It's hard to quantify the amount of attention people pay to local blogs. My sense is that there are many more readers than commenters, and aggregator sites like 101 and FB make it easy to see headlines. The numbers are small in absolute terms, no doubt, but some bloggers and commenters repeat things they read uncritically, so there's a multiplier effect, and certainly (and appropriately) professional media are reading the local web.

So despite the good chance that many trees are not making a sound as they fall, these sites have a history of punching above their weight, and thus it makes sense sometimes to check out stories before they spread too far. (Here's a recent example of some potentially harmful misinformation that was easily put to rest; it was reposted without any apparent attempt at verification by potential mayoral candidate George Hartzman, who has let it remain, uncorrected, at his site long after accurate information was posted here. UPDATE Thurs 4:45: Hartzman has now replaced the post, which wrongly claimed that the Urban Ministry had reduced its food service to three days a week, with a video clip from Fight Club, but without any comment on the change or his original inaccurate post. Down the memory hole...but here's a cached version.) 

Anyway, there has been a lot written about the legal status of the Triad Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition, better known as TREBIC. I have over the years disagreed with the group on issues, and argued more generally against the great power the real estate industry has wielded in GSO. I also live in a house, work in a building, shop in stores, and know and respect many people in the business. [Update: Thanks to TB for fwding this copy of TREBIC's 2010 form 990. /update] 

So when I read, repeatedly, that TREBIC allegedly has been operating illegally under a suspended charter, I pulled the old reporter's trick of actually contacting the subject of the story. Here's what I heard back from TREBIC president Marlene Sanford. I have not verified it independently, so have at it:

When TREBIC was originally formed in 1999 (before I was hired), it was mistakenly formed as a for-profit corporation. That was corrected by filing Articles of Amendment in December 1999 which converted TREBIC to a non-profit. The Department of Revenue issued a letter of tax exempt status on March 29, 2000. However, the original filing as a for-profit corporation mistakenly survived in the Department of Revenue's records, so DOR carried TREBIC as a for-profit corporation on its records. After not receiving tax reports from TREBIC for a number of years, the Department of Revenue, thinking that TREBIC should file returns as a for-profit corporation, suspended TREBIC's charter. Non-profits do not have to file the reports with the state, so we were not actually delinquent in any way. The Department of Revenue has acknowledged that this was their error and is sending a letter of reinstatement to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's records should be updated within 1-3 weeks.

TREBIC is a 501c6 non-profit, meaning it is a trade association (not 501c3, charitable organization.) There are no implications for our members or for our ability to carry on our mission of providing them government affairs services.

Further, Roy Carroll is not our President (I am.) TREBIC does not have a PAC, therefore we do not endorse candidates or make contributions. Never have.

I know people disdain fact-checkers, and I can tell you from experience that the job feels like being the guy in the circus who follows the elephant with a bucket and a shovel. But there are worse disciplines to follow.

Comments

[Hartzman]

TREBIC is a lobbying group.

TREBIC actively lobbied to have RUCO dismantled.

TREBIC is Roy, Robbie and more.

TREBIC actively directs campaign donation bundles.

and you defend them,
because you, Ed, are them.

[Brian]

The first three above are irrelevant as signs of wrongdoing. The fourth point requires evidence George. Care to share?

And in which way above did Ed defend TREBIC?

[Hartzman]

http://edcone.typepad.com/files/trebic-2010-990.pdf

Question 3 on page 3 isn't true.

I believe Marlene Sanford has directly harmed poor renters
by lobbying to eliminate RUCO.

I believe the mayor of Greensboro, Robbie Perkins
is directly responsible for eliminating RUCO
while saying the exact opposite in public.

I believe Robbie Perkins
misled Greensboro's African American community
along with other elected officials who didn't lift a finger
to oppose the state gutting of RUCO.

[Hartzman]

"What is a 501(c)(6) organization?

...a 501(c)(6) organization is a business league
devoted to the improvement of business conditions
of one or more lines of business.

Trade associations and professional associations
are considered to be business leagues.

The mission of a 501(c)(6) organization
must focus on the advancement of the conditions
of a particular trade or the interests of the community.

A 501(c)(6) business league may further its exempt purposes
through lobbying as its primary activity
without jeopardizing its exempt status.

However, a 501(c)(6) organization that engages in lobbying
may be required to either provide notice to its members
regarding the percentage of dues paid
that are applicable to lobbying activities,
or pay a proxy tax.

Examples of 501(c)(6) organizations
include the National Association of Truck Stop Operators,
Home Builders Associations, and local chambers of commerce."

http://www.boardsource.org/Knowledge.asp?ID=3.174
.
.
.
Google "Pigs and Poultry" for campaign bundling.

See their candidate forms to be filled out
and their candidate interviews,
of which I experienced in 2009.

I believe these are the slumlords of Guilford County.

Ed likes to play campaign finance advocate at the national level,
but locally he is as silent as after the slaughter
of the spring lambs.

[Hartzman]

I just spoke to the accountant listed on the tax return.

[Hartzman]

If there has never a proxy tax paid
in all the years TREBIC has filed tax returns,
should all of the donors
http://www.trebic.org/members.html
have to redo all their tax returns?

[Brian]

Beliefs do not equate to evidence. Show your work George and lay the blame where it appropriately goes and not on this blog's doorstep. I'm getting ready to tune out in 3, 2, 1....

[Hartzman]

"The federal lobbying tax law, found in Section 162(e) of the Internal Revenue Code,
denies a business tax deduction for all lobbying and political activity expenses
incurred by businesses.

The law also requires that membership dues paid to 501(c)(6)
trade or professional associations be treated as nondeductible business expenses
to the extent of the association’s lobbying and political activity.

Therefore, 501(c)(6) associations that lobby
must track their lobbying and political activity expenditures
and then report to their members each year
the percentage of their membership dues that are nondeductible
as a result of these expenditures
(or, alternatively, the association can elect to pay a “proxy tax”
directly on these amounts to the IRS).

...All association expenses related to political campaigns and PACs
must be counted as lobbying for purposes of the federal lobbying tax law.

While under federal election law, the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”)
permits associations with “connected” PACs
to pay the costs of administering and soliciting contributions to the connected PAC,
all of these association-incurred expenses
must be included in the association’s lobbying expenditures
for purposes of the lobbying tax law.

...membership dues are not deductible based on amount of lobbying"

http://www.venable.com/myths-about-lobbying-political-activity-and-tax-exempt-status-06-02-2010/

[Hartzman]

"A 501(c)(6) may engage in political activity,
but must pay a 35% excise tax on the total amount
of its direct political expenditures."

Questions?

[Spag]

I agree. Fact checking is important. So is intellectual honesty and balance from the media in deciding what to fact check and how to report it.

These days, even the fact-checkers are biased and often won't correct their own erroneous.

Fact-checking consistency in the news media and on blogs that analyze fact checking is very important as well especially when some bloggers and commenters repeat themes over and over again and then quickly discard them when they are no longer convenient or when pressed to defend them with consistent reasoning, logic, and facts. Trying to fact check such people for clarification is like pulling teeth when they pack up their tent and leave at the first sign of trouble.

The current round of media fact checkers are out there using the "Ryan said X then, but now he is saying Y". I assume that a person who is serious about objective fact checking would strongly support this inquiry and would gladly address such a contention when it is addressed to them personally.

[triadwatch]

fact check why marlene sanford was labeled as a lobbyist but now she doesn't have to register at all. SHe is the true definition of a lobbyist and she gets away with it. Remember TREBIC wanted to deny every single Greensboro citizen the right to protest petition in zoning cases and if you live in starmount you can thank me later.

If there is anyone who has a biter pill to these blow hards at TREBIC it is me. We will se what happens in future but might see some legislation coming out of NC where local blow hards like TREBIC are going to labeled as a lobyist group.

[Hartzman]

No clever response?

[Hartzman]

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something
when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Upton Sinclair

[Ian McDowell]

Why does Hartzman
post in blank verse?
Mayhap he thinsk himself
the Archibald Macleish
of the Blogosphere.

[Hartzman]

"UPDATE Thurs 4:45: Hartzman has now replaced the post,
which wrongly claimed that the Urban Ministry
had reduced its food service to three days a week,
with a video clip from Fight Club,
but without any comment on the change
or his original inaccurate post."

Are you going to refute any of what I have put up Ed?

How much did Cone Health System make last year Ed?

No mention of Grassroots Ed?

Or anything about Betty doing the same things as TREBIC?

Where's Andrew?

[Fec]

WTF? Ed works for a NYC publishing house.

You've also accused him of being one with TREBIC. That's absurd. Ed may live in a house, but that's the most tenuous link you can make.

You've erroneously attacked a program feeding homeless people.

The Short Bus Bloggers have metastasized from an annoying affliction into a cancer.

Thanks Ed, for minimizing their effect.

[Hartzman]

Nice sell out Fec.

As I understand it,
Ed works in Betty Cone's building
among other rental properties Betty owns
some of which jointly with Bill Burkley.

Ed grew up with many in TREBIC and their kids
who inherited wealth
and want everyone else to continue to supply profitability
because some can't seem to make it without taxpayer subsidy.

If anything, the Urban Ministry
probably got increased donations out of Billy's post.

You should thank Roch, Ed and yourself
for minimizing effect.

Why isn't triadwatch back on Greensboro 101
Fec, Ed and Roch?

You three seem to have embraced your new found censorship.

TREBIC seems to have done something similar to Grassroots.

Two peas in a pod.

Same people.

Ed's people.

This is what needs fixed in Greensboro and Guilford.

[Andrew Brod]

Cool game! Six Degrees of Paranoid Separation. Do me, do me!

Okay, I'll start. I'm affiliated with UNCG... there's a room on campus called the Cone Ballroom... and it's easy to fill in the rest!

[Roch]

No shortcuts:

You are a swimmer.
Swimmers do laps.
Dogs sit in laps.
Mayor Perkins is in the lap developers.
Mayor Perkins is a dog.
You are Mayor Perkins.

[Hartzman]

When in doubt of premise
lash out, say conspiracy and humiliate?

Are you teaching classes Andrew?

How are you affiliated?

Why isn't triadwatch back on Greensboro 101 Roch?

[Mick]

"Ed grew up with many in TREBIC and their kids who inherited wealth"

I bet you got a commie flag pinned up on the wall of your garage!

[Ed Cone]

Entertaining as these digressions are -- and by all means, keep at it -- I'd just like to pop in to reiterate a couple of key points from the main post.

One is that getting facts wrong can have real consequences, and not just for the credibility of the blogger. Also, there are no hard rules in blogging, but some norms for corrections have emerged over the years. I thought Doug Clark did a pretty good job here, after some prodding in the comments, although I'd like to see the addendum posted at the start of the post.

The other point pertains specifically to TREBIC. I published a statement from the organization that directly contradicts some of the online narrative, and, acknowledging that I have not had the opportunity to check it myself, opened the floor for discussion. Much of that discussion has involved my alleged blind fealty to TREBIC (news to them, I'm sure) and such, which seems like a wasted opportunity.

But if that's the response the post gets, that's the response it gets.

[Brian]

Ed, a post hijacked by Hartzman is nigh impossible to stay involved in. I've been at the wrong end of ill-informed blogging and is one of the reasons I gave it up.

As far as TREBIC goes, it seems there is some nuance between whether or not they are accurately organized as a professional trade association or whether they should be registered as a lobbyist organization. Trade associations engage in persuading and pushing legislation everywhere. TREBIC is successful, imo, because they are well-funded and there is no cohesive, well-funded counterpoint to them. The allegations against TREBIC would be interesting perhaps if there was some actual fact-based evidence, but there is not...just noise as far as I can tell.

[Roch]

George, has anything changed at Triadwatch? There hasn't been a post there in a month so it's hard to tell.

[Ed Cone]

Quick addition to the comment above concerning Doug Clark's post -- Roch did the heavy lifting on that one with a blog post of his own, I just joined the thread at Doug's.

Re TREBIC: The part about operating with a suspended charter and so on seems to have been explained and debunked. If the explanation offered by Sanford doesn't hold up, the chips will fall.

The other aspect, which I think Keith addressed upthread, seems to involve more gray.

An industry insider emails: "TREBIC only organizes the [candidate] interviews - the individual member associations do whatever endorsing and/or campaign contributions they deem fit, and I can tell you that they not always in lockstep." TREBIC, this person says, does endorsements but doesn't have a PAC. "Let's just say a nice letter of support doesn't carry nearly the heat or weight that a check does. TREBIC in no way directs those funds OR steers endorsements and believe me when I say that they're very careful about that."

Offered, again, as data from a source, not verified fact.

[Hartzman]

Roch, I believe your censorship is an act of cowardice,
as is the lack of others standing up against it.

Ed, TREBIC lobbies.

The % of that lobbying is not tax deductible.

TREBIC's members appear to have deducted their entire "donations".

I believe TREBIC is in violation of tax law,
as are the donating members, who know Marlene lobbies.

"TREBIC...does endorsements" which means they lobby.

Lobbying is not tax deductible,
therefore it appears they have defrauded the government
by cheating on their tax returns.

"a nice letter of support" is lobbying.

Talking about getting rid of RUCO is lobbying.

Talking about specific language in legislation at public meetings
is lobbying.

Trying to eliminate a "one tree rule" for low income housing
is lobbying.

Lobbying is not tax deductible,
therefore those who deducted the donations
did file their tax returns correctly.

This is why TREBIC is being investigated.

[Hartzman]

Report Tax Fraud

If you suspect or know of an individual or company
that is not complying with the tax laws,
you may report this activity
by completing the Tax Fraud Referral Form.

You may fill out the form online, print it and mail it to:

N C Department of Revenue
Criminal Investigations Division
P O Box 27431
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7431

...If you do not wish to use the Tax Fraud Referral Form,
you may send a letter to the address above. Please include the following information, if available:

Name and address of the person you are reporting

The taxpayer identification number
(social security number for an individual
or employer identification number for a business)

A brief description of the alleged violation,
including how you became aware of or obtained the information

The years involved

The estimated dollar amount of any unreported income

Although you are not required to identify yourself,
it is helpful to do so.

Please call the Tax Fraud Hotline at 1-800-232-4939
if you have questions
or would prefer to provide the information by telephone.

http://www.dornc.com/taxes/reportfraud.html

[Hartzman]

Did the organization
engage in direct or indirect political campaign activities
on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office?

TREBIC's tax return says "no".

http://edcone.typepad.com/files/trebic-2010-990.pdf
.
.
.
"Our Mission

To promote a healthy real estate industry
by providing direct input into the political, legislative,
and administrative public policies
that encourages regional economic growth, job creation,
and a healthy real estate industry."

http://www.trebic.org/

How is this not lobbying?

I suppose the same defense for Grassroots
will probably apply.
.
.
.
"6a Does the organization have annual gross receipts
that are normally greater than $100,000,
and did the organization solicit any contributions
that were not tax deductible?"

TREBIC did not answer this question.
.
.
.
If TREBIC doesn't pay rent,
how is that not an inkind contribution?

Who owns the building?
.
.
.
What do the "special events"
and "Conferences, conventions, and meetings"
of about $30,000 involve?

No lobbying at these events?
.
.
"Instructions for Schedule C, Form 990:

Political Campaign and Lobbying Activities

Proxy Tax

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i990sc.pdf
.
.
"Political expenditures.

Any expenditures made for political campaign activities
are political expenditures...

Lobbying expenditures.

Lobbying expenditures are expenditures
(including allocable overhead and administrative costs)
paid or incurred for the purpose of attempting to influence legislation:

Through communication with any member or employee of a legislative
or similar body, or with any government official or employee
who may participate in the formulation of the legislation,
and By attempting to affect the opinions of the general public."

TREBIC form 990 answer: "no"

b If “Yes,” did the organization include with every solicitation
an express statement that such contributions
or gifts were not tax deductible?

[Hartzman]

A pretty big problem Marlene, Robbie, Roy etc... has

"Complete if the organization is exempt
under section...501(c)(6).

1 Were substantially all (90% or more) dues received
nondeductible by members?

2 Did the organization make only in-house lobbying expenditures
of $2,000 or less?
.
.
1 Dues, assessments and similar amounts from members

2 Section 162(e) nondeductible lobbying and political expenditures

3 Aggregate amount reported in section 6033(e)(1)(A)
notices of nondeductible section 162(e) dues

4 If notices were sent and the amount on line 2c exceeds the amount on line 3,
what portion of the excess does the organization agree to carryover
to the reasonable estimate
of nondeductible lobbying and political expenditure next year?

5 Taxable amount of lobbying and political expenditures"

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/f990sc--2010.pdf

[Hartzman]

2012 Sponsorship Congress: "Pig, Poultry & Politics"

President:
Carroll Companies,
Signature Property Group

Governor:
AT&T, Davenport Transportation Consulting,
Fairway Outdoor Advertising

Senator:
Brown Investment Properties,
Isaacson, Isaacson, Sheridan & Fountain LLP
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP

Commissioner:
DH Griffin Companies
.
.
.
Other notable members:

Gold Members
Brown Investment Properties
Richardson Corporation
Blue Ridge Companies
Carroll Companies
D.H. Griffin
D.R. Horton Homes
Keystone Group, Inc.
Koury Corporation
Samet Corporation
Shugart Management
Signature Property Group
Smith, Moore, Leatherwood LLP

Silver Members
Anderson & Associates, Inc
NAI Piedmont Triad.
BB&T
Berkley Communities
Bessemer Improvement
Borum Wade & Assoc.
D. Stone Builders, Inc.
Duke Energy
Fairway Outdoor Advertising
Highwoods Properties
Isaacson Isaacson Sheridan & Fountain
Johnston Properties, Inc.
Kotis Properties
Miles-McClellan Construction Company, Inc.

Nexsen Pruet, PLLC
North State Communications
Orleans Homebuilders, Inc.
Redwolf Development Co.
Sparrow Wolf & Dennis, P.A.
Time Warner Cable
Triad Design Group
Tuggle Duggins & Meschan, P.A.
Turn Key Construction
Weaver Investment Co.

Bronze Members
Allen Tate Company, LLC
Green Mountain Engineering
Alliance Management, Inc.
Greensboro Partnership
Birch Development, Inc..
Burkley Communities
Carolina Bank
Carruthers & Roth
CB Richard Ellis
Civil Designs, PA
Colvin, Sutton, Winters Appraisals
Conner Gwyn Schenck PLLC
CPT Engineering and Surveying
Davenport Transportation Consulting
Donathan Properties
Davis-Martin-Powell & Associates
Eastwood Homes
ECS
ESPA Architects & Planners
Evans Engineering
First Bank
Fleming Engineering, Inc.
Gary Hill

Guilford Merchants Association
Hagan Properties Inc.
HICAPS, Inc.
High Point Chamber of Commerce
K. Hovnanian Homes
Liberty Property Trust
Lomax Properties, LLC
McNairy & Associates
Piedmont Natural Gas
Premier Commercial Bank
Regional Land Surveyors, Inc.
Senn Dunn Insurance
Simpson, Schulman & Beard
Southern Community Bank and Trust
Starmount Company
Stimmel Associates, P.A.
Triad Commercial Properties
Windsor Investments

[Andrew Brod]

George, you're conflating lobbying and political-campaign activities. The IRS makes a distinction between the two. The latter is specifically about candidates and elected office.

In contrast, lobbying is an activity designed to influence legislation, and there are some fine distinctions made regarding when an activity is and isn't lobbying. For example, advocating a policy when no specific relevant legislation has been proposed is not deemed to be lobbying for purposes of tax-exempt status.

Also, I believe that the lobbying restriction applies to federal and state legislation but not local. And it occurs to me that I forgot to look up whether the IRS definition of legislation includes regulations. I'd think it would, but it's clear that this is a bit complicated.

Given the complexity, perhaps you'd like to read up before casting the next innuendo?

[Mick]

What's the fun in that?

"Death to Trebic! Death to Grassroots! Death to Food Trucks! Death to folks who grew up together rich and stuff!"

Anybody seen my pitchfork?

[hartzman]

Trebic appears to have used taxpayer dollars to increase the profitability of their members. Their members recieved tax breaks to hire someone to not do what is in the best interest of taxpayers. This is an atrocity.

[Mick]

"appears" is a weasel word.

[Eric Robert]

live and let live...I must acknowledge that most of our "economic development" non profits operate with very little transparency and often disguise the real motivators...
Too often the initiatives destined to benefit the same few are introduced as civic and community driven.... and that really pisses me off...do what you must...but... be accountable, own it and pay your taxes if in fact you have no business being a non profit (or three in the case of dgi)

[Brian]

If this is an atrocity, then George will be a busy man for the rest of his life - adding more pieces to the puzzle than are even in the box.

I'm an advocate of learning the rules of the game rather than trying to say the rules of the game don't make any sense and are unfair...but to each their own. Now, where did I lay my TREBIC membership form, anyway....

[Andrew Brod]

"Trebic appears to have used taxpayer dollars to increase the profitability of their members. Their members recieved tax breaks to hire someone to not do what is in the best interest of taxpayers. This is an atrocity."

Perhaps you should learn the meaning of "atrocity" before throwing it around for something like this.

If TREBIC members deducted too much of their dues for what were truly lobbying activities (see my previous comment), then yeah, that's something the IRS will probably want to address with them.

Whether TREBIC's activities are contrary to the interests of taxpayers is a separate question. This is parallel to the treatment of individual contributions to political and lobbying groups. If I give to Romney's campaign (political) or the ACLU (lobbying), I can't deduct it from my taxes. That doesn't imply that supporting Romney or the ACLU is "not... in the best interest of taxpayers," just that the law creates an exception (and I'd say an appropriate one) for political/lobbying activities. The act of getting involved in the political/lobbying process is supposed to be free of direct pecuniary factors, at least as regards one's tax liability.

Beyond all that, you haven't persuaded me that you've done enough research on this. As I said previously, this appears to be a complicated area of tax law, and your accusations are primarily "ifs" and "appears to haves." You might be 100% right about TREBIC, but all you've given us so far is suppositions.

[Hartzman]

You can say supposition till the cows come home Andrew.

They used taxpayer money by not paying taxes on lobbying $.

Anything about $0 is wrong.

Are you familiar of the differences between right and wrong Andrew?

They used that money to rid NC of RUCO
via the lobbying efforts of Marlene Sanford.

btw...I don't care if you're persuaded.

You would probably be one of the last to see it.

These are the folks you make money off of
with whatever you wish to label your "analysis" as.

You are no more cognitively blind than Mick
when it comes to taking a hard look at the elite in this town.

Why would you openly oppose a bunch of folks
in your own crowd?

Are we not talking about a lot of people
you and Ed enjoy socializing with?

[Hartzman]

From: Marlene Sanford - TREBIC (E-mail) To: Knight, Bill; "Trudy Wade"; Mary Rakestraw; Danny Thompson; Kee, James; Zack Matheny

http://triadwatch.blogspot.com/2011/08/from-marlene-sanford-trebic-e-mail-to.html

Marlene Sanford from TREBIC Developer Special Interest Group on LDO for Greensboro

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2012/08/marlene-sanford-from-trebic-developer.html

Marlene Sanford, Greensboro Partnership, TREBIC= Stacking the Deck on Boards and Commissions

http://triadwatch.blogspot.com/2010/01/marlene-sanford-greensboro-partnership.html

If TREBIC’s Marlene Sanford registered as a lobbyist in 1999-2000, why didn’t she register after?

http://triadwatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/if-trebics-marlene-sanford-registered.html

Round #2 with Marlene Sanford and TREBIC Asking ? to NC Planners

http://protestpetitiongreensboro.blogspot.com/2008/11/round-2-with-marlene-sanford-and-trebic.html

GREENSBORO'S RUCO AMONG HANDFUL OF PROACTIVE RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTION PROGRAMS ACROSS STATE

http://www.yesweekly.com/triad/article-10233-greensboros-ruco-among-handful-of-proactive-rental-housing-inspection-programs-across-state.html

TREBIC + RUCO = FOX GUARDING HEN HOUSE

http://triadwatch.blogspot.com/2010/07/trebic-ruco-fox-guarding-hen-house.html

Legislative Affairs

http://www.naioptriad.org/legislative.cfm

"The organization led efforts to weaken the Jordan Lake Rules, which are designed to reduce pollution in Jordan Lake from Haw River, and closely monitors and influences regulations in Greensboro city government that affect homebuilders and others in the industry. For instance, it's written into city ordinance that any changes to the Rental Unit Certificate of Occupancy ordinance TREBIC will be consulted"

"In a nutshell, here is the role TREBIC plays in local elections. They put out a questionnaire for candidates that helps their member organizations decide which ones to support. The member organizations make their own endorsements; TREBIC does not put out endorsements. TREBIC hosts Pigs, Poultry and Politics, which is the premier annual political event. Every kind of candidate goes, from Robbie Perkins and Zack Matheny, who are closely aligned with real estate interests, to Joel Landau, who favors the notion of reining in sprawl. They all get to speak for about 30 seconds, but nobody really listens to the speeches. The point is to schmooze: face-to-face interaction, shaking hands, small talk. No campaign finance checks are written at these events that I've noticed, but no doubt it's important for the candidates to make an impression on potential donors. And lots of folks who regularly write checks attend: Roy Carroll, Henry Isaacson, Seth Coker and Dwight Stone come to mind."

Jordan Green

http://yesweeklyblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/scenes-from-trebics-pigs-poultry.html

[Spag]

Even if TREBIC hasn't technically violated any tax laws, we all know what they are up to. They clearly try to influence elections to produce favorable outcomes for their members. There is nothing wrong with this per se, but let's not pretend that they aren't intimately entwined with local government and haven't used their government connections to enrich many of their members, "enrich" being the operative word.

They represent corporate welfare at its worse. One would think that the liberal distaste for undue corporate influence and tax policies that benefit "the rich" would dictate a strong reaction on this blog from its liberal host and many liberal readers.

Instead, we get the opposite. It's just another form of limousine liberalism. See e.g., John Kerry and the lack of concern over his millions; or people who support politicians who demand higher taxes from "the rich" to help the poor, yet devote very little of their own money to help the poor voluntarily (Obama and Biden) and pay accountants to find ways to avoid the very tax increases they claim to believe in.

Like so many things, they don't really mean what they say.

[Hartzman]

Lobbying Activities - Business Leagues

Seeking legislation germane to the common business interest
is a permissible means of attaining a business league's exempt purposes.

Thus, an Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(6) business league
may further its exempt purposes
by lobbying as its sole activity without jeopardizing its exempt status.

However, a section 501(c)(6) organization that engages in lobbying
may be required either to notify its members
about the percentage of dues that are used for lobbying activities
or to pay a proxy tax.

Proxy Tax - Tax-Exempt Organization
Fails to Notify Members that Dues Are Non-Deductible
Lobbying/Political Expenditures

...The Internal Revenue Code (IRC), in section 6033(e),
imposes reporting and notice requirements on certain tax-exempt organizations
described in sections 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6)
that incur nondeductible lobbying and political expenses.

Organizations that do not provide notices
of amounts of membership dues allocable to nondeductible lobbying expenditures
are subject to tax (commonly called a proxy tax) under IRC section 6033(e)(2)
on the amount of the expenditures.

...Amounts paid for intervention or participation in any political campaign
may not be deducted as a business expense. IRC 162(e)(2)(A).

...Amounts paid for direct legislative lobbying expenses
at the federal and state (but not the local) level
may not be deducted as a business expense.

Grass roots lobbying expenditures also are not deductible.

...If a substantial part of the activities of the IRC 501(c) organization
consists of political campaign activities or lobbying,
a deduction under IRC 162 is allowed
only for the portion of dues or other payments to the organization
that the taxpayer can clearly establish
was not for political campaign or lobbying activities. Reg. 1.162-20(c)(3).

Grass roots lobbying and political campaign expenditures
were also nondeductible.

...IRC 162(e)(3) denies a deduction for the dues (or other similar amounts) paid
to certain tax-exempt organizations to the extent that the organization, at the
time the dues are assessed or paid, notifies the dues payer that the dues are
allocable to nondeductible lobbying and political campaign expenditures of the
type described in IRC 162(e)(1).

...If it does not give notification, it must pay a proxy tax at the highest rate
imposed by IRC 11 (currently 35 percent) on its lobbying and political
campaign expenditures (up to the amount of dues and other similar
payments received by the organization) during the taxable year.

[Hartzman]

IRC 501(c)(4), IRC 501(c)(5), and IRC 501(c)(6) organizations are required to
disclose information regarding their political campaign activities on Form 990,
Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax.

If an organization is excepted from the IRC 6033(e) requirements either
because

 substantially all of its dues were not deductible by its members or

 because its direct lobbying expenditures consisted solely of in-house

expenditures that did not exceed $2,000,

It must disclose this information on the Form 990.

 If the organization does not meet either of these exceptions, it must
disclose the information necessary to determine if it is subject to the
proxy tax.

 This information consists of the total dues received from members, the
amount of its IRC 162(e) lobbying and political campaign expenditures,
and the amount it disclosed to its members as the nondeductible portion
of dues. IRC 6033(e)(1)(A)(i).

The amount disclosed begins with the organization's lobbying and political
campaign expenses determined in accordance with IRC 162(e).

 Direct lobbying of local councils or similar governing bodies
with respect to legislation of direct interest to the organization or its members
and in-house direct lobbying expenses
if the total of such expenditures is $2,000 or less
(excluding allocable overhead expenses)
should be excluded from the amount disclosed.
.
.
Which means anything above should have been disclosed?
.
.
...Under-reporting political campaign expenditures may also
subject the organization to a $10 per day penalty under IRC 6652 for
filing an incomplete or inaccurate return.
.
.
“influencing legislation ” involves the
following activities:
(A) Any attempt to influence any legislation through a lobbying
communication; and
(B) All activities, such as research, preparation, planning and coordination,
including deciding whether to make a lobbying communication, engaged
in for a purpose of making or supporting a lobbying communication.
.
.
Nondeductible lobbying and political expenditures
...include expenditures paid or incurred in connection with
(1) influencing legislation;
(2) participation in, or intervention in, any political campaign
on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office;
(3) any attempt to influence the general public with respect to elections,
legislative matters or referendums; or
(4) any direct communication with a covered executive branch official
in an attempt to influence the official actions or positions of that official.

[Sean]

Spag is awesome. No matter the post, Ed is a dick. Congrats, sir.

[Eric Robert]

Andrew, I am not too familiar with the whole RUCO interference but I was under the impression that TREBIC's lobbying was done at the state level ...wouldn't restrictions apply then?...

[Spag]

Ah, here come the worker bees defending the queen at the first sign of attack. We've been been down this road before.

The liberals at YES! seem to get it. Not so much for the old liberal establishment and the lemmings.

[Ed Cone]

My slavish devotion to local development interests is clear and long-running.

And I've only dug the hole deeper here by attempting to answer the question of the suspended charter and lobbing incendiary comments about the TREBIC statement like "I have not verified it independently, so have at it."

So busted. So ashamed.

[Hartzman]

"Political expenditures.

Any expenditures made for political campaign activities
are political expenditures...

Lobbying expenditures."
.
Seems like any political campaign activities
are not deductible even at the local level.
.
Your links there ed seem to be relatively middle of the road.

Let's say you covered some local news,
and enjoyed the debate on your forum.

[Spag]

Expressing concerns over essentially preservation/environmental issues is not the same as expressing concern over the the enrichment of developers with taxpayers money.

[Andrew Brod]

Cool! I'm the establishment.

Of course, as most people realize, preferring evidence to fevered accusations isn't the same as defending anyone. I don't have a dog in this fight, so let the TREBIC chips fall where they may.

It's fine that George doesn't care whether I'm persuaded, but he really should try to persuade someone. My 5 minutes of reading on this issue showed me that there are some tricky details to pay attention to, and that seemed relevant after George confused political-campaign activities with lobbying activities. If he didn't think the whole world were in on the conspiracy, he might construe what I did as helpful.

As for Spag, his comment about TREBIC is opinion, and fair enough. But that's a separate issue.

Finally, Eric, your understanding is mine as well: RUCO, while a local issue, was decided on the state level. However, I wasn't addressing RUCO specifically and was instead making the broader point that there are a lot of details that someone who really cared about getting things right would want to get into. Some of what TREBIC does is on the local level, so I thought that might be germane.

Instead, what we're given is an orgy of cut-and-paste, plus hyperbole like "this is an atrocity." Whether that approach is persuasive is something I'll leave to others, as my opinion on that is irrelevant now that I'm apparently part of the pro-TREBIC cabal.

[Hartzman]

"I don't have a dog in this fight"

I very disagree.

Who suggested AMS?

How many of what have you done for who?
.
.
.
"Those who do not accept the fundamental principles of state propaganda,
are simply excluded from the debate.
(or if noticed, dismissed as "emotional," "irresponsible," etc…)"

Noam Chomsky
.
.
What's it like being played a fool
and not knowing it Andrew?

Unless you do
.
.
Pigs, Poultry and Politics
is a political campaign activity
with both state and local politicians.

TREBICs members deducted it.

Is that simple enough?

TREBIC lobbied on RUCO at the state level
and TREBIC's members deducted the expense.

Need anymore clarification?