CORRECTION: The 907 Initiative is a 501c4, not a 501c3 as originally stated here. However, it doesn’t change the main points of the article. An organization with a favorable tax status, as a 501c4, is prohibited from making political activity its primary focus. The 907 Initiative claims to be a government watchdog performing a public service. However, conservatives who visit their website might suggest that their activism is only directed at Republicans and conservatives, and is 100% political in nature. The letter to Homer residents (see below) certainly had a political motive. Both of these issues should call their favorable tax status into question.
…………………………………………..
A recent article on Seward’s Folly described how a deceptive political attack ad distributed in Homer was paid for by a non-profit organization in Anchorage called the 907 Initiative. It turns out that the acting US Attorney for Washington, DC, is investigating Wikipedia for doing something similar. Since these cases are comparable, maybe it is time for someone from the Alaska Attorney General’s office to look into the actions of the 907 Initiative to see if any legal violations have been committed.
The local issue began with a letter ostensibly written by Homer residents attacking Representative Sarah Vance for her position on funding public education. While it had the name of local residents at the bottom, the letter was really a cleverly devised attack ad paid for by an Alaska-based non-profit called the 907 Initiative.
The IRS gives nonprofits tax-exempt status, but in return, subjects them to specific legal obligations, including maintaining a level of neutrality, transparency, and accountability in their operations and publications.
As a 501c4, 907 Initiative can engage in political lobbying. They can also take part in political activity that supports or opposes candidates for office, but these political actions cannot be the group’s primary activity, nor can they provide direct donations to a candidate for office or a candidate’s committee.
Last Friday, the US Attorney for Washington, D.C., Ed Martin, announced he was opening an investigation of Wikimedia, which is Wikipedia’s parent company. The attorney accused Wikimedia of “Masking propaganda that influences public opinion under the guise of providing information material.” Wikimedia has been accused of allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American Public.
With the letter they paid for attacking Representative Vance, the 907 Initiative appears to have been trying to manipulate public opinion. By paying for the attack against Representative Vance, 907 Initiative has paid for information presented with a political objective.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
Since 907 Initiative’s actions were committed in Alaska and involved political attacks on a member of the Alaska legislature, Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor should investigate whether Alaska election laws have been violated. Someone from Representative Vance’s office should contact the Attorney General, provide him with the details, and ask that he begin an investigation. Even if no Alaska laws have been violated, the 907 Initiative may have broken the federal statute relating to its 503 (c) status. If the Attorney General concludes that a potential violation of Federal law has occurred, he needs to make a criminal referral to the US Attorney for Alaska, Michael J. Heyman.
There is a malign influence in Alaska politics today that uses deceptive tactics to sway public opinion. The letter attacking Representative Vance is only the most recent example. Ranked Choice Voting was defeated last November by outside groups using similar tactics. It is time for an investigation to determine who is behind these efforts and if they have broken any laws by doing so.
The views expressed here are those of Greg Sarber. Read more Sarber posts at his Seward’s Folly substack.
6 Comments
So laws prohibiting Money from outside the US from being inserted into politics are ignored . By the democrats Shocker.
It’s often important to look at the funding sources for any political issue – and the debate about RCV is no exception. But to use the “look-whose-funding-this-issue” as the main argument for being opposed always makes me wonder: Is that the only argument they have against it?
Again, funding sources are useful, but arguments that dwell on the issue itself should be front and center of any legitimate argument either for or against. In short, is this idea good or not, irrespective who’s funding it
Interesting article, and thanks for linking back to the site. One pretty big and stupid mistake though: the 907 Initiative is a 501(c)(4).
Aubrey–right! Which makes Sarber’s arguments invalid. 501(c)(4) organizations are not exempt from federal taxes.
Yes, massive mistake by this writer. Massive.
DEAR READERS: IF ANYONE THINKS SOBERLY ANYMORE YOU WILL READILY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT DUNLEAVY AND ALL HIS WORTHLESS LOYAL APPOINTMENTS LIKE TREG TAYLOR, WILL NEVER DO WHAT ALASKA DESPERATELY NEEDS! LEADERSHIP REQUIRES CHARACTER ! THE DUNLEAVY DOG AND ALL THE FLEAS THAT SLEEP WITH HIM HAVE NONE!