Please pardon the crash.

Even though he changed the name of the website, the shirts are still the same. (??) Therefore, it still appears that these shirts could threaten your tax-exempt status, no?

As someone who has worked for a non-profit before, let me tell ya... you really have to watch how people use your name, because their misuse can cause your organization serious trouble.

Good point. I don't know if he is changing the shirts, too.

I really hope the cease and desist from the NPHC isn't halted because of the change in the website.

Well, so far he hasn't changed the shirts! They are the exact same ones from the other site.

I don't know if the various nicknames (pretty ladies, nupes, etc) on the shirts are copyrighted by each organization, but there is one that says "S G Rho for Obama." That one for sure has got to go.

Looks like a lawsuit may be in the making, because the shirts are the same, which was the whole point of the letter from NPHC. This person is simply determined to make a buck.

I have a feeling that each org will have to go after the vendor to protect its own IRS status.

Basic NPHC 101. We are 501 (c)(7)s and as such cannot endorse a candidate. Thus the issue is not how cute they are, or where proceeds will be sent. The issue is our tax-exempt status with the IRS.

And if our own members don't understand this, why would a vendor care?

Why wouldn't he be? He is not a member of a BGLO and therefore probably does not know the rules that govern us. To him, it is another vehicle of support and campaign funds.

She said she understands this but just didn't care. :p Stop being mean, right?

I wasn't aware that the tax-exempt status extended that far either. I knew that our organization could not unilaterally support any political candidate, but on first glance, I would not think that a simple shirt could be such a threat (though now, reading this thread, I can see how the shirt might be perceived as an organizational endorsement.)

Another thing, while I understand the theoretical threat, I do wonder about the realistic possibility of the IRS pursuing such a course. I guess it is better to be safe than sorry.

I thought it was cute too. :o Course, those colors together generally are. :D

Trust it is a realistic possibility. A few years ago DST raised funds (a pass the offering basket kind of thing) at our national convention luncheon for one of our own--Alexis Herman. She was ordered to return the funds and we were warned.

The IRS is no joke, and in the last few years there has been a major crack down on nonprofits in general. Why? Because the government wants the taxes it is missing from tax-exempt organization.

But I also don't see what is so complicated about the ruling that we cannot endorse a candidate. Wearing a generic Barack (or anyone else for that matter) indicates that the individual endorses that candidate. Add your orgs symbols indicate that you as a member of XYZ endorse that candidate. That is a big difference, especially since we have all been taught from day one that when we wear our symbols in public we are representing our orgs. Thus the protocol rules on when and where they should be worn.

Prime example: if I go to a bar wearing a DST shirt and get sloppy drunk, folx won't be saying LG got drunk, they will be saying LG the Delta got drunk.

Lastly, there is also the whole issue of buying merchandise from a vendor that has not been sanctioned (licensed) by our org.

I understand all of that, though I did not know about the increasing strictness and crack downs with regard to those policies.

I guess what I am saying is that in viewing the T-shirts, that is not the first thought that would come to my mind.

I guess the lesson is here is eternal vigilance.

Good point, and there's nothing mean about the way you state your view matter-of- factly.

Being a small devil's advocate, the only thing I would think of is that he might not want to do something that could alienate millions of potential voters that are in BGLOs. If one or all nine orgs hypothetically lost that tax-exempt status over this website, he could lose a great source of other campaign funds: individuals in the BGLOS and those individuals' associates who could spread the word in a grassroots effort - similar to his own.

It's only a hypothetical situation, but something tells me that Obama's camp is not aware of all the details of this website - if the Obama campaign approves of the affliation.

Or just "some Delta got drunk."

It took me a minute to grasp the concept of licensed vendors, perhaps because I did not buy 'nalia that often and didn't know all that went into being a GLO vendor. Of course I found that the licensed vendors had better quality things.

Ha.

I don't think these candidates have much of a hand in every fundraising venture--or ventures that claim to be fundraising ventures. I also don't trust that Obama's campaign would necessarily know that these shirts conflict with our tax exempt status. So I see there being two issues: one is between Obama's campaign and the owner of the site and the second is between the NPHC and the owner of the site.

it's just too dang many of ya'll, it ain't but 9 o' us