Does the fact that this Parking Garage Plan up for a vote mean that it is a political issue? Please read the following:
——————————–
A quote from the IRS web site is below.
(begin quote)
The Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Those section 501(c)(3) organizations that are private foundations are subject to additional restrictions that are not described in this fact sheet.
What is Political Campaign Intervention?
Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention. Distributing statements prepared by others that favor or oppose any candidate for public office will also violate the prohibition. Allowing a candidate to use an organization’s assets or facilities will also violate the prohibition if other candidates are not given an equivalent opportunity. Although section 501(c)(3) organizations may engage in some activities to promote voter registration, encourage voter participation, and provide voter education, they will violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention if they engage in an activity that favors or opposes any candidate for public office. Certain activities will require an evaluation of all the facts and circumstances to determine whether they result in political campaign intervention.
(end quote)
Some more info at this link:
https://www.blueandco.com/nfp_03082012.html
——————————-
The above is from The Blog in 2012 regarding Mr. Aronsohn using a Jamboree emailing list to promote his own campaign. Now we have a situation where a private email listing was used by one of our elected officials to promote the VOTE YES campaign. What does anyone think about this? I mean, besides the fact that it was unethical and just plain wrong. For his information, it totally pissed off some of those who received it, who felt it was beyond the pale. Can you say BACKFIRE?
Give the guy a break. This time he didn’t commit a federal offense.
This is disgraceful. I wonder which of the big three it was who stopped to using a private listing. Hmmmmm let me guess…….
I agree. Its pretty amazing that an official would use a private email address. It very well may take down Hillary Clinton, how can that not be a message to Government Officials, that its simply not ok?
Aren’t our council members supposed to be unbiased? Why would any of them so personally connect themselves to a particular project?
What is with this unbiased nonsense. You’re on the governing body you’re not a judge. Every representative worth their salt at any level knows their stance and can argue it persuasively.
You’re supposed to listen to the community, use your good sense and above all do the things you said you would do that got you elected. Which in this case all sides are doing. One side is pushing for meaningful progress on a number of long-standing issues to make the village better, and the other side is trying to stop everything at all costs to make the village better. We’re arguing over what better for the village looks like.
The only people with an unbiased opinion are the uninformed.
Thank You Mayor for your post. ( 3:20)
You think the mayor gives the other side that much credit? You haven’t listened to him for 5 minutes.
Amazing that real concerns by Long paying Taxpayers rated as NONSENCE. PERHAPS THE NONSENCE STOPS TUESDAY NOV 3 rd. Vote NO. STOP THIS MISTAKE NOW
It is my understanding that the 3 amigos are conducting an impromptu investigation into who is responsible for the VOTE NO ON THE GARAGE flier. They have appointed Roberta as lead investigator and spin doctor. Well Paul if all else fails you can alway blame Gabbert.
Just got a robo call to vote yes on the garage sounded like our mayor. Here is the best it came from Weehawkin NJ. Typical
@3:20 you are joking right? Hauck said in 2012 4 developments are too many, she has concerns over school enrollment and that age restricted housing would make everyone happy. What happened to that?
If by ” meaningful progress” you mean urbanization of a bedroom community yes that is exactly what 3 council members are trying to do.
ALERT – ROBO CALLS FROM PAUL VAGIANOS
I just got a ROBO CALL 6 PM from Paul Vagianos caller I.D. says out of WEEHAUKEN NJ 551-227-3101 to my Unpublished landline phone. How the hell did he get that?? my number is not on the towns reverse call or BOE’s. I usually don’t answer unknown numbers due to scammers. Recorded message in his voice was in reference to the parking garage referendum, urging me to vote yes. I called back the number, recording says “you reached campaign headquarters, please leave a message”. My message was I’m voting NO, NO, NO, NO!! He has a lot of nerve!
Lets ALL CALL BACK 551-227-3101, and SWAMP HIS CAMPAIGN HEADQUATERS ROBO PHONE NUMBER, AND LEAVE MESSAGE – VOTE NO!! The more return calls he gets, his ROBO line gets TIED UP!
I just got the same robocall wanting me to vote “yes” on the garage. Are they using the reverse 911 system?