The Welches Con Man (possibly?)

I tried to post the following comment but it seems to be missing:

I had previously asked the AG's office to deal with the "FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE" for their solicitation of funds in advance of completing the formation of a non-profit. (It was a flawed original filing in any event because there where no articles of incorporation with a declared public purpose, just an assumed business name for an individual . . and nothing else. With unmistakable intent to deceive.)

The AG's response (via Victoria) was that in the absence of an offering of tax deductibility to the donor that they had no "jurisdiction."

File a complaint here.

If you manage to obtain a reversal of the position on the matter by the AG (or a DA) I would be overjoyed. But I will insist that arbitrary power tends to favor SUITS and is an even greater evil than feeling buyer's remorse after putting something into someone's collection plate.

I suspect that his guy will not find adequate representation to properly challenge any official action, just like Ms. Boyles' lack of any effective counsel. Pity.

The default position of any person is that of a non-profit . . . even if they do not seek to obtain tax deductibility on donations . . . just as with any member of a minor party. (ORS 248.004(2) "A major or minor political party shall be treated for purposes of contractual, tort or other liability as a nonprofit corporation.")

The celebratory cause of gift giving by official state action for such things as landlord subsidies in the name of the homeless or corporate gifts in the name of jobs etc. has trumped any duty of trust on behalf of taxpayers that it is just too ridiculous to ignore the distinction between voluntary transfer of funds obtained by deception and funds extracted by compulsion upon deception.

Could I have a cause of action against a political party or any political action committee for their fluffy deceptive arguments? Could I have a cause of action regarding any tax deductibility of donations (or expenditure of public funds) to conduct "market research" by way of polling to discover the most effective deception?

Now if you can also find a giver who is considered legally incompetent then you could move beyond the shame-only angle of attack.

Can I form the FOUNDATION FOR THE POOR as an assumed business name, and obtain a bank account and paypal account in that name, and then pass a tin cup?

===

Perhaps the Con Man could learn from the American Society of Association Executives who argued that certain features of the tax code burdened their First Amendment rights. The ASAE issue centers on this:

"Under the 1993 Act, a tax-exempt organization that en-
gages in lobbying activities and is funded in part by member-
ship dues and other contributions may either pay a tax on its
lobbying activities (the so-called "proxy tax"), or may follow
"flow-through provisions" aimed at making sure no contribu-
tor or dues payer takes a deduction with respect to funds
used for lobbying. 26 U.S.C. s 6033(e) (1994).
The proxy tax, if the tax-exempt organization chooses that
route, falls on all lobbying expenses as defined in s 162(e)(1)
and is imposed at the highest marginal rate of the corporate
income tax under I.R.C. s 11, now 35%. Id.

source: DC Circuit No. 98-5563

How much of tax deductible donations that are received by official non-profits are used in astroturfing operations to pump up profitability and to poison public debate to the harm of individual rights? This is really just a qualitative issue, depending on belief of what is or is not in the public interest . .. even the advisability of giving any deductions for so call non-profit public purposes while retaining any income taxation on folks that can barely survive on limited income.

====
UPDATE: Perhaps I left an ambiguity in the following phrase:

Now if you can also find a giver who is considered legally incompetent then you could move beyond the shame-only angle of attack.

ORS Chapter 125 provides for designation of a conservator for another.

ORS Chapter 125 provides for prevention of abuse.

Each of them are designed to address generally the lack of ability to consent, and thus in relation to my earlier argument the lack of voluntariness.

My humor, if there was any, would be that anyone and everyone would have to admit to being in need of a conservator (in the legal sense) in order for the AG/DA to proceed against the Con Man. But this would be an absurd proposition to make. I am not prepared to embrace the idea that we all need a conservator or a paternalistic government to protect us all from the exercise of adult consent.