Lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2011<br />

Lobbyists often assist congresspersons with campaign finance by arranging fundraisers,<br />

assembling PACs, and seeking donations from other clients. Many lobbyists become<br />

campaign treasurers and fundraisers for congresspersons. This helps incumbent<br />

members cope with the substantial amounts of time required to raise money for<br />

reelection bids; one estimate was that congresspersons had to spend a third of their<br />

working hours on fundraising activity. PACs are fairly easy to set up; it requires a lawyer<br />

and about $300, roughly. An even steeper possible reward which can be used in<br />

exchange for favors is the lure of a high-paying job as a lobbyist; according to Jack<br />

Abramoff, one of the best ways to "get what he wanted" was to offer a high-ranking<br />

congressional aide a high-paying job after they decided to leave public office. When<br />

such a promise of future employment was accepted, according to Abramoff, "we owned<br />

them". This helped the lobbying firm exert influence on that particular congressperson<br />

by going through the staff member or aide. At the same time, it is hard for outside<br />

observers to argue that a particular decision, such as hiring a former staffer into a<br />

lobbying position, was purely as a reward for some past political decision, since staffers<br />

often have valuable connections and policy experience needed by lobbying firms.<br />

Research economist Mirko Draca suggested that hiring a staffer was an ideal way for a<br />

lobbying firm to try to sway their old bosses—a congressperson—in the future.<br />

Lobbyists, according to several sources, strive for communications which are clear,<br />

straightforward, and direct. In a one-on-one meeting with a lobbyist, it helps to<br />

understand precisely what goal is wanted. A lobbyist wants action on a bill; a legislator<br />

wants to be re-elected. <strong>The</strong> idea is to persuade a legislator that what the lobbyist wants<br />

is good public policy. Lobbyists often urge lawmakers to try to persuade other<br />

lawmakers to approve a bill.<br />

Page 60 of 183


Still, persuasion is a subtle business, requiring a deft touch, and carelessness can<br />

boomerang. In one instance of a public relations reversal, a lobbying initiative by the<br />

Cassidy firm which targeted Senator Robert C. Byrd blew up when the Cassidy-Byrd<br />

connection was published in the Washington Post; this resulted in a furious Byrd<br />

reversing his previous pro-Cassidy position and throwing a "theatrical temper tantrum"<br />

regarding an $18 million facility. Byrd denounced "lobbyists who collect exorbitant fees<br />

to create projects and have them earmarked in appropriation bills... for the benefit of<br />

their clients."<br />

Since it often takes a long time to build the network of relationships within the lobbying<br />

industry, ethical interpersonal dealings are important. A maxim in the industry is for<br />

lobbyists to be truthful with people they are trying to persuade; one lobbyist described it<br />

this way: "what you've basically got is your word and reputation". An untruth, a lie is too<br />

risky to the successful development of a long-term relationship and the potential gain is<br />

not worth the risk. One report suggested that below-the-belt tactics generally do not<br />

work. One account suggest that groping for "personal dirt" on opponents was<br />

counterproductive since it would undermine respect for the lobbyist and their clients.<br />

And, by reverse logic, if an untruth is told by an opponent or opposing lobby, then it<br />

makes sense to publicize it. But the general code among lobbyists is that<br />

unsubstantiated claims are bad business. Even worse is planting an informant in an<br />

opponent's camp, since if this subterfuge is ever discovered, it will boomerang<br />

negatively in a hundred ways, and credibility will drop to zero. <strong>The</strong> importance of<br />

personal relationships in lobbying can be seen in the state of Illinois, in which father-son<br />

ties helped push a smart-grid energy bill, although there were accusations of favoritism.<br />

And there is anecdotal evidence that a business firm seeking to profitably influence<br />

legislation has to pay particular attention to which lobbyist it hires.<br />

Strategic considerations for lobbyists, trying to influence legislation, include "locating a<br />

power base" or a constituency logically predisposed to support a given policy. Timing,<br />

as well, is usually important, in the sense of knowing when to propose a certain action<br />

and having a big-picture view of the possible sequence of desired actions. Strategic<br />

lobbying tries to estimate the possible responses of different groups to a possible lobby<br />

approach; one study suggested that the "expectations of opposition from other<br />

interests" was a key factor helping to determine how a lobby should operate.<br />

Increasingly, lobbyists seek to put together coalitions and use outside lobbying by<br />

swaying public opinion. Bigger, more diverse and deep pocketed coalitions tend to be<br />

more effective in outside lobbying, and the "strength in numbers" principle often applies.<br />

Interest groups try to build "sustainable coalitions of similarly situated individual<br />

organizations in pursuit of like-minded goals". According to one study, it is often difficult<br />

for a lobbyist to influence a staff member in Congress directly, since staffers tend to be<br />

well-informed and subject to views from competing interests. As an indirect tactic,<br />

lobbyists can try to manipulate public opinion which, in turn, can sometimes exert<br />

pressure on congresspersons. Activities for these purposes include trying to use the<br />

mass media, cultivating contacts with reporters and editors, encouraging them to write<br />

editorials and cover stories to influence public opinion, which may have the secondary<br />

Page 61 of 183


effect of influencing Congress. According to analyst Ken Kollman, it is easier to sway<br />

public opinion than a congressional staff member since it is possible to bombard the<br />

public with "half-truths, distortion, scare tactics, and misinformation." Kollman suggests<br />

there should be two goals: (1) communicate that there is public support behind an issue<br />

to policymakers and (2) increase public support for the issue among constituents.<br />

Kollman suggested outside lobbying was a "powerful tool" for interest group leaders. In<br />

a sense, using these criteria, one could consider James Madison as having engaged in<br />

outside lobbying, since after the Constitution was proposed, he wrote many of the 85<br />

newspaper editorials arguing for people to support the Constitution, and these writings<br />

later became the Federalist Papers. As a result of this "lobbying" effort, the Constitution<br />

was ratified, although there were narrow margins of victory in four of the state<br />

legislatures. Lobbying today generally requires mounting a coordinated campaign, using<br />

targeted blitzes of telephone calls, letters, emails to congressional lawmakers, marches<br />

down the Washington Mall, bus caravans, and such, and these are often put together by<br />

lobbyists who coordinate a variety of interest group leaders to unite behind a hopefully<br />

simple easy-to-grasp and persuasive message.<br />

It is important for lobbyists to follow rules governing lobbying behavior. <strong>The</strong>se can be<br />

difficult and complex, take time to learn, require full disclosure, and mistakes can land a<br />

lobbyist in serious legal trouble.<br />

Gifts for congresspersons and staffers can be problematic, since anything of sizeable<br />

value must be disclosed and generally such gifts are illegal. Failure to observe gift<br />

restrictions was one factor which caused lobbyist Jack Abramoff to eventually plead<br />

guilty to a "raft of federal corruption charges" and led to convictions for 20 lobbyists and<br />

public officials, including congressperson Bob Ney and Bush deputy interior secretary<br />

Stephen Griles. Generally gifts to congresspersons or their staffs or federal officials are<br />

not allowed, but with a few exceptions: books are permitted, provided that the inside<br />

cover is inscribed with the congressperson's name and the name of one's organization.<br />

Gifts under $5 are allowed. Another exception is awards, so it is permitted to give a<br />

congressperson a plaque thanking him or her for support on a given issue. Cash gifts<br />

payable by check can only be made to campaign committees, not to a candidate<br />

personally or to his or her staff; it is not permitted to give cash or stock.<br />

Wealthy lobbyists often encourage other lobbying clients to donate to a particular cause,<br />

in the hope that favors will be returned at a later date. Lobbyist Gerald Cassidy<br />

encouraged other clients to give for causes dear to a particular client engaged in a<br />

current lobbying effort. Some lobbyists give their own money: Cassidy reportedly<br />

donated a million dollars on one project, according to one report, which noted that<br />

Cassidy's firm received "many times that much in fees from their clients" paid in monthly<br />

retainers. And their clients, in turn, had received "hundreds of millions in earmarked<br />

appropriations" and benefits worth "hundreds of millions more".<br />

<strong>The</strong> dynamics of the lobbying world make it fairly easy for a semi-skilled operator to<br />

defraud a client. This is essentially what happened in the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying<br />

scandal. <strong>The</strong>re was a concerned client—in this case, an Indian casino—worried about<br />

Page 62 of 183


possible ill-effects of legislation on its gambling business; and there were lobbyists such<br />

as Jack Abramoff who knew how to exploit these fears. <strong>The</strong> lobbyists actively lobbied<br />

against their own casino-client as a way to ratchet up their fears of adverse legislation<br />

as well as stoke possible future contributions; the lobbyists committed other violations<br />

such as grossly overbilling their clients as well as violating rules about giving gifts to<br />

congresspersons. Numerous persons went to jail after the scandal. <strong>The</strong> following are<br />

factors which can make fraud a fairly easy-to-do activity: that lobbyists are paid only to<br />

try to influence decision-makers, and may or may not succeed, making it hard to tell if a<br />

lobbyist did actual work; that much of what happens regarding interpersonal relations is<br />

obscure despite rather strict disclosure and transparency requirements; that there are<br />

sizable monies involved—factors such as these almost guarantee that there will be<br />

future scandals involving fraudulent lobbying activity, according to one assessment. A<br />

fraud similar to Abramoff's was perpetrated in Maryland by lobbyist Gerald E. Evans,<br />

who was convicted of mail and wire fraud in 2000 in a case involving falsely creating a<br />

"fictitious legislative threat" against a client, and then billing the client to work against<br />

this supposed threat.<br />

Lobbyists routinely monitor how congressional officials vote, sometimes checking the<br />

past voting records of congresspersons. One report suggested that reforms requiring<br />

"publicly recorded committee votes" led to more information about how<br />

congresspersons voted, but instead of becoming a valuable resource for the news<br />

media or voters, the information helped lobbyists monitor congressional voting patterns.<br />

As a general rule, lawmakers must vote as a particular interest group wishes them to<br />

vote, or risk losing support.<br />

Strategy usually dictates targeting specific office holders. On the state level, one study<br />

suggested that much of the lobbying activity targeted the offices of governors as well as<br />

state-level executive bureaucrats; state lobbying was an "intensely personal game" with<br />

face-to-face contact being required for important decisions.<br />

Lobbying can be a counteractive response to the lobbying efforts of others. One study<br />

suggested this was particularly true for battles surrounding possible decisions by the<br />

Supreme Court which is considered as a "battleground for public policy" in which<br />

differing groups try to "etch their policy preferences into law". Sometimes there are<br />

lobbying efforts to slow or derail other legislative processes; for example, when the FDA<br />

began considering a cheaper generic version of the costly anti-clotting drug Lovenox,<br />

the French pharmaceutical firm Sanofi "sprang into action to try and slow the process."<br />

Lobbyists are often assembled in anticipation of a potential takeover bid, particularly<br />

when there are large high-profile companies, or a large foreign company involved, and<br />

substantial concern that the takeover may be blocked by regulatory authorities.<br />

An example may illustrate. <strong>The</strong> company Tyco had learned that there had been<br />

discussion about a possible new tax provision that might have cost it $4 billion overall.<br />

So the firm hired Jack Abramoff and paid him a retainer of $100,000 a month. He<br />

assembled dozens of lobbyists with connections to key congressional committees with<br />

the ultimate objective being to influence powerful Senator Charles Grassley. Abramoff<br />

Page 63 of 183


egan with a fundraising effort to round up "every check" possible. He sought funds<br />

from his other lobbying clients:<br />

I had my clients understand that just as other clients who had nothing to<br />

do with them, would step up and give contributions to congressmen they<br />

needed to have some sway with, so similarly they needed to do the<br />

same. I went to every client I could, and rounded up every check we<br />

could for him.<br />

—Lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2011<br />

Educators & Advisors<br />

Since government has<br />

grown increasingly<br />

complex, having to<br />

deal with new<br />

technologies, the task<br />

of writing rules has<br />

become more<br />

complex.<br />

"Government has<br />

grown so complex that<br />

it is a virtual certainty<br />

that more than one<br />

agency would be<br />

affected by any piece<br />

of legislation,"<br />

according to one view.<br />

Lobbyists, therefore,<br />

spend considerable<br />

time learning the ins and outs of issues, and can use their expertise to educate<br />

lawmakers and help them cope with difficult issues. Lobbyists' knowledge has been<br />

considered to be an intellectual subsidy for lawmakers. Some lobbyists become<br />

specialists with expertise in a particular set of issues, although one study suggested that<br />

of two competing criteria for lobbyists—expertise or access—that access was far more<br />

important.<br />

Lobby groups and their members sometimes also write legislation and whip bills, and in<br />

these instances, it is helpful to have lawyers skilled in writing legislation to assist with<br />

these efforts. It is often necessary to research relevant laws and issues beforehand. In<br />

many instances lobbyists write the actual text of the proposed law, and hire lawyers to<br />

"get the language down pat"—an omission in wording or an unclear phrase may open<br />

up a loophole for opponents to wrangle over for years. And lobbyists can often advise a<br />

lawmaker on how to navigate the approval process.<br />

Page 64 of 183


Lobbying firms can serve as mentors and guides. For example, after months of<br />

protesting by the Occupy Wall Street, one lobbying firm prepared a memo to its clients<br />

warning that Republicans may "turn on big banks, at least in public" which may have the<br />

effect of "altering the political ground for years to come." Here are parts of the memo<br />

which were broadcast on the MSNBC network.<br />

Leading Democratic party strategists have begun to openly discuss the benefits of embracing<br />

the growing and increasingly organized Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement ... This would<br />

mean more than just short-term discomfort for<br />

Wall Street firms. If vilifying the leading<br />

companies of this sector is allowed to become<br />

an unchallenged centerpiece of a coordinated<br />

Democratic campaign, it has the potential to<br />

have very long-lasting political, policy and<br />

financial impacts on the companies in the center<br />

of the bullseye. ... the bigger concern should be<br />

that Republicans will no longer defend Wall<br />

Street companies...<br />

—Clark, Lytle, Geduldig, Cranford, law/lobbying<br />

firm, to a Wall Street client<br />

Effectiveness<br />

<strong>The</strong> general consensus view is that<br />

lobbying generally works overall in<br />

achieving sought-after results for clients,<br />

particularly since it has become so<br />

prevalent with substantial and growing<br />

budgets, although there are dissenting<br />

views. A study by the investmentresearch<br />

firm Strategas which was cited<br />

in <strong>The</strong> Economist and the Washington<br />

Post compared the 50 firms that spent<br />

the most on lobbying relative to their<br />

assets, and compared their financial<br />

performance against that of the S&P<br />

500 in the stock market; the study<br />

concluded that spending on lobbying<br />

was a "spectacular investment" yielding<br />

"blistering" returns comparable to a<br />

high-flying hedge fund, even despite the<br />

financial downturn of the past few years.<br />

A 2009 study by University of Kansas<br />

professor Raquel Meyer Alexander<br />

suggested that lobbying brought a<br />

substantial return on investment. A 2011<br />

meta-analysis of previous research<br />

findings found a positive correlation<br />

between corporate political activity and<br />

firm performance.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is widespread agreement that a<br />

key ingredient in effective lobbying is<br />

money. This view is shared by players in<br />

the lobbying industry.<br />

Deep pockets speak; the money<br />

trumps it all.<br />

—Anonymous lobbyist, 2002<br />

Page 65 of 183


Still, effectiveness can vary depending<br />

on the situational context. One view is<br />

that large multiple-issue lobbies tend to<br />

be effective in getting results for their<br />

clients if they are sophisticated,<br />

managed by a legislative director<br />

familiar with the art of compromise, and<br />

play "political hardball". But if such<br />

lobbies became too big, such as large<br />

industrial trade organizations, they<br />

became harder to control, often leading<br />

to lackluster results. A study in 2001<br />

which compared lobbying activity in USstyle<br />

congressional against Europeanstyle<br />

parliamentary systems, found that<br />

in congressional systems there was an<br />

advantage favoring the "agendasetters",<br />

but that in both systems,<br />

"lobbying has a marked effect on<br />

policies". One report suggested that the<br />

1,000 registered lobbyists in California<br />

were highly influential such that they<br />

were called the Third House.<br />

Studies of lobbying by academics in<br />

previous decades painted a picture of<br />

lobbying being an ineffectual activity,<br />

although many of these studies were<br />

done before lobbying became prevalent<br />

in American politics. A study in 1963 by<br />

Bauer, Pool, & Dexter suggested<br />

lobbyists were mostly "impotent" in<br />

exerting influence. Studies in the early<br />

1990s suggested that lobbying exerted<br />

influence only "marginally", although it<br />

suggested that when lobbying activity<br />

did achieve political impacts, that the<br />

results of the political choices were<br />

sufficient to justify the expenditure on<br />

lobbying. A fairly recent study in 2009 is<br />

that Washington lobbies are "far less<br />

influential than political rhetoric<br />

suggests", and that most lobbying<br />

campaigns do not change any views<br />

and that there was a strong<br />

entrenchment of the status quo. But it<br />

depends on what is seen as "effective",<br />

since many lobbying battles result in a<br />

stalemate, since powerful interests<br />

battle, and in many cases, merely<br />

keeping the "status quo" could be seen<br />

as a victory of sorts. What happens<br />

often is that varying coalitions find<br />

themselves in "diametrical opposition to<br />

each other" and that stalemates result.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is anecdotal evidence from<br />

numerous newspaper accounts of<br />

different groups battling that lobbying<br />

activity usually achieves results. For<br />

example, the Obama administration<br />

pledged to stop for-profit colleges from<br />

"luring students with false promises", but<br />

with this threat, the lobbying industry<br />

sprang into action with a $16 million<br />

campaign, and their efforts succeeded<br />

in watering down the proposed<br />

restrictions.<br />

How did the lobbying campaign<br />

succeed? Actions taken included:<br />

1. Spent $16 million;<br />

2. Hired "all-star list" of prominent<br />

players including Democrats<br />

with White House ties;<br />

3. Plotted strategy;<br />

4. Worked with "fund-raising<br />

bundler" Jamie Rubin, a former<br />

Obama communications<br />

director;<br />

5. Won support from influential<br />

people<br />

including<br />

congressperson-turned-lobbyist<br />

Dick Gephardt, senator-turnedlobbyist<br />

John Breaux, lobbyist<br />

Tony Podesta, Washington Post<br />

CEO Donald E. Graham,<br />

education entrepreneur and<br />

University of Phoenix founder<br />

John Sperling, others;<br />

Page 66 of 183


6. Key leaders made "impassioned<br />

appeals";<br />

7. Mobilization effort produced<br />

90,000 public documents to the<br />

Education department<br />

advocating against changes.<br />

And sometimes merely keeping the<br />

status quo could be seen as a victory.<br />

When gridlock led to the supposed<br />

supercommittee solution, numerous<br />

lobbyists from all parts of the political<br />

spectrum worked hard, and a stalemate<br />

resulted, but with each side defended<br />

their own special interests. And while<br />

money is an important variable, it is one<br />

among many variables, and there have<br />

been instances in which huge sums<br />

have been spent on lobbying only to<br />

have the result backfire. One report<br />

suggested that the communications firm<br />

AT&T failed to achieve substantial<br />

results from its lobbying efforts in 2011,<br />

since government antitrust officials<br />

rejected its plan to acquire rival T-<br />

Mobile.<br />

Lobbying is a practical necessity for<br />

firms that "live and die" by government<br />

decisions, such as large government<br />

contractors such as Boeing. A study<br />

done in 2006 by Bloomberg News<br />

suggested that lobbying was a "sound<br />

money-making strategy" for the 20<br />

largest federal contractors. <strong>The</strong> largest<br />

contractor, Lockheed Martin<br />

Corporation, received almost $40 billion<br />

in federal contracts in 2003-4, and spent<br />

$16 million on lobbying expenses and<br />

campaign donations. For each dollar of<br />

lobbying investment, the firm received<br />

$2,517 in revenues, according to the<br />

report. When the lobbying firm Cassidy<br />

& Associates began achieving results<br />

with earmarks for colleges and<br />

universities and medical centers, new<br />

lobbying firms rose to compete with<br />

them to win "earmarks of their own", a<br />

clear sign that the lobbying was<br />

exceedingly effective.<br />

Controversy<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is general consensus that lobbying<br />

has been a significant corrupting influence<br />

in American politics, although criticism is<br />

not universal, and there have been<br />

arguments put forward to suggest that the<br />

system is working properly.<br />

Unfavorable Image<br />

Generally the image of lobbyists and<br />

lobbying in the public sphere is not a<br />

positive one, although this is not a universal<br />

sentiment. Lobbyists have been described<br />

as a "hired gun" without principles or<br />

positions. Scandals involving lobbying have<br />

helped taint the image of the profession,<br />

Page 67 of 183


such as ones involving Jack Abramoff, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and Bob Ney and<br />

others, and which featured words such as "bribery", "lobbyist", "member of Congress"<br />

and "prison" tending to appear together in the same articles. Negative publicity can sully<br />

lobbying's image to a great extent: high-profile cases of lobbying fraud such as<br />

Abramoff's; dubious father-son exchange-of-favors ties; public officials such as Newt<br />

Gingrich being accused and then denying accusations of having done lobbying and<br />

earning $1.6 million from "strategic advice". <strong>The</strong>re are a variety of reasons why lobbying<br />

has acquired a negative image in public consciousness. While there is much disclosure,<br />

much of it happens in hard-to-disclose personal meetings, and the resulting secrecy and<br />

confidentiality can serve to lower lobbying's status.<br />

Revolving door<br />

Since the 1980s, congresspersons and staffers have been "going downtown"—<br />

becoming lobbyists—and the big draw is money. <strong>The</strong> "lucrative world of K Street"<br />

means that former congresspersons with even "modest seniority" can move into jobs<br />

paying $1 million or more annually, without including bonuses for bringing in new<br />

clients. <strong>The</strong> general concern of this revolving-door activity is that elected officials—<br />

persons who were supposed to represent the interests of citizens—have instead<br />

become entangled with the big-money interests of for-profit corporations and interest<br />

groups with narrow concerns, and that public officials have been taken over by private<br />

interests.<br />

In July 2005, Public Citizen published a report entitled "<strong>The</strong> Journey from<br />

Congress to K Street": the report analyzed hundreds of lobbyist registration<br />

documents filed in compliance with <strong>The</strong> Lobbying Disclosure Act and <strong>The</strong><br />

Foreign Agents Registration Act among other sources. It found that since<br />

1998, 43 percent of the 198 members of Congress who left government to join<br />

private life have registered to lobby. A similar report from the Center for Responsive<br />

Politics found 370 former members were in the "influence-peddling business", with 285<br />

officially registered as federal lobbyists, and 85 others who were described as providing<br />

"strategic advice" or "public relations" to corporate clients. <strong>The</strong> Washington Post<br />

described these results as reflecting the "sea [of] change that has occurred in<br />

lawmakers' attitudes toward lobbying in recent years." <strong>The</strong> report included a case study<br />

of one particularly successful lobbyist, Bob Livingston, who stepped down as Speakerelect<br />

and resigned his seat in 1999. In the six years since his resignation, <strong>The</strong><br />

Livingston Group grew into the 12th largest non-law lobbying firm, earning nearly $40<br />

million by the end of 2004. During roughly the same time period, Livingston, his wife,<br />

and his two political action committees (PACs) contributed over $500,000 to the<br />

campaign funds of various candidates.<br />

Numerous reports chronicle the revolving door phenomenon. A 2011 estimate<br />

suggested that nearly 5,400 former congressional staffers had become federal<br />

lobbyists over a ten-year period, and 400 lawmakers made a similar jump. It is a<br />

"symbiotic relationship" in the sense that lobbying firms can exploit the "experience and<br />

Page 68 of 183


connections gleaned from working inside the legislative process", and lawmakers find a<br />

"ready pool of experienced talent." <strong>The</strong>re is movement in the other direction as well: one<br />

report found that 605 former lobbyists had taken jobs working for lawmakers over a tenyear<br />

period. A study by the London School of Economics found 1,113 lobbyists who had<br />

formerly worked in lawmakers' offices. <strong>The</strong> lobbying option is a way for staffers and<br />

lawmakers to "cash in on their experience", according to one view. Before the 1980s,<br />

staffers and aides worked many years for congresspersons, sometimes decades, and<br />

tended to stay in their jobs; now, with the lure of higher-paying lobbying jobs, many<br />

would quit their posts after a few years at most to "go downtown."<br />

And it is not just staffers, but lawmakers as well, including high-profile ones such as<br />

congressperson Richard Gephardt. He represented a "working-class" district in<br />

Missouri for many years but after leaving Congress, he became a lobbyist. In<br />

2007, he began his own lobbying firm called "Gephardt Government Affairs<br />

Group" and in 2010 it was earning close to $7 million in revenues with clients<br />

including Goldman Sachs, Boeing, Visa Inc., Ameren Corporation, and Waste<br />

Management Inc.<br />

Senators Robert Bennett and Byron Dorgan became lobbyists too. Mississippi governor<br />

Haley Barbour became a lobbyist. In 2010, former representative Billy Tauzin earned<br />

$11 million running the drug industry's lobbying organization. called the Pharmaceutical<br />

Research and Manufacturers of America. Many former representatives earned over $1<br />

million in one year, including James Greenwood and Daniel Glickman.<br />

Insider's game<br />

A similar concern voiced by critics of lobbying is that Washington politics has become<br />

dominated by elites, and that it is an "insider's game" excluding regular citizens and<br />

which favors entrenched firms. Individuals generally can not afford to lobby, and critics<br />

question whether corporations with "deeper pockets" should have greater power than<br />

regular persons. In this view, the system favors the rich, such that the "rich have gotten<br />

richer, the weak weaker", admits lobbyist Gerald Cassidy. <strong>The</strong>re is concern that those<br />

having more money and better political connections can exert more influence than<br />

others. However, analyst Barry Hessenius made a case that the excessive for-profit<br />

lobbying could be counteracted if there were more efforts to increase nonprofit lobbying<br />

and boost their effectiveness. <strong>The</strong>re is so much money that it has been described as a<br />

"flood" that has a "corrupting influence", so that the United States appears to be<br />

"awash" in interest groups. If coalitions of different forces battle in the political arena for<br />

favorable treatment and better rules and tax breaks, it can be seen as fair if both sides<br />

have equal resources and try to fight for their interests as best they can. Gerald Cassidy<br />

said:<br />

In a lot of areas, the stakes are between big companies, and it's hard to argue that one solution<br />

is better than another solution with regard to the consumer's interest ... <strong>The</strong> issue ... is whether<br />

Company A's solution, or Company B's solution, based on their technology or their footprint, is<br />

the right one.<br />

Page 69 of 183


—Lobbyist Gerald Cassidy<br />

A related but slightly different criticism is that the problem with lobbying as it exists<br />

today is that it creates an "inequity of access to the decision-making process". As a<br />

result, important needs get left out of the political evaluation, such that there are no antihunger<br />

lobbies or lobbies seeking serious solutions to the problem of poverty. Nonprofit<br />

advocacy has been "conspicuously absent" from lobbying efforts, according to one<br />

view. Critics suggest that when a powerful coalition battles a less powerful one, or one<br />

which is poorly connected or underfunded, the result may be seen as unfair and<br />

potentially harmful for the entire society. <strong>The</strong> increasing number of former lawmakers<br />

becoming lobbyists has led Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) to propose paring back the<br />

many Capitol Hill privileges enjoyed by former senators and representatives. His plan<br />

would deprive lawmakers-turned-lobbyists of privileges such as unfettered access to<br />

otherwise "members only" areas such as the House and Senate floors and the House<br />

gym.<br />

Reform<br />

Critics suggest that Congress has the<br />

power to fix itself, but is reluctant to<br />

sacrifice money and power. One report<br />

suggested that those in control had an<br />

"unbroken record of finding ways to<br />

navigate around reform laws or turn<br />

Page 70 of 183


egulatory standards to their own<br />

advantage."<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are counterarguments that the<br />

system is working as it should, despite<br />

being rather messy. According to this<br />

line of argument, the Madisonian view of<br />

politics—in which factions were<br />

supposed to compete with other<br />

factions—is working exactly as it should.<br />

Competing factions, or in this case,<br />

competing interest groups, square off.<br />

Battling happens within the federal<br />

government, but instead of by settling<br />

arguments by elections, arguments are<br />

settled by powerful interest groups<br />

fighting each other, often financially.<br />

And it might appear to members of<br />

groups which lost in a lobbying battle<br />

that the reason for their loss was that<br />

the other side lobbied unfairly using<br />

more money. <strong>The</strong>re are numerous<br />

instances in which opposed lobbies<br />

stalemate, and instances in which these<br />

stalemates have been seen as a<br />

positive result. And sometimes powerful<br />

financial interests lose the battle.<br />

Lobbying brings valuable information to<br />

policymakers, according to another<br />

argument in favor of lobbying. Since<br />

lobbyists often become highly<br />

knowledgeable about a specific issue by<br />

studying it in depth over years, they can<br />

bring considerable expertise to help<br />

legislators avoid errors as well as grasp<br />

the nuances of complex issues. This<br />

information can also help Congress<br />

oversee numerous federal agencies<br />

which often regulate complex industries<br />

and issue highly detailed and specific<br />

rulings. Accordingly, it is difficult for<br />

Congress to keep track of what these<br />

agencies do. It has been argued that<br />

lobbyists can help Congress monitor this<br />

activity by possibly raising "red flags"<br />

about proposed administrative rulings.<br />

Further, congresspersons can quickly<br />

gauge where they stand about a<br />

proposed administrative ruling simply by<br />

seeing which lobbying groups support<br />

the proposal, and which oppose it.<br />

Another argument in support of lobbying<br />

is that different interest groups and<br />

lobbyists, while trying to build coalitions<br />

and win support, often amend or soften<br />

or change their positions in this process,<br />

and that interest groups and lobbyists<br />

regulate each other, in a sense.<br />

But a more general sentiment<br />

supporting the lobbying arrangement is<br />

that every citizen can be construed as<br />

being "represented" by dozens of<br />

special interests:<br />

Every citizen is a special interest...<br />

Blacks, consumers, teachers, prochoicers,<br />

gun control advocates,<br />

handicapped people, aliens, exporters,<br />

and salesmen -- are all special interests...<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is not an American today who is not<br />

represented (whether he or she knows it<br />

or not) by at least a dozen special interest<br />

groups. ... One person's special interest is<br />

another person's despotism...<br />

—Donald E. deKieffer, <strong>The</strong> Citizen's<br />

Guide to Lobbying Congress, 2007<br />

If powerful groups such as the oil<br />

industry succeed in winning a battle in<br />

government, consumers who drive gaspowered<br />

cars stand to benefit a little bit,<br />

according to this view. Even readers of<br />

Wikipedia could be conceived as being<br />

a special interest and represented by<br />

various lobbies. For example,<br />

opponents of the Stop Online Piracy Act<br />

believed that the act might restrict sites<br />

such as Wikipedia; on January 18,<br />

2012, as a form of protest and as a way<br />

to encourage readers and contributors<br />

of Wikipedia to write their<br />

Page 71 of 183


congresspersons, the online<br />

encyclopedia was "blacked out for a day<br />

as part of an effort to lobby the<br />

government.<br />

Another view in support of lobbying is<br />

that it serves a helpful purpose as<br />

helping guard against extremism.<br />

According to this view, lobbying adds<br />

"built-in delays" and permits and<br />

encourages opposing lobbies to battle.<br />

In the battling, possibly damaging<br />

decrees and incorrect decisions are<br />

stymied by seemingly unhelpful delays<br />

and waits.<br />

A slightly different view is that lobbying<br />

is no different from other professions:<br />

Lobbying is no more perfect than is the practice<br />

of law or the practice of medicine.<br />

—Lobbyist Gerald S. J. Cassidy, 2007<br />

<strong>The</strong> Lobbying Disclosure Act<br />

<strong>The</strong> Lobbying and Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. § 1601) was<br />

legislation aimed at bringing a level of accountability to federal lobbying<br />

practices in the United States. <strong>The</strong> law was amended substantially by<br />

the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Under<br />

provisions which took effect on January 1, 2006, lobbyists are required<br />

to register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the<br />

Secretary of the Senate. Anyone failing to do so is punishable by a civil<br />

fine of up to $50,000. <strong>The</strong> clerk and secretary must refer any acts of<br />

non-compliance to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.<br />

<strong>The</strong> LDA defines a number of provisions attempting to maintain a degree of<br />

transparency in the activities of lobbyists. <strong>The</strong> legislation defines a client as "any person<br />

or entity that employs or retains another person for financial or other compensation to<br />

conduct lobbying activities on behalf of that person or entity. A person or entity whose<br />

employees act as lobbyists on its own behalf is both a client and an employer of such<br />

employees". <strong>The</strong> legislation also includes lobbyists that are affected: "<strong>The</strong> term<br />

"lobbyist" means any individual who is employed or retained by a client for financial or<br />

other compensation for services that include more than one lobbying contact, other than<br />

an individual whose lobbying activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time<br />

engaged in the services provided by such individual to that client over a six-month<br />

period". Also included in the legislation are the definitions of what actions must be<br />

disclosed which includes lobbying to certain members of the Executive Branch who are<br />

included on specific payrolls. Also included are members of Congress.<br />

Loopholes<br />

<strong>The</strong> legislation does not include those lobbyists whose "activities constitute less than 20<br />

percent of the time engaged in services", thus failing to regulate grassroots (small<br />

donors) lobbying. <strong>The</strong> LDA includes a number of other "thresholds" that define what<br />

must be recorded. Any organization that contributes more than $10,000 towards<br />

Page 72 of 183


lobbying activities must also be registered. Amounts even slightly below this threshold<br />

are exempt from reporting. <strong>The</strong> outline for registration includes "name, address,<br />

business telephone number, and principal place of business of the registrant, and a<br />

general description of its business or activities", as well as for the client. <strong>The</strong> register<br />

must also include a statement of what issues the registrant expects to lobby or what<br />

may have already been lobbied.<br />

After recording, the records are maintained by the Clerk of the House and the Secretary<br />

of the Senate. Due to severe understaffing, these two offices are unable to check for<br />

illegal activities or corrupt practices, which is the most glaring shortcoming of the<br />

legislation.<br />

During a hearing before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senator<br />

Christopher Dodd stated that “[s]".Θ< the Office of Public Records has referred over<br />

2,000 cases to the Department of Justice, and nothing’s been heard from them again”.<br />

Disclosure and Domestic Regulations<br />

Generally, the United States requires systematic disclosure of lobbying, and it may be<br />

one of the few countries to have such extensive requirements. Disclosure in one sense<br />

allows lobbyists and public officials to justify their actions under the banner of openness<br />

and with full compliance of the law. <strong>The</strong> rules often specify how much a lobbyist can<br />

spend on specific activities, and how to report expenses; many of the laws and<br />

guidelines are specified in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Transparency and<br />

disclosure requirements mean that there are volumes of statistics available for all kinds<br />

of analyses—by journalists, by the public, by rival lobbying efforts. Researchers can<br />

subdivide lobbying expenditures by numerous breakdowns, such as by contributions<br />

from energy companies.<br />

Sometimes defining clearly who is a "lobbyist" and what precisely are lobbying activities<br />

can be difficult. According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, several authorized definitions<br />

include:<br />

• Lobbying activities means "lobbying contacts and efforts in support of such<br />

contacts, including preparation and planning activities, research and other<br />

background work that is intended, at the time it is performed, for use in contacts,<br />

and coordination with the lobbying activities of others."<br />

• Lobbying contact means "any oral or written communication (including an<br />

electronic communication) to a covered executive branch official or a covered<br />

legislative branch official".<br />

Still, distinguishing lobbyists from a strategic adviser can be difficult, since the duties of<br />

each can often overlap and are hard to define precisely. <strong>The</strong>re have been issues raised<br />

about what constitutes the difference between a lobbyist and a bundler; one report<br />

described bundlers as "supporters who contribute their own money to his campaign and<br />

solicit it from others", and there was a question whether such persons were really<br />

Page 73 of 183


lobbyists involved with raising campaign monies for the election of Barack Obama, and<br />

whether Obama had broken his own pledge not to receive money from lobbyists. <strong>The</strong><br />

legal ramifications of lobbying are further intertangled with aspects of campaign finance<br />

reform, since lobbyists often spend time seeking donations for the reelection efforts of<br />

congresspersons; sorting out these issues can pose ethical challenges.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are numerous regulations governing the practice of lobbying, often ones requiring<br />

transparency and disclosure. People paid to lobby must register with the secretary of<br />

the Senate and the clerk of the House of Representatives within 45 days of contacting a<br />

legislator for the first time, or 45 days after being employed. An exception is that<br />

lobbyists who earn less than $3,000 per client for each fiscal quarter, or whose total<br />

lobbying expenses are less than $11,500 each quarter, do not need to register. Parttime<br />

lobbyists are exempt from registering unless they spend more than 20% of their<br />

working hours doing lobbying activities in any quarter. If lobbyists have two or more<br />

contacts with a legislator as a lobbyist, then they must register. Requirements for<br />

registering also apply to companies that specialize in lobbying, or ones that have an inhouse<br />

lobbyist, particularly if they spend more than $11,500 on lobbying. Generally,<br />

nonprofit organizations, other than churches, are exempt from registering if they hire an<br />

outside lobbying firm. Filing must be made each quarter, and a separate file is needed<br />

for each of the lobbyist's clients, and include information such as the name and title of<br />

the client, an estimate of lobbying expenses, and an estimate of income the lobbyist<br />

achieved after doing the lobbying.<br />

States, in addition, are moving in the direction of greater disclosure and transparency<br />

regarding lobbying activities. California has an online database called Cal-Access<br />

although there were reports that it has been underfunded. Money collected from<br />

registration fees are often used to pay for the disclosure services such as Cal-Access.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re were complaints in Illinois that the disclosure requirements were often not<br />

rigorous enough and allowed lobbyists to work "without public notice" and with possible<br />

"conflicts of interest". Many local municipalities are requiring legislative agents register<br />

as lobbyists to represent the interests of clients to local city council members such as in<br />

the swing state of Ohio cities such as Columbus and Cincinnati.<br />

Laws requiring disclosure have been more prevalent in the twentieth century. In 1946,<br />

there was a so-called "sunshine law" requiring lobbyists to disclose what they were<br />

doing, on whose behalf, and how much they received in payment. <strong>The</strong> resulting Federal<br />

Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 governed lobbying rules up until 1995 when the<br />

Lobbying Disclosure Act replaced it. <strong>The</strong> Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, later<br />

amended in 2002 as the McCain Feingold Act, had rules governing campaign<br />

contributions. Each branch of Congress has rules as well. Legislation generally requires<br />

reports containing an accounting of major expenditures as well as legislation that was<br />

influenced; the wording of some of the pertinent laws can be found in 2 U.S.C. ch. 26.<br />

Lobbying law is a constantly evolving field; the American Bar Association published a<br />

book of guidelines in 2009 with over 800 pages. <strong>The</strong> laws are often rather specific, and<br />

when not observed, can lead to serious trouble. Failing to file a quarterly report, or<br />

Page 74 of 183


knowingly filing an incorrect report, or failing to correct an incorrect report, can lead to<br />

fines up to $200,000 and imprisonment up to five years. Penalties can apply to lobbyists<br />

who fail to list gifts made to a legislator. In other situations, the punishment can be light:<br />

for example, Congressional aide-turned-lobbyist Fraser Verrusio spent a few hours in<br />

jail after pleading guilty to report taking a client to a World Series baseball game and<br />

failing to report it. Tax rules can apply to lobbying. In one situation, the charity Hawaii<br />

Family Forum risked losing its tax-exempt status after it had engaged in lobbying<br />

activity; federal tax law requires charities such as that one to limit their lobbying to 20%<br />

of their overall expenditures or else be eligible for being taxed like a for-profit<br />

corporation.<br />

Lobbyists sometimes support rules requiring greater transparency and disclosure:<br />

Our profession is at a critical point where we can either embrace the constructive changes and<br />

reforms by Congress or we can seek out loopholes and continue the slippery slide into history<br />

along side the ranks of snake oil salesmen.<br />

—Lobbyist Gerald S. J. Cassidy, 2007<br />

Scandals can spur impetus towards greater regulation as well. <strong>The</strong> Jack Abramoff<br />

Indian lobbying scandal, which started in the 1990s and led to a guilt plea in 2006,<br />

inspired the 'Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006' (S. 2349).<br />

According to Time Magazine the Senate bill:<br />

1. barred lobbyists themselves from buying gifts and meals for legislators, but left a<br />

loophole in which firms and organizations represented by those lobbyists could<br />

still dole out gifts and perks;<br />

Page 75 of 183


2. allowed privately funded trips if lawmakers got prior approval from a<br />

commissioned ethics committee;<br />

3. required lobbyists to file frequent and detailed activity reports and have them<br />

posted publicly. <strong>The</strong> bill was approved in 2006 by a 90-8 vote.<br />

In 1995, the 104th Congress tried to reform Lobbying by passing the Lobbying<br />

Disclosure Act of 1995 which defines and requires lobbyists who are compensated for<br />

their actions to register with congressional officials. <strong>The</strong> legislation was later amended<br />

by the Lobbying Disclosure Technical Amendments Act of 1998. <strong>The</strong>re were<br />

subsequent modifications leading to the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act<br />

of 2007. <strong>The</strong> Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006 (H.R. 4975)<br />

legislation modified Senate rules, although some senators and a coalition of goodgovernment<br />

groups assailed the bill as being too weak. <strong>The</strong> Honest Leadership and<br />

Open Government Act of 2007 was a comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform bill,<br />

(H.R. 2316), which passed in 2007 in the House and Congress by a large majority. A<br />

parallel Senate version of the legislation, (S. 1), passed in 2007 by a nearly unanimous<br />

vote. After the House & Senate resolved their differences and passed an amended<br />

revision, President Bush signed the enrolled bill into law (Pub.L. 110–81).<br />

Some states have considered banning government employees permanently from<br />

lobbying on issues they had worked on. For example, there was a proposal along these<br />

lines to prevent county employees in Maryland from ever lobbying on issues they had<br />

worked on. <strong>The</strong> proposal insisted that county officials post financial disclosures as well<br />

as prohibit gifts from contractors.<br />

Jack Abramoff, emerging from prison, has spoken publicly about lobbying. In his view,<br />

regulations designed to rein in the excesses of lobbying have not been effective, and<br />

that reforms and regulations have not cleaned up the system "at all". Abramoff said<br />

lobbyists could "find a way around just about any reform Congress enacted", and gave<br />

an example:<br />

You can't take a congressman to lunch for $25 and buy him a hamburger or a steak or<br />

something like that ... But you can take him to a fund-raising lunch and not only buy him that<br />

steak, but give him $25,000 extra and call it a fund-raiser -- and have all the same access and<br />

all the same interactions with that congressman.<br />

—Jack Abramoff, commenting on 60 Minutes, according to CNN<br />

A similar view suggested that lobbying reform efforts have been "fought tooth and nail to<br />

prevent its passage" since the people with the power to reform would curtail their own<br />

powers and income flows.<br />

Page 76 of 183


US v. Harriss<br />

347 U.S. 612 (1954)<br />

United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (1954), was a U.S. Supreme Court case<br />

applied directly to the Regulation of Lobbying Act.<br />

Lobbyists challenged the Regulation of Lobbying Act for being unconstitutionally vague<br />

and unclear. In Harriss, the Supreme Court responded by upholding the act's<br />

constitutionality, but also by narrowing the scope and application of the act.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Court ruled that the act applies only to paid lobbyists who directly communicate<br />

with members of Congress on pending or proposed federal legislation. This means that<br />

lobbyists who visit with congressional staff members rather than members of Congress<br />

themselves are not considered lobbyists. In addition, the act covers only attempts to<br />

influence the passage or defeat of legislation in Congress, and excludes other<br />

congressional activities. Further, the act applies to and restricts only individuals who<br />

spend at least half of their time lobbying.<br />

Page 77 of 183


…<br />

Page 78 of 183


VI. Critical Thinking<br />

for Transformative Social Impact<br />

Paradigm Shifting<br />

and Change Management<br />

Critical Thinking<br />

Disciplined thinking that is clear, rational,<br />

open-minded, and informed by evidence.<br />

- Dictionary.com<br />

________<br />

<strong>The</strong> National Council for Excellence in<br />

Critical Thinking defines it as the<br />

intellectually disciplined process of actively<br />

and skillfully conceptualizing, applying,<br />

analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating<br />

information gathered from, or generated by,<br />

observation, experience, reflection,<br />

reasoning, or communication, as a guide to<br />

belief and action.<br />

Critical thinking is a rich concept that has<br />

been developing throughout the past 2500<br />

years. <strong>The</strong> term "Critical Thinking" has its<br />

roots in the mid-late 20th century. [<strong>The</strong>re<br />

are] overlapping definitions [that] form a<br />

substantive, trans-disciplinary conception of<br />

critical thinking.<br />

Critical Thinking as Defined by<br />

<strong>The</strong> National Council for Excellence in<br />

Critical Thinking (1987)<br />

A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul, presented at the 8th Annual<br />

International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform (Summer 1987)<br />

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully<br />

conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information<br />

gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or<br />

communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on<br />

Page 79 of 183


universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy,<br />

precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and<br />

fairness.<br />

It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all<br />

reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical<br />

grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences;<br />

objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference.<br />

Critical thinking — in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and<br />

purposes — is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them:<br />

scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking,<br />

economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.<br />

Critical thinking can be seen as having two components:<br />

1. A set of information and belief generating and processing skills, and<br />

2. <strong>The</strong> habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide<br />

behavior.<br />

It is thus to be contrasted with:<br />

1. <strong>The</strong> mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a<br />

particular way in which information is sought and treated;<br />

2. <strong>The</strong> mere possession of a set of skills, because it involves the continual use of them;<br />

and<br />

3. <strong>The</strong> mere use of those skills ("as an exercise") without acceptance of their results.<br />

Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in<br />

selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of<br />

one’s own, or one's groups’, vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed,<br />

however pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fair-mindedness and<br />

intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the<br />

charge of "idealism" by those habituated to its selfish use.<br />

Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to<br />

episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality is therefore typically a matter<br />

of degree and dependent on, among other things, the quality and depth of experience in<br />

a given domain of thinking or with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a<br />

critical thinker through-and-through, but only to such-and-such a degree, with<br />

such-and-such insights and blind spots, subject to such-and-such tendencies<br />

towards self-delusion.<br />

Page 80 of 183


For this reason, the development of critical thinking skills and dispositions is a life-long<br />

endeavor.<br />

Another Brief Conceptualization of Critical Thinking<br />

Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the<br />

highest level of quality in a fair-minded way.<br />

People who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally, reasonably, empathically.<br />

<strong>The</strong>y are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left<br />

unchecked. <strong>The</strong>y strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric<br />

tendencies. <strong>The</strong>y use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers – concepts and<br />

principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking. <strong>The</strong>y work<br />

diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility,<br />

intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in<br />

reason. <strong>The</strong>y realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always<br />

improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning,<br />

human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and<br />

taboos, self-interest, and vested interest. <strong>The</strong>y strive to improve the world in whatever<br />

ways they can and contribute to a more rational, civilized society. At the same time,<br />

they recognize the complexities often inherent in doing so. <strong>The</strong>y avoid thinking<br />

simplistically about complicated issues and strive to appropriately consider the rights and<br />

needs of relevant others. <strong>The</strong>y recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers,<br />

and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement. <strong>The</strong>y embody the<br />

Socratic principle: <strong>The</strong> unexamined life is not worth living , because they realize that<br />

many unexamined lives together result in an uncritical, unjust, dangerous world.<br />

Why Critical Thinking?<br />

<strong>The</strong> Problem<br />

- Linda Elder, September, 2007<br />

Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is<br />

biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life<br />

and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our<br />

thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in<br />

thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.<br />

A Definition<br />

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in<br />

which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of<br />

the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Result<br />

A well cultivated critical thinker:<br />

Page 81 of 183


• Raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;<br />

• Gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it<br />

effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them<br />

against relevant criteria and standards;<br />

• Thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and<br />

• Assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical<br />

consequences; and<br />

• Communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex<br />

problems.<br />

Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and selfcorrective<br />

thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and<br />

mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving<br />

abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.<br />

- Richard Paul and Linda Elder: <strong>The</strong> Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and<br />

Tools<br />

Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008<br />

Critical Thinking Defined<br />

by Edward Glaser<br />

In a seminal study on critical thinking and education in 1941, Edward Glaser defines<br />

critical thinking as follows “<strong>The</strong> ability to think critically, as conceived in this volume,<br />

involves three things:<br />

1. An attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and<br />

subjects that come within the range of one's experiences;<br />

2. Knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning; and<br />

3. Some skill in applying those methods.<br />

Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of<br />

knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to<br />

which it tends. It also generally requires ability to recognize problems, to find workable<br />

means for meeting those problems, to gather and marshal pertinent information, to<br />

recognize unstated assumptions and values, to comprehend and use language with<br />

accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and<br />

evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical<br />

relationships between propositions, to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations,<br />

to put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives, to reconstruct<br />

Page 82 of 183


one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience, and to render accurate<br />

judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life.<br />

- Edward M. Glaser, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking,<br />

Teacher’s College, Columbia University, 1941)<br />

________<br />

Inner-Cities Strategic<br />

Revitalization Planning<br />

Revitalization<br />

Neighborhood Revitalization starts at the<br />

grassroots level — with people in the<br />

community determining the goals for their<br />

neighborhood.<br />

______<br />

It is defined as the process of making<br />

something grow, develop, or become<br />

successful again (e.g. A new indoor<br />

sports arena has played a key role in the<br />

revitalization of its neighborhood).<br />

- Cambridge Dictionaries Online<br />

“Neighborhood Revitalization is the<br />

way of the future and is an essential<br />

element of [our] work. By focusing on<br />

entire neighborhoods, we can greatly<br />

increase our impact.”<br />

— Jonathan Reckford, CEO,<br />

Habitat for Humanity International<br />

Revitalization of Our Inner-Cities Can Transform Our Culture<br />

- by Scruffus<br />

“It is only when the basic needs are met that culture can thrive. Revitalization of our<br />

inner-cities is the innovation that will allow for maximum cultural growth in this country.<br />

Making sure that all Americans have access to opportunity and technology will ensure<br />

future generations of city dwellers do not live in poverty. By investing in these areas,<br />

developers and businesses are investing in the base of this country. Music, art and the<br />

sciences require a healthy, vibrant, and supportive community and the work being done<br />

to rebuild our inner cities is essential to our culture[s] as a whole.”<br />

Page 83 of 183


Spanning the Delaware River, the “Trenton Makes” Bridge in giant neon red letters<br />

proclaims to all, "Trenton Makes, <strong>The</strong> World Takes.". Hearkening back to the time<br />

when Trenton was a center of manufacture, these days the sign seems a bit of an<br />

anachronism. Trenton and many other American cities have decayed to the point that<br />

they are shells of their former selves. Businesses and people slowly disappeared from<br />

American cities over the decades since the sixties. No longer centers of thriving<br />

industry, they are now crime-ridden, politically corrupt, and decaying. Despite this, cities<br />

are now the focus of revitalization efforts. If done properly, revitalization can be a way to<br />

alleviate the poverty and crime suffered in many American inner cities. Revitalization is<br />

a recent innovation that takes advantage of the existing enterprise and infrastructure in<br />

cities and tries to bring value back to the community there. Efforts to revitalize cities<br />

meet with varied success.<br />

It is important to elevate the standard of living for the existing community, not<br />

just shove it aside in the pursuit of a gentrified city. Giving the existing people a<br />

chance at independence raises the standard of living for all residents in the city<br />

and preserves the rich heritage and character of the city.<br />

In the effort to attract people back to the cities, revitalization increases the<br />

independence of all Americans, utilizes existing infrastructure, and encourages cultural<br />

growth.<br />

One cannot speak of a city's and a people's<br />

independence without speaking of their economic<br />

independence. <strong>The</strong> ability of people to obtain jobs<br />

and meet their basic needs is a huge determinant<br />

of how well that people's culture will flourish. It is<br />

difficult to pursue the arts or education if one is<br />

impoverished. <strong>The</strong> rebuilding of inner cities can<br />

raise the quality of life for many Americans by<br />

bringing businesses that provide jobs and<br />

opportunity back to the cities. Also, a city that has<br />

a thriving business community has a healthy tax<br />

base to support its public education system. <strong>The</strong><br />

public school is an integral part of revitalization.<br />

Providing students with a high-quality, technologybased<br />

education prepares them to become<br />

successful, contributing citizens. Inner city school<br />

systems are notorious for their high dropout rates<br />

and general difficulty in producing good students.<br />

By revitalizing inner cities, parents are given<br />

access to jobs and can provide a better home environment for their children.<br />

<strong>The</strong> use of existing infrastructure in revitalization efforts reduces suburban sprawl.<br />

Areas that were long ago developed for housing and business are made attractive<br />

through remodeling, which is less costly and environmentally destructive than building<br />

new homes in the suburbs. Encouraging city living also encourages use of mass transit<br />

Page 84 of 183


systems, decreasing reliance on the automobile. Our current culture is very much<br />

entwined with the automobile. Reduction of our reliance on automobiles is beneficial in<br />

reducing pollutants. Additionally, inner cities have often been characterized as food<br />

deserts, where nutritious, low-cost food is difficult to find because large supermarkets<br />

refuse to build there. Hopefully with the influx of jobs and money to the cities,<br />

supermarkets will follow. Bringing new life to cities will definitely improve the options<br />

available to all residents there.<br />

Cities are where culture, technology and the arts can flourish. <strong>The</strong> exchange of ideas<br />

and open-mindedness to these ideas occurs because of the cosmopolitan nature of<br />

cities. By renewing interest in our cities, we can create dynamic centers of innovation<br />

and technology that are not found in our suburbs. Suburban living has long been cliched<br />

to have sapped the creativity and vitality from our society. <strong>The</strong>re is a grain of truth to<br />

this. Suburbanites often do not meet their neighbors and spend a great deal of time<br />

driving to their destinations. Urban areas, by design, force people to interact with their<br />

surroundings. It is this interaction that allows the acceptance of new ideas that build up<br />

culture.<br />

Page 85 of 183


Page 86 of 183


VII. Ongoing Seminars<br />

and <strong>Workshop</strong>s<br />

<strong>The</strong> Transformative Justice Project<br />

1. Building Resilient Youth – A Multidisciplinary Approach<br />

1. <strong>The</strong> BRY-AMA PowerPoint<br />

2. <strong>The</strong> All-Sports Ministries of …<br />

3. <strong>The</strong> Community Engagement Strategy<br />

4. Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice<br />

5. <strong>The</strong> Economic Impact of Social Programs Development<br />

6. Culturally Relevant Programming<br />

7. Inner-Cities Strategic Revitalization Planning<br />

8. Train Police Friendly<br />

9. Strategic Housing Revitalization<br />

10. Solutions for Homelessness<br />

11. Financial Literacy<br />

12. Concentrated Poverty<br />

13. <strong>The</strong> Effects of De-Industrialization in the US<br />

14. <strong>The</strong> Jobs Training, Educational Redevelopment & Economic Emancipation<br />

<strong>Initiative</strong><br />

15. <strong>The</strong> Second Chance Project<br />

16. <strong>The</strong> Mental Health Group<br />

17. <strong>The</strong> Opioid Crisis in America Series<br />

1. <strong>The</strong> Advocacy Foundation Opioid <strong>Initiative</strong> Partnership (Working Binder)<br />

2. Evidence-Based Solutions at <strong>The</strong> Grassroots Level<br />

3. <strong>The</strong> Drug Culture in <strong>The</strong> US<br />

4. Drug Abuse Among Veterans<br />

5. Drug Abuse Among America’s Teens<br />

6. Alcoholism<br />

7. <strong>The</strong> Economic Consequences of Opioid Addiction in America<br />

18. <strong>The</strong> 21st Century Charter Schools <strong>Initiative</strong><br />

19. <strong>The</strong> Adversity/ Advantage Series:<br />

a) <strong>The</strong> Gift of Adversity<br />

b) Overcoming Dyslexia<br />

c) <strong>The</strong> Gift of Hypersensitivity<br />

d) <strong>The</strong> Advantages of An Attention Deficit<br />

e) <strong>The</strong> Gift of Introspection<br />

f) <strong>The</strong> Gift of Introversion<br />

Page 87 of 183


g) <strong>The</strong> Gift of Spirituality<br />

h) <strong>The</strong> Gift of Transformation<br />

20. <strong>The</strong> Economic Consequences of Homelessness in America<br />

21. Cultural Transformation<br />

22. Gentrification<br />

23. Environmental Racism<br />

24. Generational Progression<br />

25. Predatory Lending<br />

26. Hidden Unemployment<br />

27. Slavery in <strong>The</strong> 21st Century<br />

28. Debt Reduction & Debt Relief<br />

29. <strong>The</strong> Uniform Code of Military Justice<br />

30. Wills, Trusts and Estates<br />

<strong>The</strong> ComeUnity ReEngineering Project<br />

1. C.I.A. (Community Intelligence & Application)<br />

1. Know Now Technologies<br />

2. <strong>The</strong> Regional Education Training and Resource Complex (RETRC)<br />

3. <strong>The</strong> ComeUnity Bridge<br />

4. <strong>The</strong> Triangular Resolution Model<br />

5. F.A.C.E. (Fiduciary Accountability assuring the Capacity to perform Efficiently)<br />

6. <strong>The</strong> Advocacy Foundation Balanced Home Mortgage <strong>Initiative</strong><br />

7. ComeUnity Capacity-Building<br />

<strong>The</strong> Nonprofit Advisors Group<br />

1. <strong>The</strong> 501(c)(3) Acquisition Process<br />

2. Staff & Management Leadership ReEngineering (Change Management)<br />

3. Organizational & Professional Development<br />

4. <strong>The</strong> Economic Empowerment Emancipation Project<br />

5. Evidence-Based Programs Development<br />

6. <strong>The</strong> Inner Circle<br />

7. <strong>The</strong> Board of Directors<br />

8. <strong>The</strong> Advisory Council<br />

9. Strategic Planning<br />

10. Budgeting<br />

11. Fundraising<br />

a) <strong>The</strong> Advocacy Foundation Endowments <strong>Initiative</strong><br />

b) CROWDFUNDING (for Nonprofits)<br />

c) <strong>The</strong> US Stock Market<br />

Page 88 of 183


d) Mass Media for Nonprofits<br />

e) Social Media for Nonprofits<br />

f) UBIT Sustainability <strong>Initiative</strong>s<br />

12. Social Entrepreneurship<br />

13. Social Impact Investing<br />

14. Data-Driven Resource Allocation<br />

15. Nonprofit Confidentiality In <strong>The</strong> Age of Big Data)<br />

16. Community Collaboration<br />

17. Culturally-Relevant Programming<br />

18. Evidence-Based Criteria Training<br />

a) Evidence-Based Programming<br />

b) Evidence-Based Program Application Processing<br />

19. Social Media Development (for Nonprofits)<br />

20. Structuring Subsidiary Entities<br />

21. Social Equity Planning<br />

22. Succession Planning<br />

23. Property Acquisition for Organizational Sustainability<br />

24. Investing for Organizational Sustainability<br />

25. <strong>The</strong> Nonprofit Incubator: for Transformative Social Impact<br />

26. Accountability<br />

27. Nonprofit Transparency<br />

28. Nonprofit Organizational Assessment<br />

29. Organizational Dysfunction<br />

30. <strong>The</strong> Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002<br />

31. Nonprofit Marketing<br />

32. Community Policing<br />

<strong>The</strong> Adolescent Law Group<br />

1. Representation of Juveniles<br />

2. <strong>The</strong> Juvenile Justice Legislative Reform <strong>Initiative</strong><br />

3. <strong>The</strong> Economic Consequences of Legal Decision-Making<br />

4. <strong>The</strong> Landmark Cases In US Juvenile Justice<br />

a. Pennsylvania<br />

b. New Jersey<br />

c. Georgia<br />

5. Unjust Legal Reasoning<br />

6. Opportunity (Disenfranchised) Youth<br />

7. Interpreting the Facts – Blame Remover<br />

8. <strong>The</strong> First Amendment Project<br />

9. <strong>The</strong> Second Amendment Project (Gun Control)<br />

10. <strong>The</strong> Fourth Amendment Project<br />

Page 89 of 183


11. <strong>The</strong> Sixth Amendment Project (Right to Competent Counsel)<br />

12. <strong>The</strong> Eighth Amendment Project (Cruel and Unusual Punishment)<br />

13. Literacy-Based Prison Construction<br />

14. Children of Incarcerated Parents<br />

15. African-American Youth in <strong>The</strong> Juvenile Justice System<br />

16. Latino and Hispanic Youth in <strong>The</strong> Juvenile Justice System<br />

17. Native-American Youth in <strong>The</strong> Juvenile Justice System<br />

18. Racial Profiling<br />

19. Prison-Based Gerrymandering<br />

20. Gang Deconstruction<br />

21. Expungements & Pardons<br />

22. Barriers to Reducing Confinement<br />

23. ReEngineering Juvenile Justice<br />

24. Lobbying for Nonprofits<br />

25. Judicial ReEngineering<br />

26. Alternative Legal Solutions<br />

27. Law for <strong>The</strong> Poor<br />

28. Case Law, Statutory Law, Municipal Ordinances & Policy<br />

29. Organized Crime In <strong>The</strong> New Millennium<br />

30. Judicial Mistakes<br />

<strong>The</strong> Collaborative US/ International<br />

1. Caribbean Direct Investing<br />

a. <strong>The</strong> Advocacy Foundation Coalition for Drug-Free Communities<br />

b. <strong>The</strong> EB-5 Investors Immigration Project<br />

c. International Labor Relations<br />

d. Collaborative Economics and Leveraging<br />

e. Mass Collaboration<br />

2. <strong>The</strong> NuVision Consulting Group<br />

3. Institutional Racism<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>The</strong>ological Law Firm Academy<br />

1. <strong>The</strong> <strong>The</strong>ological Foundations of US Law & Government<br />

2. God’s Will and <strong>The</strong> 21st Century Democratic Process<br />

3. <strong>The</strong> Diversity of <strong>The</strong>ology<br />

4. <strong>The</strong> Scriptural Application to <strong>The</strong> Model Criminal Code<br />

5. <strong>The</strong> Scriptural Application to <strong>The</strong> ABA’s Tort Reform Model<br />

6. <strong>The</strong> Scriptural Application to <strong>The</strong> ABA’s Contracts Reform <strong>Initiative</strong><br />

7. <strong>The</strong> Scriptural Application to <strong>The</strong> ABA’s Property Law Review<br />

8. <strong>The</strong> Scriptural Application to <strong>The</strong> United States Constitution<br />

9. <strong>The</strong> Scriptural Application for Juvenile Justice Reform<br />

10. <strong>The</strong> Scriptural Application for Tort Reform<br />

Page 90 of 183


11. <strong>The</strong> Scriptural Application to Contemporary Legal Process<br />

12. <strong>The</strong> Scriptural Application to <strong>The</strong> Uniform Commercial Code<br />

13. <strong>The</strong> Scriptural Application to <strong>The</strong> Law of Property<br />

14. <strong>The</strong> Scriptural Application to <strong>The</strong> Canons of Ethics<br />

15. Biblical Law and Justice<br />

16. Biblically Responsible Investing<br />

17. Spiritual Rights<br />

18. Acquiesce to Righteousness<br />

19. <strong>The</strong> Ripple Effects of Ministry<br />

Legal Missions International<br />

1. Domestic<br />

2. Foreign<br />

3. International Law & Justice<br />

4. International Criminal Procedure<br />

5. <strong>The</strong> <strong>The</strong>ology of Missions<br />

6. International Legal Evangelism: Intelligence, Reconnaissance & Missions<br />

7. <strong>The</strong> Law of War<br />

8. Conflicts to Watch in <strong>The</strong> New Millennium<br />

9. International Hotspots<br />

10. International Cyber Terrorism<br />

11. Brexit<br />

Page 91 of 183


Notes<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

Page 92 of 183


Notes<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

Page 93 of 183


Page 94 of 183


Attachment A<br />

Why All Churches<br />

Should Be A <strong>508</strong>(c)(1)(a)<br />

Page 95 of 183


Page 96 of 183


Page 97 of 183


Page 98 of 183


Page 99 of 183


Page 100 of 183


Page 101 of 183


Page 102 of 183


Page 103 of 183


Page 104 of 183


Page 105 of 183


Page 106 of 183


Page 107 of 183


Page 108 of 183


Page 109 of 183


Page 110 of 183


Attachment B<br />

IRS Tax Guide for Churches &<br />

Religious Organizations<br />

Page 111 of 183


Page 112 of 183


Page 113 of 183


Page 114 of 183


Page 115 of 183


Page 116 of 183


Page 117 of 183


Page 118 of 183


Page 119 of 183


Page 120 of 183


Page 121 of 183


Page 122 of 183


Page 123 of 183


Page 124 of 183


Page 125 of 183


Page 126 of 183


Page 127 of 183


Page 128 of 183


Page 129 of 183


Page 130 of 183


Page 131 of 183


Page 132 of 183


Page 133 of 183


Page 134 of 183


Page 135 of 183


Page 136 of 183


Page 137 of 183


Page 138 of 183


Page 139 of 183


Page 140 of 183


Page 141 of 183


Page 142 of 183


Page 143 of 183


Page 144 of 183


Page 145 of 183


Page 146 of 183


Page 147 of 183


Page 148 of 183


Page 149 of 183


Page 150 of 183


Page 151 of 183


Page 152 of 183


Attachment C<br />

Lobbying Rules for Houses of Worship<br />

Page 153 of 183


Page 154 of 183


Page 155 of 183


Page 156 of 183


Advocacy Foundation Publishers<br />

Page 157 of 183


Page 158 of 183


Advocacy Foundation Publishers<br />

<strong>The</strong> e-Advocate Quarterly<br />

Page 159 of 183


Issue Title Quarterly<br />

Vol. I 2015 <strong>The</strong> Fundamentals<br />

I<br />

<strong>The</strong> ComeUnity ReEngineering<br />

Project <strong>Initiative</strong><br />

Q-1 2015<br />

II <strong>The</strong> Adolescent Law Group Q-2 2015<br />

III<br />

Landmark Cases in US<br />

Juvenile Justice (PA)<br />

Q-3 2015<br />

IV <strong>The</strong> First Amendment Project Q-4 2015<br />

Vol. II 2016 Strategic Development<br />

V <strong>The</strong> Fourth Amendment Project Q-1 2016<br />

VI<br />

Landmark Cases in US<br />

Juvenile Justice (NJ)<br />

Q-2 2016<br />

VII Youth Court Q-3 2016<br />

VIII<br />

<strong>The</strong> Economic Consequences of Legal<br />

Decision-Making<br />

Q-4 2016<br />

Vol. III 2017 Sustainability<br />

IX <strong>The</strong> Sixth Amendment Project Q-1 2017<br />

X<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>The</strong>ological Foundations of<br />

US Law & Government<br />

Q-2 2017<br />

XI <strong>The</strong> Eighth Amendment Project Q-3 2017<br />

XII<br />

<strong>The</strong> EB-5 Investor<br />

Immigration Project*<br />

Q-4 2017<br />

Vol. IV 2018 Collaboration<br />

XIII Strategic Planning Q-1 2018<br />

XIV<br />

<strong>The</strong> Juvenile Justice<br />

Legislative Reform <strong>Initiative</strong><br />

Q-2 2018<br />

Page 160 of 183


XV<br />

XVI<br />

<strong>The</strong> Advocacy Foundation Coalition<br />

for Drug-Free Communities<br />

Landmark Cases in US<br />

Juvenile Justice (GA)<br />

Q-3 2018<br />

Q-4 2018<br />

Page 161 of 183


Issue Title Quarterly<br />

Vol. V 2019 Organizational Development<br />

XVII <strong>The</strong> Board of Directors Q-1 2019<br />

XVIII <strong>The</strong> Inner Circle Q-2 2019<br />

XIX Staff & Management Q-3 2019<br />

XX Succession Planning Q-4 2019<br />

XXI <strong>The</strong> Budget* Bonus #1<br />

XXII Data-Driven Resource Allocation* Bonus #2<br />

Vol. VI 2020 Missions<br />

XXIII Critical Thinking Q-1 2020<br />

XXIV<br />

<strong>The</strong> Advocacy Foundation<br />

Endowments <strong>Initiative</strong> Project<br />

Q-2 2020<br />

XXV International Labor Relations Q-3 2020<br />

XXVI Immigration Q-4 2020<br />

Vol. VII 2021 Community Engagement<br />

XXVII<br />

<strong>The</strong> 21 st Century Charter Schools<br />

<strong>Initiative</strong><br />

Q-1 2021<br />

XXVIII <strong>The</strong> All-Sports Ministry @ ... Q-2 2021<br />

XXIX Lobbying for Nonprofits Q-3 2021<br />

XXX<br />

XXXI<br />

Advocacy Foundation Missions -<br />

Domestic<br />

Advocacy Foundation Missions -<br />

International<br />

Q-4 2021<br />

Bonus<br />

Page 162 of 183


Vol. VIII<br />

2022 ComeUnity ReEngineering<br />

XXXII<br />

<strong>The</strong> Creative & Fine Arts Ministry<br />

@ <strong>The</strong> Foundation<br />

Q-1 2022<br />

XXXIII <strong>The</strong> Advisory Council & Committees Q-2 2022<br />

XXXIV<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>The</strong>ological Origins<br />

of Contemporary Judicial Process<br />

Q-3 2022<br />

XXXV <strong>The</strong> Second Chance Ministry @ ... Q-4 2022<br />

Vol. IX 2023 Legal Reformation<br />

XXXVI <strong>The</strong> Fifth Amendment Project Q-1 2023<br />

XXXVII <strong>The</strong> Judicial Re-Engineering <strong>Initiative</strong> Q-2 2023<br />

XXXVIII<br />

<strong>The</strong> Inner-Cities Strategic<br />

Revitalization <strong>Initiative</strong><br />

Q-3 2023<br />

XXXVIX Habeas Corpus Q-4 2023<br />

Vol. X 2024 ComeUnity Development<br />

XXXVX<br />

<strong>The</strong> Inner-City Strategic<br />

Revitalization Plan<br />

Q-1 2024<br />

XXXVXI <strong>The</strong> Mentoring <strong>Initiative</strong> Q-2 2024<br />

XXXVXII <strong>The</strong> Violence Prevention Framework Q-3 2024<br />

XXXVXIII <strong>The</strong> Fatherhood <strong>Initiative</strong> Q-4 2024<br />

Vol. XI 2025 Public Interest<br />

XXXVXIV Public Interest Law Q-1 2025<br />

L (50) Spiritual Resource Development Q-2 2025<br />

Page 163 of 183


LI<br />

Nonprofit Confidentiality<br />

In <strong>The</strong> Age of Big Data<br />

Q-3 2025<br />

LII Interpreting <strong>The</strong> Facts Q-4 2025<br />

Vol. XII 2026 Poverty In America<br />

LIII<br />

American Poverty<br />

In <strong>The</strong> New Millennium<br />

Q-1 2026<br />

LIV Outcome-Based Thinking Q-2 2026<br />

LV Transformational Social Leadership Q-3 2026<br />

LVI <strong>The</strong> Cycle of Poverty Q-4 2026<br />

Vol. XIII 2027 Raising Awareness<br />

LVII ReEngineering Juvenile Justice Q-1 2027<br />

LVIII Corporations Q-2 2027<br />

LVIX <strong>The</strong> Prison Industrial Complex Q-3 2027<br />

LX Restoration of Rights Q-4 2027<br />

Vol. XIV 2028 Culturally Relevant Programming<br />

LXI Community Culture Q-1 2028<br />

LXII Corporate Culture Q-2 2028<br />

LXIII Strategic Cultural Planning Q-3 2028<br />

LXIV<br />

<strong>The</strong> Cross-Sector/ Coordinated<br />

Service Approach to Delinquency<br />

Prevention<br />

Q-4 2028<br />

Page 164 of 183


Vol. XV 2029 Inner-Cities Revitalization<br />

LXIV<br />

LXV<br />

LXVI<br />

Part I – Strategic Housing<br />

Revitalization<br />

(<strong>The</strong> Twenty Percent Profit Margin)<br />

Part II – Jobs Training, Educational<br />

Redevelopment<br />

and Economic Empowerment<br />

Part III - Financial Literacy<br />

and Sustainability<br />

Q-1 2029<br />

Q-2 2029<br />

Q-3 2029<br />

LXVII Part IV – Solutions for Homelessness Q-4 2029<br />

LXVIII<br />

<strong>The</strong> Strategic Home Mortgage<br />

<strong>Initiative</strong><br />

Bonus<br />

Vol. XVI 2030 Sustainability<br />

LXVIII Social Program Sustainability Q-1 2030<br />

LXIX<br />

<strong>The</strong> Advocacy Foundation<br />

Endowments <strong>Initiative</strong><br />

Q-2 2030<br />

LXX Capital Gains Q-3 2030<br />

LXXI Sustainability Investments Q-4 2030<br />

Vol. XVII 2031 <strong>The</strong> Justice Series<br />

LXXII Distributive Justice Q-1 2031<br />

LXXIII Retributive Justice Q-2 2031<br />

LXXIV Procedural Justice Q-3 2031<br />

LXXV (75) Restorative Justice Q-4 2031<br />

LXXVI Unjust Legal Reasoning Bonus<br />

Page 165 of 183


Vol. XVIII 2032 Public Policy<br />

LXXVII Public Interest Law Q-1 2032<br />

LXXVIII Reforming Public Policy Q-2 2032<br />

LXXVIX ... Q-3 2032<br />

LXXVX ... Q-4 2032<br />

Page 166 of 183


<strong>The</strong> e-Advocate Monthly Review<br />

2018<br />

Transformational Problem Solving January 2018<br />

<strong>The</strong> Advocacy Foundation February 2018<br />

Opioid <strong>Initiative</strong><br />

Native-American Youth March 2018<br />

In the Juvenile Justice System<br />

Barriers to Reducing Confinement April 2018<br />

Latino and Hispanic Youth May 2018<br />

In the Juvenile Justice System<br />

Social Entrepreneurship June 2018<br />

<strong>The</strong> Economic Consequences of<br />

Homelessness in America S.Ed – June 2018<br />

African-American Youth July 2018<br />

In the Juvenile Justice System<br />

Gang Deconstruction August 2018<br />

Social Impact Investing September 2018<br />

Opportunity Youth: October 2018<br />

Disenfranchised Young People<br />

<strong>The</strong> Economic Impact of Social November 2018<br />

of Social Programs Development<br />

Gun Control December 2018<br />

2019<br />

<strong>The</strong> U.S. Stock Market January 2019<br />

Prison-Based Gerrymandering February 2019<br />

Literacy-Based Prison Construction March 2019<br />

Children of Incarcerated Parents April 2019<br />

Page 167 of 183


African-American Youth in <strong>The</strong> May 2019<br />

Juvenile Justice System<br />

Racial Profiling June 2019<br />

Mass Collaboration July 2019<br />

Concentrated Poverty August 2019<br />

De-Industrialization September 2019<br />

Overcoming Dyslexia October 2019<br />

Overcoming Attention Deficit November 2019<br />

<strong>The</strong> Gift of Adversity December 2019<br />

2020<br />

<strong>The</strong> Gift of Hypersensitivity January 2020<br />

<strong>The</strong> Gift of Introspection February 2020<br />

<strong>The</strong> Gift of Introversion March 2020<br />

<strong>The</strong> Gift of Spirituality April 2020<br />

<strong>The</strong> Gift of Transformation May 2020<br />

Property Acquisition for<br />

Organizational Sustainability June 2020<br />

Investing for Organizational<br />

Sustainability July 2020<br />

Biblical Law & Justice TLFA August 2020<br />

Gentrification AF September 2020<br />

Environmental Racism NpA October 2020<br />

Law for <strong>The</strong> Poor AF November 2020<br />

…<br />

Page 168 of 183


2021<br />

Biblically Responsible Investing TLFA – January 2021<br />

International Criminal Procedure LMI – February 2021<br />

Spiritual Rights TLFA – March 2021<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>The</strong>ology of Missions TLFA – April 2021<br />

Legal Evangelism, Intelligence,<br />

Reconnaissance & Missions LMI – May 2021<br />

<strong>The</strong> Law of War LMI – June 2021<br />

Generational Progression AF – July 2021<br />

…<br />

Page 169 of 183


<strong>The</strong> e-Advocate Quarterly<br />

Special Editions<br />

Crowdfunding Winter-Spring 2017<br />

Social Media for Nonprofits October 2017<br />

Mass Media for Nonprofits November 2017<br />

<strong>The</strong> Opioid Crisis in America: January 2018<br />

Issues in Pain Management<br />

<strong>The</strong> Opioid Crisis in America: February 2018<br />

<strong>The</strong> Drug Culture in the U.S.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Opioid Crisis in America: March 2018<br />

Drug Abuse Among Veterans<br />

<strong>The</strong> Opioid Crisis in America: April 2018<br />

Drug Abuse Among America’s<br />

Teens<br />

<strong>The</strong> Opioid Crisis in America: May 2018<br />

Alcoholism<br />

<strong>The</strong> Economic Consequences of June 2018<br />

Homelessness in <strong>The</strong> US<br />

<strong>The</strong> Economic Consequences of July 2018<br />

Opioid Addiction in America<br />

Page 170 of 183


<strong>The</strong> e-Advocate Journal<br />

of <strong>The</strong>ological Jurisprudence<br />

Vol. I - 2017<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>The</strong>ological Origins of Contemporary Judicial Process<br />

Scriptural Application to <strong>The</strong> Model Criminal Code<br />

Scriptural Application for Tort Reform<br />

Scriptural Application to Juvenile Justice Reformation<br />

Vol. II - 2018<br />

Scriptural Application for <strong>The</strong> Canons of Ethics<br />

Scriptural Application to Contracts Reform<br />

& <strong>The</strong> Uniform Commercial Code<br />

Scriptural Application to <strong>The</strong> Law of Property<br />

Scriptural Application to <strong>The</strong> Law of Evidence<br />

Page 171 of 183


Page 172 of 183


Legal Missions International<br />

Page 173 of 183


Issue Title Quarterly<br />

Vol. I 2015<br />

I<br />

II<br />

God’s Will and <strong>The</strong> 21 st Century<br />

Democratic Process<br />

<strong>The</strong> Community<br />

Engagement Strategy<br />

Q-1 2015<br />

Q-2 2015<br />

III Foreign Policy Q-3 2015<br />

IV<br />

Public Interest Law<br />

in <strong>The</strong> New Millennium<br />

Q-4 2015<br />

Vol. II 2016<br />

V Ethiopia Q-1 2016<br />

VI Zimbabwe Q-2 2016<br />

VII Jamaica Q-3 2016<br />

VIII Brazil Q-4 2016<br />

Vol. III 2017<br />

IX India Q-1 2017<br />

X Suriname Q-2 2017<br />

XI <strong>The</strong> Caribbean Q-3 2017<br />

XII United States/ Estados Unidos Q-4 2017<br />

Vol. IV 2018<br />

XIII Cuba Q-1 2018<br />

XIV Guinea Q-2 2018<br />

XV Indonesia Q-3 2018<br />

XVI Sri Lanka Q-4 2018<br />

Page 174 of 183


Vol. V 2019<br />

XVII Russia Q-1 2019<br />

XVIII Australia Q-2 2019<br />

XIV South Korea Q-3 2019<br />

XV Puerto Rico Q-4 2019<br />

Issue Title Quarterly<br />

Vol. VI 2020<br />

XVI Trinidad & Tobago Q-1 2020<br />

XVII Egypt Q-2 2020<br />

XVIII Sierra Leone Q-3 2020<br />

XIX South Africa Q-4 2020<br />

XX Israel Bonus<br />

Vol. VII 2021<br />

XXI Haiti Q-1 2021<br />

XXII Peru Q-2 2021<br />

XXIII Costa Rica Q-3 2021<br />

XXIV China Q-4 2021<br />

XXV Japan Bonus<br />

Vol VIII 2022<br />

XXVI Chile Q-1 2022<br />

Page 175 of 183


<strong>The</strong> e-Advocate Juvenile Justice Report<br />

______<br />

Vol. I – Juvenile Delinquency in <strong>The</strong> US<br />

Vol. II. – <strong>The</strong> Prison Industrial Complex<br />

Vol. III – Restorative/ Transformative Justice<br />

Vol. IV – <strong>The</strong> Sixth Amendment Right to <strong>The</strong> Effective Assistance of Counsel<br />

Vol. V – <strong>The</strong> <strong>The</strong>ological Foundations of Juvenile Justice<br />

Vol. VI – Collaborating to Eradicate Juvenile Delinquency<br />

Page 176 of 183


<strong>The</strong> e-Advocate Newsletter<br />

Genesis of <strong>The</strong> Problem<br />

Family Structure<br />

Societal Influences<br />

Evidence-Based Programming<br />

Strengthening Assets v. Eliminating Deficits<br />

2012 - Juvenile Delinquency in <strong>The</strong> US<br />

Introduction/Ideology/Key Values<br />

Philosophy/Application & Practice<br />

Expungement & Pardons<br />

Pardons & Clemency<br />

Examples/Best Practices<br />

2013 - Restorative Justice in <strong>The</strong> US<br />

2014 - <strong>The</strong> Prison Industrial Complex<br />

25% of the World's Inmates Are In the US<br />

<strong>The</strong> Economics of Prison Enterprise<br />

<strong>The</strong> Federal Bureau of Prisons<br />

<strong>The</strong> After-Effects of Incarceration/Individual/Societal<br />

<strong>The</strong> Fourth Amendment Project<br />

<strong>The</strong> Sixth Amendment Project<br />

<strong>The</strong> Eighth Amendment Project<br />

<strong>The</strong> Adolescent Law Group<br />

2015 - US Constitutional Issues In <strong>The</strong> New Millennium<br />

Page 177 of 183


2018 - <strong>The</strong> <strong>The</strong>ological Law Firm Academy<br />

<strong>The</strong> <strong>The</strong>ological Foundations of US Law & Government<br />

<strong>The</strong> Economic Consequences of Legal Decision-Making<br />

<strong>The</strong> Juvenile Justice Legislative Reform <strong>Initiative</strong><br />

<strong>The</strong> EB-5 International Investors <strong>Initiative</strong><br />

2017 - Organizational Development<br />

<strong>The</strong> Board of Directors<br />

<strong>The</strong> Inner Circle<br />

Staff & Management<br />

Succession Planning<br />

Bonus #1 <strong>The</strong> Budget<br />

Bonus #2 Data-Driven Resource Allocation<br />

2018 - Sustainability<br />

<strong>The</strong> Data-Driven Resource Allocation Process<br />

<strong>The</strong> Quality Assurance <strong>Initiative</strong><br />

<strong>The</strong> Advocacy Foundation Endowments <strong>Initiative</strong><br />

<strong>The</strong> Community Engagement Strategy<br />

2019 - Collaboration<br />

Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice<br />

International Labor Relations<br />

Immigration<br />

God's Will & <strong>The</strong> 21st Century Democratic Process<br />

<strong>The</strong> Community Engagement Strategy<br />

<strong>The</strong> 21st Century Charter Schools <strong>Initiative</strong><br />

2020 - Community Engagement<br />

Page 178 of 183


Extras<br />

<strong>The</strong> Nonprofit Advisors Group Newsletters<br />

<strong>The</strong> 501(c)(3) Acquisition Process<br />

<strong>The</strong> Board of Directors<br />

<strong>The</strong> Gladiator Mentality<br />

Strategic Planning<br />

Fundraising<br />

501(c)(3) Reinstatements<br />

<strong>The</strong> Collaborative US/ International Newsletters<br />

How You Think Is Everything<br />

<strong>The</strong> Reciprocal Nature of Business Relationships<br />

Accelerate Your Professional Development<br />

<strong>The</strong> Competitive Nature of Grant Writing<br />

Assessing <strong>The</strong> Risks<br />

Page 179 of 183


Page 180 of 183


About <strong>The</strong> Author<br />

John C (Jack) Johnson III<br />

Founder & CEO<br />

Jack was educated at Temple University, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Rutgers<br />

Law School, in Camden, New Jersey. In 1999, he moved to Atlanta, Georgia to pursue<br />

greater opportunities to provide Advocacy and Preventive Programmatic services for atrisk/<br />

at-promise young persons, their families, and Justice Professionals embedded in the<br />

Juvenile Justice process in order to help facilitate its transcendence into the 21 st Century.<br />

<strong>The</strong>re, along with a small group of community and faith-based professionals, “<strong>The</strong> Advocacy Foundation, Inc." was conceived<br />

and developed over roughly a thirteen year period, originally chartered as a Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Educational<br />

Support Services organization consisting of Mentoring, Tutoring, Counseling, Character Development, Community Change<br />

Management, Practitioner Re-Education & Training, and a host of related components.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Foundation’s Overarching Mission is “To help Individuals, Organizations, & Communities Achieve <strong>The</strong>ir Full Potential”, by<br />

implementing a wide array of evidence-based proactive multi-disciplinary "Restorative & Transformative Justice" programs &<br />

projects currently throughout the northeast, southeast, and western international-waters regions, providing prevention and support<br />

services to at-risk/ at-promise youth, to young adults, to their families, and to Social Service, Justice and Mental<br />

Health professionals” everywhere. <strong>The</strong> Foundation has since relocated its headquarters to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and been<br />

expanded to include a three-tier mission.<br />

In addition to his work with the Foundation, Jack also served as an Adjunct Professor of Law & Business at National-Louis<br />

University of Atlanta (where he taught Political Science, Business & Legal Ethics, Labor & Employment Relations, and Critical<br />

Thinking courses to undergraduate and graduate level students). Jack has also served as Board President for a host of wellestablished<br />

and up & coming nonprofit organizations throughout the region, including “Visions Unlimited Community<br />

Development Systems, Inc.”, a multi-million dollar, award-winning, Violence Prevention and Gang Intervention Social Service<br />

organization in Atlanta, as well as Vice-Chair of the Georgia/ Metropolitan Atlanta Violence Prevention Partnership, a state-wide<br />

300 organizational member, violence prevention group led by the Morehouse School of Medicine, Emory University and <strong>The</strong><br />

Original, Atlanta-Based, Martin Luther King Center.<br />

Attorney Johnson’s prior accomplishments include a wide-array of Professional Legal practice areas, including Private Firm,<br />

Corporate and Government postings, just about all of which yielded significant professional awards & accolades, the history and<br />

chronology of which are available for review online. Throughout his career, Jack has served a wide variety of for-profit<br />

corporations, law firms, and nonprofit organizations as Board Chairman, Secretary, Associate, and General Counsel since 1990.<br />

www.<strong>The</strong>AdvocacyFoundation.org<br />

Clayton County Youth Services Partnership, Inc. – Chair; Georgia Violence Prevention Partnership, Inc – Vice Chair; Fayette<br />

County NAACP - Legal Redress Committee Chairman; Clayton County Fatherhood <strong>Initiative</strong> Partnership – Principal<br />

Investigator; Morehouse School of Medicine School of Community Health Feasibility Study - Steering Committee; Atlanta<br />

Violence Prevention Capacity Building Project – Project Partner; Clayton County Minister’s Conference, President 2006-2007;<br />

Liberty In Life Ministries, Inc. – Board Secretary; Young Adults Talk, Inc. – Board of Directors; ROYAL, Inc - Board of<br />

Directors; Temple University Alumni Association; Rutgers Law School Alumni Association; Sertoma International; Our<br />

Common Welfare Board of Directors – President)2003-2005; River’s Edge Elementary School PTA (Co-President); Summerhill<br />

Community Ministries; Outstanding Young Men of America; Employee of the Year; Academic All-American - Basketball;<br />

Church Trustee.<br />

Page 181 of 183


www.<strong>The</strong>AdvocacyFoundation.org<br />

Page 182 of 183


Page 183 of 183

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!