I think I found the problem. This is not a list of like minded people. Next time, you might consider using fewer words a little more effectively.
Kindly, --Tim On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 13:23 +0800, Tim Post wrote: > To further proactive thought, here are some things to think about. > > Such patents would most decidedly effect adversely software and works > created to serve the public interest, and > > Such patents would most decidedly effect adversely research and works > derived from it created to serve the public interest, and > > such things need to be thought about unless we're content to get angry > reading about new wretched patents on slashdot. We can, you know, > anticipate the need for change and make room should unfortunate things > occur. > > I am not implying action is even needed. I'm attempting to determine if > my concerns even have foundation. > > I must ask for your kindness in helping me to understand, where was that > not abundantly clear? > > Kindly, > --Tim > > On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 23:00 -0400, Mark R Dobyns Jones wrote: > > On 7/23/07, Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 01:46:29AM +0800, Tim Post wrote: > > > > > As I understand it, such direct lobbying would also violate our tax > > > status; which is the other reason not to raise this issue here. > > > > > > > > > Mr. Sullivan's reply is inaccurate on the lobbying and gag-rule topics. > > > > United States tax exempt organizations are permitted to lobby > > legislatures, within limits. This is how it is possible for United > > States universities, and other tax exempt organizations to lobby for > > particular laws. There is a prohibition against tax-exempt groups > > campaigning for a candidate for office. A lot different. > > > > In general, tax exempt organizations are permitted to talk about the > > topic of lobbying for, or potentially lobbying for something, or > > analyzing the process of lobbying, without worry, since talk costs > > nothing, without jepardizing its tax status. If the typical organization > > gets serious about lobbying efforts, generally it elects to use an > > expenditures-reporting test, so that it may know what the measure and > > threshold is, and plan for staying below the relevant threshold. > > > > For "non-electing" organizations the determination on lobbying is based > > upon a review of all activities, so that "no substantial portion" of > > the organization's activities may be lobbying. > > > > See the U.S. Internal Revenue web site for brief background: > > > > - Expenditures test election: > > http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163394,00.html > > - The election form: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5768.pdf > > > > - The "substantial part test, for non-electing organizations: > > http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163393,00.html > > > > ~Mark Jones > > _______________________________________________ > > Spi-general mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
