SharonDee

Doncha love it when a plan comes together?

But seriously... I realize that pissing off the fundies was not the main point of the march. It's just so funny when they do the work of demonstrating their own foolishness.

galiel

How did I jump to conclusions, Jeff? You said AA "refused" to join. That is a loaded term. It implies generosity of spirit on your part and parsimony on theirs.

Did you offer for II to join GAPAC?

Your announcement was made October 31. The timing is interesting. GAPAC was announced back in April 2002. I assume there is some dissatisfaction that caused you to choose to create a separate entity.

Can you explain, in affirmative, rather than negative, terms why SecCoalition should be a separate entity? What purpose does it serve that would not be met by joining GAPAC? What parts of the GAPAC agenda do you disagree with? What experience in Washington politics do the leaders of the SecCoalition bring that teh leaders of GAPAC do not?

I ask because my natural inclination would be to work with my fellow ii'ers. But the last thing I want to happen is for our common interests to fall prey to politics as usual.

Krieger

I'm not going to blame either the II or the AA, but I hope that there will only be one PAC.

Toto

I don't see the problem with having two or more PAC's, and I see some advantages. If there is anything you can learn from history or the social sciences, it is that monolithic concentrations of power tend to be inefficient. As long as the two PAC's are not hindering each other's efforts (e.g., by backing different candidates in one race), I don't see a problem.

galiel

Actually, if there is anything you can learn from history it is that minority lobbies do not benifit from duplication of effort, dispersal of limited resources, and lack of a unified message. This is not a matter of "concentrations of power", this is a matter of "concentrations of attempts to influence" power. It is rather ridiculous, IMO, to have two different forces before the battle has even begun.

Secular Jeff

galiel said:
I only have a minute to respond, during a break. I will respond further this evening.

The Internet Infidels were never approached by AA concerning their GAPAC. We never heard about it until yesterday. (We know none of the details. We have simply heard of its existence.) So there is no way that there could have been any dissatisfaction on our part. It is hard to be dissatisfied with something if you do not know of its existence.

Jeff

edited to change an "if" to an "of" (stupid fingers)

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Jeff ]</p>

Bill

I've got it on digital video tape. I'm just installing my editing hardware/software, so I haven't had a chance yet to see what it looks like in my computer, and what I can do with it with my new toys. But I do have the "raw tape" if nothing else.

== Bill

Bill

This is a good question, and it deserves a fair answer.

Actually, several fair answers.

1. If both groups get big, we can benefit by having more than one group because of limits placed on contributions made by any one PAC to any one campaign.

2. As Ellen (and others) noted, there is a broad diversity within the freethought movement. American Atheists has typically had a focus that a good third (to two-thirds) of the total "freethought movement" finds to be (.... searches for a fair word....) "distasteful" to one degree or another. The presence of an alternative allows those who would not contribute to an AA-led effort to still get themselves involved with the Secular Coalition.

3. The Secular Coalition is a spin-off from the Coalition for the Community of Reason, which has been around for three years now. American Atheists has been invited to send at least an observer to each of the six CCR meetings to date, and so far, they have ignored and/or declined each of those invitations. I think it is fair to say that they also have some amount of "distaste" for some of the other groups that exist within our total "movement." Again, I emphasize the comments about diversity within our movement, which came from Ellen herself, among many others.

4. GAPAC was "sprung" upon everybody attending the March. It was a total surprise to everybody that I know. I can't say whether or not the secrecy was any more deliberate than our own secrecy with respect to the Secular Coalition for America, which we "sprung" on the world just a few days before the March, and which still hasn't had its formal inauguration (which I don't know if the GAPAC has had yet, either). But my point here is that it is somewhat unfair for either organization to be accusing the other of refusing to cooperate when both were working in secret for whatever reason(s). To that extent, Jeff "misspoke himself," because it was CCR that American Atheists has refused to join or even send an observer to a meeting to see if they like us or not. If they weren't part of CCR, then they would not know about the Secular Coalition, which currently consists of three of the ten CCR groups, although we expect that a couple of others might join before the end of this month (or year). Not even all CCR groups have any interest in lobbying.

Finally, I'd like to draw some distinctions here that Ellen wasn't very careful with:

1. No 501(c)(3) group can have ANYTHING at all to do with any PAC. It is absolutely and strictly prohibited! So, GAMOW had better not be a 501(c)(3) group or else Ellen and Company are in big doo-doo.

2. HOWEVER, a 501(c)(3) group is allowed (to a certain part of its budget) to form a 501(c)(4) "lobbying" group. That is what the Secular Coalition is; it is a "lobbying group," and it will obtain 501(c)(4) status as a partnership between several 501(c)(3) groups. It must be noted, however, that contributions to 501(c)(3) groups are tax deductable, while contributions to 501(c)(4) groups are not. This is a distinction that ought to be broadcast out by both groups if they appear to be working together in some way.

3. A 501(c)(4) group may, in turn, form a 527 Political Action Committee (PAC). The 527 PAC must be a separate entity from the 501(c)(4), and the 527-PAC may not receive any benefits whatsoever from any 501(c)(3) (at least, nothing that isn't strictly a "market value exchange," like renting an office from a 501(c)(3) on the same basis as any other "commercial customer" of the 501(c)(3); and these deals get to be really tricky, so 501(c)(3)s are well advised to steer clear of them). And of course, political contributions to a 527 PAC are, again, not tax deductable.

4. Its not at all clear what Ellen has done here, but if she did it right, then the Godless Americans group is a 501(c)(4) (not, strictly speaking, a traditional "lobbying" group; but the formal definition of a 501(c)(4) group is much broader than that, and thus the Godless Americans could fit into a 501(c)(4) pigeonhole if the founders wished it to). But if the Godless Americans are a 501(c)(4) group, then Ellen should have told all of those people who tossed money into her pots on Saturday that those contributions were NOT tax deductable. She did not do that, and thus she created at least the appearance of impropriety (by coercing donations under at least the implication that they were eligible for deduction under the American Atheists 501(c)(3) exemption status, when they are not if Godless Americans is a 501(c)(4); OR, if Godless Americans is a 501(c)(3), or is run under the umbrella of the American Atheists 501(c)(3) status, then using the resources of a 501(c)(3) group to promote a PAC in various ways, which Ellen clearly did during the March).

=====

So, another reason for doing it in a separate group is that I want to know that things are being done right by the group that I give my time and money to, and while I don't have a slam-dunk case against Ellen for doing something wrong, it is clear to me that she has at least created the evidence needed to hang her high if the Godless Americans are a 501(c)(3), and to get the Godless Americans in trouble for soliciting contributions as a 501(c)(3) when it is not. Either way, this isn't the way I would want my organizatio to be run.

== Bill

Bill

Let me reiterate: we did not know about the PAC before Saturday. Bobbie Kirkhart of Atheist Alliance (with whom we've been working on the new Secular Coalition, which is a PRELIMINARY STEP towards forming a PAC), first heard about it on Friday, apparently at the Press Conference. I believe that you are confused here. The March was announced back in April, and after we had some time to consider whether American Atheists was really serious this time in reaching out to other organizations, we (the Board of the Internet Infidels) decided to support the Godless March fully and completely.

But for reasons I explained in my most recent prior message, above, the surprise announcement of the PAC actually places the Internet Infidels at some risk because we, as an endorser of the March, could be viewed as supporting a POLITICAL ACTION, and it is ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL for any 501(c)(3) group to support ANY political action. There used to be an FFRF Chapter in Oklahoma. They got disbanded for saying something like "vote for Joe" in one of their Newsletters. The Internet Infidels are now at risk of being attacked by the IRS because we supported a POLITICAL ACTIVITY!

This is why I feal really used; and the leadership of any and all other 501(c)(3) groups who endorsed and/or appears at the March ought to also feel really used by AA.

=====

As I explained in my earlier message, there is a required protocol which must be followed; and for groups like ours, who are not exactly viewed favorably by governmental officials, it behooves us to follow said protocol carefully and explicitly. The protocol calls for a 501(c)(3) group to create a 501(c)(4) group. The 501(c)(4) group can then lobby and create one or more 527 PACs; but there absolutely cannot be ANY involvement of the 501(c)(3) group, even to the extent of lending their "good name" to the 501(c)(4) group, when the 501(c)(4) group performs any activity that is in any way "political."

Ellen did two things that tarnished the Godless March in this regard: <ol type="1">[*]She announced the formation of the PAC as a centerpiece of the main program at the Godless March; and[*]She used the event of the Godless March as a vehicle to solicit people to sign up for the PAC.[/list=a]Now, it would be OK for a 501(c)(4) to do both of those things; but NOT with participation of ANY 501(c)(3) "charity" group!!!

We do not know if the "Godless Americans" group is really a 501(c)(4); and we certainly WERE NOT WARNED that political activity would be taking place during the Godless March. If we had been so warned, we might have felt it necessary to not participate on any official basis (no II banner; no huge advertisement on our home page; nothing that would connect II in any way with the POLITICAL activity that occurred at the Godless March). Our decision to create a separate entity was done in total ignorance of any steps in that direction by American Atheists. As I said, nobody I've spoken with knew about the PAC prior to November 1, and by October 31, we had already all-but-formalized our intent to form our own 501(c)(4) AS THE FIRST STEP towards forming a PAC at some later date; which date to be determined by the new leaders of the Secular Coalition for America, Inc. (the new 501(c)(4) group).

As things sit, the Board of Directors of the Secular Coalition aren't crazy about the PAC idea. We would rather put our initial focus on building up a lobbying structure. Accordingly, if Ellen can convince us that she hasn't shot us all in the foot with her antics vis-a-vis the PAC business at the Godless March, then we will probably defer to Ellen's PAC for the foreseeable future.

On the other hand, if it appears that the IRS will be breathing down Ellen's (and/or everybody's) neck over the political activity at the Godless March (because all of the participating groups are 501(c)(3) groups, and it is strictly illegal for any 501(c)(3) group to engage in any sort of political activity), then our 501(c)(4) will be the only game in town because the IRS will close down the Godless Americans and their PAC, if not American Atheists and as many of the rest of us who can't legitimately claim ignorance of the whole business.

So, I'm going to sit here and wait, very cautiously, to hear more from Ellen, should she choose to speak with those of us in the Secular Coalition for America. The Coalition is a 501(c)(4) group, which (under current law) is required as an "insulating layer" between any 501(c)(3) charity and any 527 PAC. The charity is absolutely prohibited from engaging in any political activity, and can't get anywhere near any PAC. That restriction doesn't exist for a 501(c)(4).

If American Atheists has not founded a 501(c)(4), then it is in deep doo-doo by soliciting PAC contributions at an event run by a 501(c)(3), as I've explained above. The Secular Coalition is the necessary 501(c)(4) "insulating layer" that would be missing from the American Atheists plan.

HOWEVER, I frankly doubt that American Atheists is that stupid. There has to be a 501(c)(4) there someplace, and the obvious candidate is the Godless Americans group itself. Accordingly, I will presume that the Godless Americans group is a 501(c)(4) group after all, and that just might make things OK with the IRS; although I will tell you that several of our organizations, including the Internet Infidels, could potentially have real IRS difficulties because we have not yet made the 501(h) election that is necessary before we can have any "substantial" dealings with any sort of "lobbying activity," and if the Godless Americans are a 501(c)(4) group, then what we were doing on the Mall last Saturday is clearly "grassroots lobbying," which is subject to the most stringent constraints under 501(h).

Anyway, it remains to be seen what pieces American Atheists has in place and/or plans to create as time goes by. I know what the Secular Coalition for America has planned because I've spent the past two months putting it together.

So, I really don't know whether or not there is any duplication between what we have planned for the Secular Coalition versus what American Atheists has planned for their structure. If anybody from American Atheists would care to enlighten us all as to what the AA-proposed structure actually is, then I may respond.

However, again, the primary purpose that caused us to form the Secular Coalition was that we wish to engage in electronic lobbying of Congress, and we are prepared to raise the necessary funds (about $10K for the first year) to kick off that sort of effort. There is a great deal of work needed to get ourselves "plugged in" to the congressional "workflow" so as to know what is going on, etc. We had an adviser sit in on yesterday's meeting who is very familiar with what the ACLU does in this regard, and his suggestions were very helpful to our deliberations.

By the way, he felt that, even if we were working on the same issues as the ACLU was, we would not be "competitive" with the ACLU, because he believes that there is "power in numbers" when we create "echo responses" from more than one source. This, then, is yet-another justification for a second (or third or fourth) voice from the Secular Coalition for America. As I hope you understand by now, the 501(c)(4) serves a very necessary "insulating layer" between a 501(c)(3) charity and any "political activity." Again, it is my belief that duplication at this layer is not a problem. I also believe that duplication even at the PAC level is not a problem, so long as we coordinate our activities and don't contribute to the opposite sides of the same political races.

And, since the 501(c)(4) is not itself a PAC, we may well choose to endorse and/or otherwise use the GAPAC as our PAC instrumentality, an instrumentality that can only be "dealt with" by the 501(c)(4) group and NOT by any 501(c)(3) charity! So, your question clearly misunderstands the necessary relationship between the various groups that are involved here. What agenda?

We neither agree nor disagree with any GAPAC agenda. We are in total ignorance of any such agenda. All I know is what I heard Ellen say during her opening remarks at the March itself, and that was pretty light on agenda. I can't really answer that since I know absolutely nothing about the leaders of GAPAC, let alone what experience they bring to the table.

Again, however, I will emphasize that our focus is on grassroots lobbying of Congress, and that isn't what a PAC is used for. As for what experience we bring to that effort, I will state that we do have some at our disposal, and we expect to recruit more as time marches forward.

All I know about the Godless Americans group itself is that it organized a March. It did a good job at that, but there isn't any overlap between organizing a march on Washington and lobbying to attempt to affect legislation as it moves through Congress. The initial focus of the Secular Coalition for America is on lobbying Congress to affect legislation. II has been attempting since 1996 to get as many freethought groups as possible to work together towards common goals. We have tried to be a part of every major effort in that regard since that date. And if there is a national freethought group that is less concerned about protecting its own interests in a political way, I sure don't know about it.

We stand ready to work with American Atheists, the Godeless Americans folks, and to have our 501(c)(4) affiliated group, the Secular Coalition for America, work with the GAPAC. However, American Atheists continues to ignore invitations to meetings with us, and it continues to formulate its own programs in secret and to spring them on us in ways that leave us a bit embarassed. I hope you understand why I am shocked at the surprise announcement of the PAC at the Godless March. It has nothing at all to do with "politica as usual," but everything to do with not wishing to see ANY of our organizations find themselves to be the subject of an IRS investigation that would result in the yanking of 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. Until American Atheists wishes to give us a full disclosure of what it is doing, we need to act in such a way that protects at least our own group, and hopefully as many other groups as possible, by insulating ourselves from any sort of "political activity."

BOTTOM LINE:We can keep secrets if asked to; American Atheists needs to start showing up at some of these consultation and coordination meetings and letting us all know what the heck is going on before it happens. That's one of the reasons why we have these meetings!

== Bill

galiel

Boston Phoenix, April 4-11 2002 issue

"She [Ellen Johnson] also announced the formation of an atheists’ political-action committee."

<a href="http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multipage/documents/02219639.htm" target="_blank">www.bostonphoenix.com/ . . /documents/02219639.htm</a>


ReligionWriters.com Web Site, July 8, 2002

"Ellen Johnson, president, American Atheists. Johnson says the organization is changing its focus from being reactive to church-state issues to being pro-active. It recently founded its first political action committee, is planning its first "Godless American March on Washington" for November and says it hopes to train atheists to run for political office."

<a href="http://www.religionwriters.com/public/tips/070802a.html" target="_blank">www.religionwriters.com/public/tips/070802a.html</a>

Tri City Herald, August 5, 2002

"American Atheists recently formed a political action committee"

<a href="http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/2002/0805/story2.html" target="_blank">www.tri-cityherald.com/news/2002/0805/story2.html</a>

If an when that happens, splitting might make sense. Right now, it doesn't.




Suggestion: Let's act like mature adults and stop with the "they have to ask first" and "they didn't talk to us" and "they don't want to join our CCR, so phooey on them" and let's stop staying trapped in seeing AA = O'Hair.

Let's take a deep breath, shake off all that individual and institutional resentement and examine what is in the best interest--not of ii, or AA, or any other of the alphabet soup of organizations formed, but of the cause itself.

Forgive me from suspecting that this is more an issue of promoting ii's organizational interests rather than mine. If you want my allegiance, you have to do better than using political hack-speak like "Jeff mispoke". He said that AA refused to join ii's PAC. That implies communication between the organizations that obviously does not exist, since you claim not to have known about the Godless Americans PAC, claim not to know about the legal status of the March or the PAC, and claim not to know about the agenda or purpose. Have you asked? Assuming you somehow did not know about a PAC that was publicly announced at the AA annual convention last April, have you contacted Ellen since the March to get clarification?

What about The Council for Secular Humanism? Have you spoken to them about joining the ii PAC? What is the outcome?

If you claim to be speaking for a constituency, why are you not open about your information? Who do you claim to represent? If, as a member of ii, you claim to speak for me, can you tell me what you are going to say? You note, with implied criticism, that you do not know what the GA PAC's agenda is, yet you did not provide the agenda of the ii PAC, other than to say "grassroots lobbying".

What is really going on here? Can't any one give simple, direct answers, without "misspeaking", prevaricating", giving "what if" scenarios (IF both groups grow beyond their funding limits, etc) or accusations against parallel organizations?

Don't expect our skepticism and questions to be applied any differently to this effort than to anything else that effects our lives. Just be honest and open and tell us what this new entity is FOR, not what it isn't.

{edited by Toto to shorten links to keep page margins even}

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>