The Progressive Kick in the Head

Whoever coined the phrase “all politics is local” obviously hasn’t spent much time in Minnesota during the past few years.  Consider the case of former state representative, St. Cloud State University economics professor, and radio talk show host King Banaian.
 

Prof. Banaian was elected to represent a St. Cloud-area constituency in 2010, and ran for re-election in 2012.  He was opposed by Democrat Zachary Dorholt, an exceedingly unremarkable 33-year-old mental health counselor, competing in his first general election.

Political Charity Outside the Lines, Part 10

J’accuse!

Over the past nine posts in this series, and in earlier writings, I have documented a range of disturbing behaviors by Minnesota’s leading 501(c)(4) tax-exempt non-profit political organizations.

Alliance for a Better Minnesota, WIN Minnesota, and TakeAction Minnesota have assumed leading positions in the state’s political and public policy scene by virtue of their having elected a progressive Democrat as governor (Mark Dayton) and Democrat majorities in both houses of the state legislature. 

The behaviors I document involve the highest ranking members of the state’s Democrat party—including the party Chair, Ken Martin, and the Executive Director, Corey Day.

I have documented that several non-profits appear to have exceeded IRS limits on political activity during the 2010 election for governor.  I have documented missing tax returns, misleading statements, transactions reported to one authority but not another, inexplicable money transfers, and frequent amendments to and reclassifications of questionable transactions.

 
It’s frequently noted that “politics ain’t beanbag.”  Than again, neither is it Lord of the Flies.  We live in a society that expects its leading institutions to follow the rules and keep in mind the best interests of all its citizens.
 
“To whom much is given, much shall be required.”  By electing one-party Democrat rule, Minnesota’s voters (wittingly or not) have conferred near-absolute power on the state’s leading political non-profits.  But so far in the 2014 election cycle, we have seen the political non-profits engaging in the same scorched-earth, less-than-ethical tactics that brought them such success in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
 
Minnesotans expect better and, frankly, deserve better.  However, I have lived in this state long enough to understand that the leading lights of these organizations will continue to be invited on all the TV talk shows and will never have to answer any uncomfortable questions regarding their actions or statements.
 
Members of our legacy media are largely in agreement with the progressive direction of the state’s politics.  They will never report on any actions or tactics that would, at a minimum, call into question the legitimacy of the larger progressive enterprise, or, at worst, would lead to conservatives and Republicans regaining a foothold on power.
 
But that doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to go along with it.  The actions of Lance Armstrong, Mark McGwire, and Bernie Madoff forever taint their respective accomplishments.  Likewise, in my eyes, the actions of political charity will always taint the 2010 election of Mark Dayton as governor.

Political Charity Outside the Lines, Part 9

Means, Motive and Opportunity

In the earlier posts of this series, we document how Minnesota’s leading progressive non-profits apparently exceeded Federal rules on allowable political activity during the 2010 election.
 

What we haven’t discussed in much depth is “why.”  The obvious answer is to elect Democrat Mark Dayton as governor.
 

As we dig deeper here at Political Charity Outside the Lines, we find that the final answer is specific and targeted. 
 

Political Charity Outside the Lines, Part 8

…And Justice for All.

In the election year of 2010, progressive social-welfare charity WIN Minnesota made a series of donations to state 527 political funds.  On its IRS Form 990 Income Tax Return, WIN Minnesota records the following transactions,

Political Charity Outside the Lines, Part 7

In this post, we cover some important background information on IRS rules regarding charities and politics. 

Political Charity Outside the Lines, Part 6

A few weeks before the 2012 election, the Minneapolis Star Tribune published a story about the increasing political clout of the state’s growing Somali-American community.[1]  The paper reported that,

Somalis are becoming a political force in Minnesota.  They are registering to vote, volunteering for campaigns, running for office and even forming a basic building block in U.S. politics--their own political action committee.

The Star Tribune included a quote from the state Republican Party chair on the party’s efforts to woo the estimated 70,000 Somalis in Minnesota.  The paper also included this quote from the state Democrat Party chair,

"I've been really amazed at what's happened," said Minnesota DFL Party Chairman Ken Martin. "It would be a real danger for political parties to ignore this newfound muscle."

The Star Tribune story also includes a quote from the Executive Director of the Somali Action Alliance (SAA).  Readers may recall that this was the group featured in Part 3 of this series.  Up until July 11, 2012, the Somali Action Alliance had a political action committee.

Political Charity Outside the Lines, Part 5

Fly-by-night political charity struggles to get its story straight

In Part 2 of this series, I explore the curious case of the disappearing non-profit, Impact Minnesota.  This non-profit was created by the now Executive Director of the state Democrat Party, Corey Day.  The non-profit sprang up in August 2010, spent a couple hundred thousand dollars supporting Democrat Mark Dayton in that year’s election for governor, and then disappeared with few traces.

Political Charity Outside the Lines, Part 4

The Fish Rots from the Head Down

In previous posts, I detail how three local progressive non-profits (Alliance for a Better Minnesota (ABM), Impact Minnesota, and the Somali Action Alliance) appear to have exceeded IRS limits on allowed political contributions by tax-exempt entities back in 2010.

As it turns out, all three groups shared a single source for their political contributions, the IRS-approved 501(c)(4) social welfare non-profit WIN Minnesota.

And to get to the point of this post (and the big reveal), I’m afraid that you, Dear Reader, will have to wade through a lot of accounting and campaign finance minutia.

Political Charity Outside the Lines, Part 3

Here are the facts:

On July 19, 2011, the Somali Action Alliance’s 501(c)(4) tax-exempt, social welfare non-profit unit filed its IRS Form 990-EZ income tax return for calendar year 2010.

For 2010, Somali Action’s 501(c)(4) showed total revenue of $77,501.  (See Form 990-EZ, Part 1, Line 9.)

On January 28, 2011, the Somali Action Alliance’s 527 state “Political Fund” filed its 2010 Year-End Report with Minnesota’s Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board.  The 527 reported spending all of its money to support Democrat Mark Dayton in his campaign for governor of Minnesota.

The Somali Action Alliance 527 Political Fund listed as its sole contributor the Somali Action Alliance 501(c)(4), with a $44,375 in-kind contribution.  (See 2010 Year-End Report, Schedule A1-UA).  The in-kind contribution included staff time, canvasser services, literature production and media outreach.

If you divide $44,375 of political contributions by $77,501 in total non-profit revenue, you get a percentage of 57.3.

Here is the problem:  under IRS regulations, a 501(c)(4) cannot be “primarily” engaged in political activities.  Primarily is defined as “for the most part.”[1]  More than half is “most.”

The Somali Action Alliance terminated its Political Fund on July 11, 2012.  The Somali Action Alliance continues as a member group of the TakeAction Minnesota political charity network.

---

[1] See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primarily.

Political Charity Outside the Lines, Part 2

The Curious Case of the Vanishing Non-Profit

In this episode of Political Charity: Outside the Lines, we consider the case of Impact Minnesota, a 501(c)(4) non-profit, social welfare charity that arose with some fanfare in late summer 2010, only to vanish with little trace a few months later.

According to the Minnesota Secretary of State's office, Impact Minnesota was incorporated as a non-profit on August 4, 2010.  The SOS reports that the non-profit reserved the name “Base Build” on August 9, 2010.  The SOS lists the company as “inactive” by “involuntary dissolution” as of August 6, 2012. 

On January 31, 2011, Impact Minnesota’s 527 “Political Fund” filed its 2010 Year-End Report with the state’s Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board.  The 527 reported that all of its spending supported Democrat Mark Dayton in his campaign for governor of Minnesota.

The Impact Minnesota Political Fund listed as its sole contributor the Impact Minnesota 501(c)(4), with $190,951.70 of in-kind contributions.  (See 2010 Year-End Report, Schedule A1-UA).  The Political Fund showed a year-end cash balance of zero.  The majority of the Political Fund’s spending was for “payroll.”

The Impact Minnesota Political Fund showed no activity in its 2011 or 2012 filings and is listed by the Board as “terminated” as of September 25, 2012.

Political Charity Outside the Lines, Part 1

Here are the facts:

On August 29, 2011, Alliance for a Better Minnesota’s 501(c)(4) tax-exempt, social welfare non-profit filed its IRS Form 990 income tax return for calendar year 2010.

For 2010, Alliance’s 501(c)(4) showed total expenses (spending) of $472,598.  (See Form 990, Part 1, Line 18.)

On January 31, 2011, Alliance’s 527 state “Action Fund” filed its 2010 Year End Report.   The 527 reported spending money to support Mark Dayton and oppose Tom Emmer in their campaigns for governor of Minnesota.

The Alliance 527 Action Fund listed as a contribution from the Alliance 501(c)(4) a total of $266,705.62.  (See 2010 Report, Schedule A1-UA, pages 1 and 2).  The contribution included $60,000 in cash and $206,705.62 of in-kind contributions (including staff time and overhead, research and polling, production costs, and online ads).

If you divide $266,705.62 of political contributions by $472,598 in total non-profit spending, you get a percentage of 56.4.

Here is the problem:  under IRS regulations, a 501(c)(4) cannot be “primarily” engaged in political activities.  Primarily is defined as “for the most part.”[1]  More than half is “most.”

---

[1] See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primarily.