The 508(c)(1)(a) Initiative Workshop

Page 2 of 183

Turning the Improbable
Into the Exceptional!
Page 3 of 183

Page 4 of 183

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.
Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities
Achieve Their Full Potential
Since its founding in 2003, The Advocacy Foundation has become recognized as an effective
provider of support to those who receive our services, having real impact within the communities
we serve. We are currently engaged in community and faith-based collaborative initiatives,
having the overall objective of eradicating all forms of youth violence and correcting injustices
everywhere. In carrying-out these initiatives, we have adopted the evidence-based strategic
framework developed and implemented by the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP).
The stated objectives are:
1. Community Mobilization;
2. Social Intervention;
3. Provision of Opportunities;
4. Organizational Change and Development;
5. Suppression [of illegal activities].
Moreover, it is our most fundamental belief that in order to be effective, prevention and
intervention strategies must be Community Specific, Culturally Relevant, Evidence-Based, and
Collaborative. The Violence Prevention and Intervention programming we employ in
implementing this community-enhancing framework include the programs further described
throughout our publications, programs and special projects both domestically and
internationally.
www.TheAdvocacy.Foundation
ISBN: ......... ../2017
......... Printed in the USA
Advocacy Foundation Publishers
Philadelphia, PA
(878) 222-0450 | Voice | Data | SMS
Page 5 of 183

Page 6 of 183

Dedication
______
Every publication in our many series’ is dedicated to everyone, absolutely everyone, who by
virtue of their calling and by Divine inspiration, direction and guidance, is on the battlefield dayafter-day
striving to follow God’s will and purpose for their lives. And this is with particular affinity
for those Spiritual warriors who are being transformed into excellence through daily academic,
professional, familial, and other challenges.
We pray that you will bear in mind:
Matthew 19:26 (NLT)
Jesus looked at them intently and said, “Humanly speaking, it is impossible.
But with God everything is possible.” (Emphasis added)
To all of us who daily look past our circumstances, and naysayers, to what the Lord says we will
accomplish:
Blessings!!
- The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.
Page 7 of 183

Page 8 of 183

The Transformative Justice Project
Eradicating Juvenile Delinquency Requires a Multi-Disciplinary Approach
The Juvenile Justice system is incredibly overloaded, and Solutions-Based programs
are woefully underfunded. Our precious children, therefore, particularly young people of
color, often get the “swift” version of justice whenever they come into contact with the
law.
The way we accomplish all this is as follows:
Decisions to build prison facilities are often based
on elementary school test results, and our country
incarcerates more of its young than any other
nation on earth. So we at The Foundation labor to
pull our young people out of the “school to prison”
pipeline, and we then coordinate the efforts of the
legal, psychological, governmental and
educational professionals needed to bring an end
to delinquency.
We also educate families, police, local businesses,
elected officials, clergy, and schools and other
stakeholders about transforming whole
communities, and we labor to change their thinking
about the causes of delinquency with the goal of
helping them embrace the idea of restoration for
the young people in our care who demonstrate
repentance for their mistakes..
1. We vigorously advocate for charges reductions, wherever possible, in the
adjudicatory (court) process, with the ultimate goal of expungement or pardon, in
order to maximize the chances for our clients to graduate high school and
progress into college, military service or the workforce without the stigma of a
criminal record;
2. We then enroll each young person into an Evidence-Based, Data-Driven
Restorative Justice program designed to facilitate their rehabilitation and
subsequent reintegration back into the community;
3. While those projects are operating, we conduct a wide variety of ComeUnity-
ReEngineering seminars and workshops on topics ranging from Juvenile Justice
Page 9 of 183

to Parental Rights, to Domestic issues to Police friendly interactions, to mental
health intervention, to CBO and FBO accountability and compliance;
4. Throughout the process, we encourage and maintain frequent personal contact
between all parties;
5 Throughout the process we conduct a continuum of events and fundraisers
designed to facilitate collaboration among professionals and community
stakeholders; and finally
6. 1 We disseminate Quarterly publications, like our e-Advocate series Newsletter
and our e-Advocate Quarterly electronic Magazine to all regular donors in order
to facilitate a lifelong learning process on the ever-evolving developments in the
Justice system.
And in addition to the help we provide for our young clients and their families, we also
facilitate Community Engagement through the Restorative Justice process,
thereby balancing the interests of local businesses, schools, clergy, social assistance
organizations, elected officials, law enforcement entities, and all interested
stakeholders. Through these efforts, relationships are rebuilt & strengthened, local
businesses and communities are enhanced & protected from victimization, young
careers are developed, and our precious young people are kept out of the prison
pipeline.
Additionally, we develop Transformative “Void Resistance” (TVR) initiatives to alleviate
concerns of our successes resulting in economic hardship for those employed by the
penal system.
TVR is an innovative-comprehensive process that works in conjunction with our
Transformative Justice initiatives to transition the original use and purpose of current
systems into positive social impact operations, which systematically retrains current
staff, renovates facilities, creates new employment opportunities, increases salaries and
is data proven to enhance employee’s mental wellbeing and overall quality of life – an
exponential Transformative Social Impact benefit for ALL community stakeholders.
This is a massive undertaking, and we need all the help and financial support you can
give! We plan to help 75 young persons per quarter-year (aggregating to a total of 250
1
In addition to supporting our world-class programming and support services, all regular donors receive our Quarterly e-Newsletter
(The e-Advocate), as well as The e-Advocate Quarterly Magazine.
Page 10 of 183

per year) in each jurisdiction we serve) at an average cost of under $2,500 per client,
per year. *
Thank you in advance for your support!
* FYI:
1. The national average cost to taxpayers for minimum-security youth incarceration,
is around $43,000.00 per child, per year.
2. The average annual cost to taxpayers for maximum-security youth incarceration
is well over $148,000.00 per child, per year.
- (US News and World Report, December 9, 2014);
3. In every jurisdiction in the nation, the Plea Bargain rate is above 99%.
The Judicial system engages in a tri-partite balancing task in every single one of these
matters, seeking to balance Rehabilitative Justice with Community Protection and
Judicial Economy, and, although the practitioners work very hard to achieve positive
outcomes, the scales are nowhere near balanced where people of color are involved.
We must reverse this trend, which is right now working very much against the best
interests of our young.
Our young people do not belong behind bars.
- Jack Johnson
Page 11 of 183

Page 12 of 183

Advocacy Foundation Ministries, Inc.
A 508(c)(1)(a) Compliant Faith-Based Organization
The 508(c)(1)(a)
Proactive Positioning & Preparation
for Faith-Based Organizations
“Turning the Improbable Into the Exceptional”
Atlanta
Philadelphia
______
Dea. John C. Johnson III, JD
Founding Partner & CEO
Rev. Mark L. Merrill
Partner - Northeast Regional Director
(878) 222-0450
Voice | Data | SMS
www.Advocacy.Foundation
Page 13 of 183

Page 14 of 183

Biblical Authority
______
Isaiah 50:8
He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with me? let us stand together: who is
mine adversary? let him come near to me.
5 = GRACE
8 = New Beginning
Ephesians 6:11-13 & Matthew 9:16-17
Put on the full armor of God, so that you may be able to stand up against all the
schemes and the strategies and the deceits of the devil. For our struggle is not against
flesh and blood [contending only with physical opponents], but against the rulers,
against the powers, against the world forces of this [present] darkness, against the
spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly (supernatural) places. Therefore, put on
the complete armor of God, so that you will be able to [successfully] resist and stand
your ground in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm [in your place,
fully prepared, immovable, victorious]…no one puts a piece of unshrunk (new) cloth on
an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear
results. Nor is new wine put into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and
the wine spills and the wineskins are ruined. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins,
so both are preserved.”
Acts 1:6-8
So when they had come together, they asked Him repeatedly, “Lord, are You at this
time reestablishing the kingdom and restoring it to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for
you to know the times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority. But
you will receive power and ability when the Holy Spirit comes upon you; and you will be
My witnesses [to tell people about Me] both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria,
and even to the ends of the earth.”
Psalm 91:1
He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High Will remain secure and rest in the shadow
of the Almighty [whose power no enemy can withstand].
Acts 6:10
But they were not able to successfully withstand and cope with the wisdom and the
intelligence [and the power and inspiration] of the Spirit by whom he was speaking.
Page 15 of 183

Matthew 3:2 (ESV)
2
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Matthew 4:17
17
From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom
of heaven is at hand.”
Mark 1:15
15
and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at
hand; [a] repent and believe in the gospel.”
Page 16 of 183

Table of Contents
The 508(c)(1)(a)
Proactive Positioning & Preparation
for Faith-Based Organizations
Biblical Authority
Day 1
I. The 508(c)(1)(a) Faith-Based Organization…..…………………………… 19
Does The Church Need to Be 501(c)(3) Approved?
II. The Statutes, The 15/16 Determination Test and Landmark Cases…. 25
III. Self Organizational-Evaluation(s)…………………………………………. 41
IV. Amended State Filing(s) Exercise………………………………………… 45
Day 2
V. Political Lobbying for Nonprofits and Faith-Based Organizations…. 53
VI. Critical Thinking for Transformative Social Impact……………………. 79
VII. Ongoing Seminars and Workshops………………………………………. 87
________
Attachments
A. Why All Churches Should Be A 508(c)(1)(a)
B. IRS Tax Guide for Churches & Religious Organizations
C. Lobbying Rules for Houses of Worship
Copyright © 2003-2019 The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Page 17 of 183

Page 18 of 183

I. Introduction
The 508(c)(1)(a) Faith-Based Organization
Does The Church Need to Be 501(c)(3) Approved?
The 508(c)(1)(a) Faith Based Organization (FBO) is a religious, nonprofit, tax exempt
organization. The 508(c)(1)(a) FBO is separate and distinct from a 501(c)(3) charity and
unincorporated FBO’s. An unincorporated FBO by definition is a First Amendment
Church/Organization.
The 508(c)(1)(a) is recognized by the Federal Government, by all 50 states and
recognized internationally under the Hague Convention of the United Nations Charter.
Since its inception in 1954 with the Johnson Amendment, the 501(c)(3) has been
promoted and advertised by many as the only option to organizing a FBO. This is
incorrect. Federal law, IRS publications, and court cases all confirm and establish the
rights and protection of the 508(c)(1)(a) FBO.
The 508(c)(1)(a) FBO enjoys a “mandatory exemption” from all the restrictions a
501(c)(3) FBO has including free speech restrictions, IRS reporting requirements,
rules and regulations that the IRS may from time to time prescribe and providing
testimony under oath.
With that being said, a 508(c)(1)(a) is a registered state entity just as a 501(c)(3) is a
State and Federal sanctioned entity. Keep this in mind as we proceed further in this
document. A 508(c)(1)(a) is a 501(c)(3) with special exemptions:
A 508(c)(1)(a) Faith Based Organization is a not-for-profit in the same context as a
501(c)(3). The general context of operation for this form of organization is as follows:
1. The 508(c)(1)(a) is registered at the state level only. It is exempt from all Federal
filing requirements of the 501(c)(3), including tax returns for the church itself. This
is United States Code 26 508 and United States Code 26 6033.
2. The 508(c)(1)(a) FBO enjoys a “mandatory exception” from all the restrictions a
501(c)(3) FBO has including free speech restrictions, IRS reporting
requirements, rules and regulations that the IRS may from time to time
prescribe and providing testimony under oath.
3. The 508(c)(1)(a) is registered as a not-for-profit with the state, and hence
provides for limited liability. While not perfect, and no law is, you do have some
Page 19 of 183

private asset protection. Under Federal law a 508(c)(1)(a) is automatically tax
exempt at the Federal level.
4. Can give tax deductible receipts for donations.
5. Freedom of Speech, as indicated in item 2 above, including, but not limited
to, politics, referendums, initiatives, and candidates.
6. Can ordain and license it’s own leaders.
7. With proper filing with the state, it may receive a sales tax exemption
certificate.
Note: Not all states will allow a 508 to be sales tax exempt. Contact your
Dept. of Revenue for details.
8. Providing the state certificate of organization and state exemption of sales tax
can be proof of exemption from property tax on a church related structure
(This is true for only a single property).
9. The 508(c)(1)(a) operating as a church, may or may not have paid employees or
clergy. Best case is to not have payed employees. It is best case to have
clergy who have a secular job to secure their private income. (exception is
listed in Note 9a)
Note 9a: There is an exception to having clergy or persons in the capacity of paid
employees. It is possible to have clergy or employees as “Private Contractors”.
The benefit is they are not employees, and the only paperwork required of the
church is to file a 1099 Misc Income Statement. This will still require filing for an
Employer Identification Number (EIN). This is the recommended way to distribute
compensation.
In the case where there is a need for a paid employee, the rules of Employment
Tax in IRS publication 1828 must be met (starting on page 21)
(https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf). This is not the recommended
procedure, see Note 9a.
In the instance of a paid clergy, the Special Rules for Ministers must be met
(starting on page 22) (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irspdf/p1828.pdf). This is not the
recommended procedure, see Note 9a.
In either case, this would REQUIRE the 508(c)(1)(a) church to file the SS4
Federal form to obtain an Employer Identification Number (EIN). This is a free
filing and can be done online.
10. It is highly recommended that all who wish to form a 508(c)(1)(a) church and
have paid staff or priest (rather than private contractors) that they should read
IRS Publication 1828 in it’s entirety.
Page 20 of 183

11. It is highly recommended that the clergy, if they perform any counseling or
confession tasks, to take it upon themselves to obtain personal liability insurance.
This is not overly expensive, and is simply good practice. None the less, it is a
personal decision.
How to form a 508(c)(1)(a)
These are general guidelines of the process. It may vary from state to state. Most of the
information required, including forms, may be obtained from the Secretary of State in
your state of residence.
1. Verify the names of a minimum of three (3) members who will be listed as the
Board of Directors or whatever you may wish to name that board. Some states
may require more.
2. You may or may not write an Affidavit of Intent to create your church. It can be
signed by the board and two or more church members. This can then be
notarized as a legal document. There is much controversy as to whether this is
required (especially for a 508 church).
3. Write your Charter of Operation and Bylaws. Make sure to indicate if the board is
“clergy” led or “board led”. If clergy led, the clergy uses the board ONLY as
advisers. This is not unusual for many smaller church groups. Assign one of the
members as the Secretary/Treasurer. The clergy member, who is on the board,
along with the Secretary/Treasurer must sign and cosign this document. Make
sure to state that you are operating as a 508(c)(1)(a).
4. Obtain the Statement of Resignation of Registered Agent By a Foreign or
Domestic For Profit / Non Profit Corporation from your State Attorney
Generals office or the state website. This person should be someone who will be
with the church for an extended period, and the priest or a board member may be
the best option. There may be a small fee to file this document.
5. Obtain the Articles of Incorporation of a Nonprofit Corporation from your
State Attorney Generals office or the state website. This form MUST be filled out
exact with no errors. If you do create an error, you may be required to submit a
special change form. This form should be signed by the incorporator, in this case
the registered agent. This form may require a filing fee. Be sure that on the form,
it asked for your primary purpose of operation, you will indicate you are operating
as a 508(c)(1)(a). See Note 1 at the end of this chapter.
6. Make your own copies and send the signed originals of Statement of
Resignation of Registered Agent By a Foreign or Domestic For Profit / Non
Profit Corporation, Articles of Incorporation of a Nonprofit Corporation and
your Charter and Bylaws to your State Attorney Generals Office.
Page 21 of 183

7. If you desire to have Sales Tax Exemption locate the Sales Tax Exemption
document. The Dept. of Revenue may or may not require you send in a 1 year
financial projection of income. There may or may not be a filing fee on this
document. NOTE: Not all states will allow a 508 to be sales tax exempt.
Contact your Dept. of Revenue for details.
8. Make a determination if you need an Employer Identification Number (EIN) from
the Federal Government. It is possible to file the SS4 online with the Federal
Government, and is free. You will only need an EIN if:
a. You pay any employees or clergy; and/or
b. Your bank requires it to open a business account.
You may or may not need to disclose that you are a 508(c)(1)(a), they may not
understand in many cases what that is. Simply hand them the EIN Number and you
Charter/Bylaws. Banks generally do not, and are not required to, understand the IRS 26
(501/508) “exceptions”. There are some that indicate that having the EIN gives more
credibility to the formation and validity of your church. While this may seem appropriate,
the idea of a 508(c)(1)(a) is to attempt to be removed from the Federal Government as
much as possible.
9. DO NOT, unless specified by your Secretary of state, fill out a form for a fictitious
name. This is usually reserved for a sole proprietor business.
If in the event you choose to have paid clergy or payed employees, make sure to read
the entire IRS publication 1828 (especially pages 21-22) (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irspdf/p1828.pdf).
You may also wish to visit with a Tax Consultant (CPA) for details.
Please locate the Secretary of State website, or contact their office to determine exactly
what forms they require. They are very helpful once you explain this is a not-for-profit
church filing.
Fees will vary.
In ending, what are the pros and cons of a 508(c)(1)(a) church versus a First
Amendment church:
1. The 508(c)(1)(a) FBO is the best option for a church startup that will have a
physical congregation.
2. The 508(c)(1)(a) FBO is NOT a candidate for a sole proprietorship, such as a
priest who performs only weddings. By definition the 508(c)(1)(a) should be used
for a church with congregation.
3. The First Amendment FBO is best for a sole proprietorship, using the example of
a priest performing only weddings.
Page 22 of 183

4. The First amendment church does work well with a small group, with no intent on
any paid staff, and have no concerns about tithes not being tax deductible.
5. The 508 lends itself to a higher level of personal protection regarding liability.
6. The 508 may allow for sales tax exemption. NOTE: Not all states will allow a
508 to be sales tax exempt however. Contact your Dept. of Revenue for
details.
7. The 508 will allow for property tax exemption (on the first property). If your church
has a second property or possible support a subordinate “collection” of churches,
filing a 501(c)(3) is also recommended.
NOTE: Not all states will allow a 508 to be property tax exempt. Contact
your Dept. of Revenue for details.
8. The First Amendment Church allows for total and complete separation from any
state or federal influence
9. The First Amendment Church has no protection against personal liability.
10. The 508 makes a legally clean path in case of paid employees.
11. The 508 will allow for non church income in some cases, for example, church
related clothing sales, church related bake sales, etc. This is also spelled out in
IRS Publication 1828.
12. The 508(c)(1)(a) establishes the church as a not-for-profit entity, and protects the
church itself from government reporting and taxation. None the less, it does not
protect against the requirement to report income paid to clergy or employees.
Note1: All 50 states allow you to register as a 508(c)(1)(a) Faith Based
Organization or Church. Here is how it works:
There is no such thing as a separate law to form a 508(c)(1)(a). A 508(c)(1)(a) is
actually a 501(c)(3) REGISTERED WITH THE STATE ONLY. You go to their
website, and I assume all allow online filings, and you will go to the link to create
a nonprofit or not-for-profit.
On the Articles of incorporation, you will fill it out exactly as you would a 501(c)(3)
with the organization name. They will ask on the form what your primary
purpose is, simply enter “We are operating as a 508(c)(1)(a)”. Poof, you
organization is now a 508(c)(1)(a). Specify this in your charter/bylaws also.
That is it, you do not need to file for any status to the Federal Government. The
exception is if you have a paid priest or employees, and that was discussed in
detail earlier in this document.
Now you have the right to file for sales tax exemption and possibly property tax
exemption if you decide to own a physical building.
Page 23 of 183

Note: Not all states will allow a 508 to be sales tax exempt. Contact
your Dept. of Revenue for details.
Page 24 of 183

II. The Statutes,
The 15/16 IRS Determination Test
and Landmark Cases
The Statutes
26 U.S. Code § 501.Exemption from Tax on Corporations,
Certain Trusts, etc.
(a) Exemption from Taxation An organization described in subsection (c) or (d)
or section 401(a) shall be exempt from taxation under this subtitle unless such
exemption is denied under section 502 or 503.
(b) Tax on Unrelated Business Income and Certain Other Activities
An organization exempt from taxation under subsection (a) shall be subject
to tax to the extent provided in parts II, III, and VI of this subchapter, but
(notwithstanding parts II, III, and VI of this subchapter) shall be considered
an organization exempt from income taxes for the purpose of any law which
refers to organizations exempt from income taxes.
(c) List of exempt organizations The following organizations are referred to in
subsection (a):
(1) Any corporation organized under Act of Congress which is an instrumentality of
the United Statesbut only if such corporation—
(A) is exempt from Federal income taxes—
(i) under such Act as amended and supplemented before July 18, 1984, or
(ii) under this title without regard to any provision of law which is not
contained in this title andwhich is not contained in a revenue Act, or
(B) is described in subsection (l).
(2) Corporations organized for the exclusive purpose of holding title
to property, collecting incometherefrom, and turning over the entire amount
thereof, less expenses, to an organization which itself is exempt under this
section. Rules similar to the rules of subparagraph (G) of paragraph (25) shall
apply for purposes of this paragraph.
Page 25 of 183

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation,
organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for
public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or
international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve
the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to
children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of
any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which
is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to
influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which
does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of
statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to)
any candidate for public office.
(4)
(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated
exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations
of employees, the membership of which is limited to theemployees of a
designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net
earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or
recreational purposes.
(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an entity unless no part of the net
earnings of such entity inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or
individual.
________
26 U.S. Code § 508. Special Rules with Respect To Section
501(C)(3) Organizations
(a) New organizations must notify Secretary that they are applying for recognition of
section 501(c)(3) status Except as provided in subsection (c), an organization organized
after October 9, 1969, shall not be treated as an organization described in section
501(c)(3)—
(1) unless it has given notice to the Secretary in such manner as the Secretary
may by regulations prescribe, that it is applying for recognition of such status, or
(2) for any period before the giving of such notice, if such notice is given after the
time prescribed by the Secretary by regulations for giving notice under this
subsection.
(b) Presumption that organizations are private foundations
Page 26 of 183

Except as provided in subsection (c), any organization (including an organization in
existence on October 9, 1969) which is described in section 501(c)(3) and which does
not notify the Secretary, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may by
regulations prescribe, that it is not a private foundation shall be presumed to be a
private foundation.
(c) Exceptions
(1) Mandatory exceptions Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to—
(A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations
of churches, or
(B) any organization which is not a private foundation (as defined in
section 509(a)) and the gross receipts of which in each taxable year are
normally not more than $5,000.
(2) Exceptions by regulations The Secretary may by regulations exempt (to the
extent and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in such regulations)
from the provisions of subsection (a) or (b) or both—
(A) educational organizations described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii), and
(B) any other class of organizations with respect to which the Secretary
determines that full compliance with the provisions of subsections (a) and
(b) is not necessary to the efficient administration of the provisions of this
title relating to private foundations.
________
The 15/16 IRS Determination Test
Applying for 501(c)(3) status is optional for churches, but to not do so can prove to be
costly.
We see in court cases, such as Jack Lane Taylor v. Commissioner, T.C. memo 2000-
17 (Jan. 2000) the burden that is placed on donors of churches without 501(c)(3) status.
If a donor is audited, he/she must establish or prove that the church meets
the requirements and qualifications of a section 501(c)(3) organization.
What a burden for an individual to carry!
For this reason, many donors may choose not to donate to organizations without a
501(c)(3) approval.
Page 27 of 183

In addition, the presumption of tax-exempt status does not exist unless the
church has been officially recognized by the IRS to meet the requirements of
section 501(c)(3).
Churches that have never applied for 501(c)(3) status have not proven they are
compliant with the law. If a church is ever caught functioning outside of the law, the
revocation of its tax exemption will likely go back to the inception date of the church.
In the case of Brach Ministries v. Rossotti, Branch Ministries, a church applied for and
obtained 501(c)(3) exemption. The church was later found guilty of intervening in a
political campaign, and its tax-exempt status was revoked.
In this instance, the revocation went back to the beginning of the tax year where it was
found to be out of compliance. Had the church not applied for 501(c)(3) exemption,
it would have likely been deemed a non tax-exempt organization from the
beginning of its existence.
Do you meet the criteria for church status?
Obtaining 501(c)(3) status is one of the most protective steps a church can take, not
only for itself, but also for its donors. For this reason, our NpA Program takes churches
through both processes of incorporation and 501(c)(3) approval.
Some churches come to us years after their first service and already have hundreds of
attendees. Other churches we work with are still in the planning phases or have just
begun meeting in a home with a handful of congregants.
No matter how big or small the church is, the IRS uses the same standards and
criteria when determining whether or not an organization is a church for tax
purposes.
There is no official definition of “church” in the tax code. When the IRS examines a
501(c)(3) application for church status, it uses a set of criteria known as the 14/15 Point
Test.
This “test” provides basic guidelines to help the IRS and courts determine which
organizations can be classified as a church for tax purposes. Some of the points are
weighted more heavily than others. These points include:
1. A distinct legal existence - Does your church have its own incorporation and
Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN)?
2. A definite and distinct ecclesiastical government - Does your church have its
own pastor, minister, or ecclesiastical board?
Page 28 of 183

3. A formal code of doctrine and discipline - Does your church have a set of
doctrines and beliefs that your congregants are expected to follow?
4. Established places of worship - Do your worship services take place in a
stable location, preferably a public facility instead of one’s home?
5. Regular congregations - Do your worship services contain more than 20
people? Are multiple families represented?
6. Regular religious services - Does your church have regularly scheduled
worship services?
Now, there is no set number of “points” that must be met. However, the more points you
are able to meet of the 14/15 Point Test, the better chances you have of your
organization being classified as a church for federal income tax purposes.
3 benefits of incorporating your church now
Perhaps you are only in the beginning stages of starting your church, or maybe you
have not held any official meetings or gatherings, and the idea of taking any official legal
steps has yet to cross your mind.
You are thinking to yourself, “We will get incorporated once our church is more
established.”
To that, I want to give you some benefits of being proactive and establishing your
church corporation sooner rather than later.
Benefit #1: Forming a corporation at the state level establishes a corporate veil that
separates the actions of the corporation from the actions of you and your church
members. Without the corporate veil, members’ personal assets may be at risk in the
instance of a lawsuit.
Benefit #2: Once incorporated, your church can adopt important governing documents
like bylaws, written doctrines, and policies. Likewise, your church’s governing body can
legally ordain ministers and begin functioning in an ecclesiastical manner.
Benefit #3: Once incorporated, you will be able to open a bank account in the church’s
name. This important step will allow you to properly deposit donations and monitor
income and expenses of your church. Keep in mind that most banks will ask for both the
approved articles of incorporation and the FEIN. That number, also known as a Tax ID
Number, can be obtained online from the IRS.
________
Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches. These attributes of a
church have been developed by the IRS and by court decisions. They include:
Page 29 of 183

• Distinct legal existence
• Recognized creed and form of worship
• Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
• Formal code of doctrine and discipline
• Distinct religious history
• Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
• Organization of ordained ministers
• Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study
• Literature of its own
• Established places of worship
• Regular congregations
• Regular religious services
• Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young
• Schools for the preparation of its members
The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics, together with other facts
and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church for
federal tax purposes.
________
Landmark Cases
Jack Lane Taylor v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2000-17 (Jan. 2000)
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JACK LANE TAYLOR, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 14021-98. Filed January 18, 2000.
Jack Lane Taylor, pro se.
Russell D. Pinkerton, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal
income tax for the taxable year 1996 in the amount of $1,298. The issue for decision is whether
petitioner is entitled to a deduction for a charitable contribution under section 170.1 We hold
that he is not.
Page 30 of 183

FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so found. Petitioner resided in
Indianapolis, Indiana, at the time that his petition was filed with the Court. During the year in
issue, petitioner donated $8,647 to the Indianapolis Baptist Temple (IBT). In the previous year,
on May 8, 1995, the Service had determined that IBT no longer qualified as an organization
described in section 170(c)(2) and by Announcement 95-35, 1995-19 I.R.B. 14, deleted IBT
from the list of organizations contributions to which are deductible under section 170.
On his joint 1996 Federal income tax return, petitioner claimed a deduction in the amount of
$8,647 for a charitable contribution. By notice of deficiency, respondent determined that
petitioner was not entitled to any deduction for a charitable contribution because petitioner had
failed to substantiate any such contribution, and further, that IBT was not an organization
described in section 170(c)(2). At trial, respondent conceded the substantiation issue.
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
2. Throughout this opinion we use the words “donation” and “donate” for convenience only
and not to imply any legal conclusion.
OPINION
Section 170(a) allows as a deduction any charitable contribution, as defined in section 170(c),
that is made during the taxable year. As pertinent here, section 170(c) defines a charitable
contribution as a contribution or gift to or for the use of a corporation, trust, or community chest,
fund, or foundation which is organized and operated exclusively for religious purposes, provided
that none of the net earnings inures to the benefit of any private individual. See sec. 170(c)(2);
see also sec. 501(c)(3). Qualified entities under section 170 are essentially those organizations
that qualify for an exemption from tax under section 501(c)(3). See, e.g., Dew v. Commissioner,
91 T.C. 615, 623 (1988); Kessler v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1285, 1288 (1986), affd. without
published opinion 838 F.2d 1215 (6th Cir. 1988).
Deductions are a matter of legislative grace and taxpayers must satisfy the specific
requirements of the deductions they claim. See New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S.
435 (1934). Taxpayers bear the burden of proving their entitlement to the deductions they
claim. See Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933); Davis v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 806, 815 (1983), affd. without
published opinion 767 F.2d 931 (9th Cir. 1985).
These rules apply with equal force to deductions claimed for charitable contributions. See Davis
v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioner concedes that during the year in issue IBT was not an
organization defined in section 501(c)(3) and, by implication, we understand him not to assert
that IBT is an organization defined in section 170(c)(2). Rather, petitioner contends that his
donations to IBT are deductible because IBT is not a “corporation”, but a “church”. As a
church, petitioner contends, IBT is exempt from having to meet the requirements of section
170(c)(2). He relies on section 508(c)(1) for support for his position.
Section 508(c)(1)(A) provides that churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or
associations of churches are excepted from the general rule of section 508(a). Section 508(a)
Page 31 of 183

provides that organizations described in section 501(c)(3) and organized after October 9, 1969,
are required to apply formally for recognition of their tax-exempt status. Thus, section 508(c)(1)
simply relieves churches from applying for a favorable determination letter regarding their
exempt status as required by section 508(a). Nothing in section 508(c)(1) relieves a church from
having to meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3). 2 In fact, it is clear that when the
Commissioner determines that an organization is not entitled to an exemption as a church, as is
the case for IBT, its contributors must prove the church’s right to an exemption under section
501(c)(3) in order to be entitled to a deduction for their contributions. See Riemers v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-456; Hall v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-576, affd. 676
F.2d 692 (4th Cir. 1982); Brown v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-553; sec. 1.508-1(a)(3),
(4), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner’s position is based on the assertion that IBT was not required to meet the
requirements of sections 170(c)(2) and 501(c)(3), and he did not introduce any evidence at trial
to establish that IBT was an organization defined in those sections.
Having failed to carry his burden of proving that IBT qualifies as a religious organization under
section 170(c)(2), petitioner is not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction for his
donations to IBT. Cf. Hall v. Commissioner, supra. Cf. sec. 7428(c), which validates up to
$1,000 per contributor where the donee has instituted proceedings under sec. 7428 to contest
the revocation of the donee’s status. There is nothing in the record to suggest that this provision
has any application in the present case.
To reflect our disposition of the disputed issue, Decision will be entered for respondent.
________
Branch Ministries v. Rossatti, 211 F. 3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
BRANCH MINISTRIES and Dan Little, Pastor, Appellants, v. Charles O. ROSSOTTI,
Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service, Appellee.
No. 99-5097.
Decided: May 12, 2000
Before SILBERMAN and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLEY, Senior Circuit
Judge. Mark N. Troobnick, with whom Jay Alan Sekulow and Colby M. May were on the
briefs, argued the cause for appellants. Thomas J. Sawyer, Attorney, U.S. Department
of Justice, with whom Loretta C. Argrett, Assistant Attorney General, and Kenneth L.
Greene, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, and Wilma A. Lewis, United States
Attorney, were on the brief, argued the cause for appellee. Richard P. Hutchison, Mark
R. Levin and Janet LaRue were on the brief for amici curiae Landmark Legal
Foundation and Family Research Council Ayesha N. Khan,Elliot M. Mincberg and Alma
C. Henderson were on the brief for amici curiae Americans United for Separation of
Church and State and People for the American Way Foundation.
2
Cf. sec. 7491, effective for court proceedings arising in connection with examinations commencing after July 22, 1998.
Page 32 of 183

Four days before the 1992 presidential election, Branch Ministries, a tax-exempt church,
placed full-page advertisements in two newspapers in which it urged Christians not to
vote for then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton because of his positions on certain
moral issues. The Internal Revenue Service concluded that the placement of the
advertisements violated the statutory restrictions on organizations exempt from taxation
and, for the first time in its history, it revoked a bona fide church's tax-exempt status
because of its involvement in politics. Branch Ministries and its pastor, Dan Little,
challenge the revocation on the grounds that (1) the Service acted beyond its statutory
authority, (2) the revocation violated its right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed
by the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and (3) it was the
victim of selective prosecution in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Because these
objections are without merit, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to
the Service.
I. Background
A. Taxation of Churches
The Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) exempts certain organizations from taxation,
including those organized and operated for religious purposes, provided that they do not
engage in certain activities, including involvement in “any political campaign on behalf of
(or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” 26 U.S.C. § 501(a), (c)(3) (1994).
Contributions to such organizations are also deductible from the donating taxpayer's
taxable income. Id. § 170(a). Although most organizations seeking tax-exempt
status are required to apply to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS” or “Service”) for an
advance determination that they meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3), id. §
508(a), a church may simply hold itself out as tax exempt and receive the benefits of
that status without applying for advance recognition from the IRS. Id. § 508(c)(1)(A).
The IRS maintains a periodically updated “Publication No. 78,” in which it lists all
organizations that have received a ruling or determination letter confirming the
deductibility of contributions made to them. See Rev. Proc. 82-39, 1982-1 C.B. 759,
§§ 2.01, 2.03. Thus, a listing in that publication will provide donors with advance
assurance that their contributions will be deductible under section 170(a). If a listed
organization has subsequently had its tax-exempt status revoked, contributions that are
made to it by a donor who is unaware of the change in status will generally be treated
as deductible if made on or before the date that the revocation is publicly announced.
Id. § 3.01. Donors to a church that has not received an advance determination of its
tax-exempt status may also deduct their contributions; but in the event of an audit, the
taxpayer will bear the burden of establishing that the church meets the requirements of
section 501(c)(3). See generally id. § 3.04; Rev. Proc. 80-24, 1980-1 C.B. 658, § 6
(discussing taxpayers' obligations in seeking a ruling or determination letter).
The unique treatment churches receive in the Internal Revenue Code is further reflected
in special restrictions on the IRS's ability to investigate the tax status of a church. The
Church Audit Procedures Act (“CAPA”) sets out the circumstances under which the IRS
Page 33 of 183

may initiate an investigation of a church and the procedures it is required to follow in
such an investigation. 26 U.S.C. § 7611. Upon a “ reasonable belief” by a high-level
Treasury official that a church may not be exempt from taxation under section 501, the
IRS may begin a “church tax inquiry.” Id. § 7611(a). A church tax inquiry is defined,
rather circularly, as
any inquiry to a church (other than an examination) to serve as a basis for determining
whether a church-
(A) is exempt from tax under section 501(a) by reason of its status as a church, or
(B) is ․ engaged in activities which may be subject to taxation․
Id. § 7611(h)(2). If the IRS is not able to resolve its concerns through a church tax
inquiry, it may proceed to the second level of investigation: a “church tax examination.”
In such an examination, the IRS may obtain and review the church's records or examine
its activities “to determine whether [the] organization claiming to be a church is a church
for any period.” Id. § 7611(b)(1)(A), (B).
B. Factual and Procedural History
Branch Ministries, Inc. operates the Church at Pierce Creek (“Church”), a Christian
church located in Binghamton, New York. In 1983, the Church requested and received
a letter from the IRS recognizing its tax-exempt status. On October 30, 1992, four
days before the presidential election, the Church placed full-page advertisements in
USA Today and the Washington Times. Each bore the headline “Christians Beware”
and asserted that then-Governor Clinton's positions concerning abortion,
homosexuality, and the distribution of condoms to teenagers in schools violated Biblical
precepts. The following appeared at the bottom of each advertisement:
This advertisement was co-sponsored by the Church at Pierce Creek, Daniel J. Little,
Senior Pastor, and by churches and concerned Christians nationwide. Tax-deductible
donations for this advertisement gladly accepted. Make donations to: The Church at
Pierce Creek. [mailing address].
Appendix (“App.”) at Tab 5, Ex. E.
The advertisements did not go unnoticed. They produced hundreds of contributions to
the Church from across the country and were mentioned in a New York Times article
and an Anthony Lewis column which stated that the sponsors of the advertisement had
almost certainly violated the Internal Revenue Code. Peter Applebome, Religious
Right Intensifies Campaign for Bush, N.Y. Times, Oct. 31, 1992, at A1; Anthony Lewis,
Tax Exempt Politics?, N.Y. Times, Dec. 1, 1992, at A15.
The advertisements also came to the attention of the Regional Commissioner of the
IRS, who notified the Church on November 20, 1992 that he had authorized a church
Page 34 of 183

tax inquiry based on “a reasonable belief ․ that you may not be tax-exempt or that you
may be liable for tax” due to political activities and expenditures. Letter from Cornelius
J. Coleman, IRS Regional Commissioner, to The Church at Pierce Creek (Nov. 20,
1992), reprinted in App. at Tab 5, Ex. F. The Church denied that it had engaged in any
prohibited political activity and declined to provide the IRS with certain information the
Service had requested. On February 11, 1993, the IRS informed the Church that it
was beginning a church tax examination. Following two unproductive meetings
between the parties, the IRS revoked the Church's section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status
on January 19, 1995, citing the newspaper advertisements as prohibited intervention in
a political campaign.
The Church and Pastor Little (collectively, “Church”) commenced this lawsuit soon
thereafter. This had the effect of suspending the revocation of the Church's tax
exemption until the district court entered its judgment in this case. See 26 U.S.C. §
7428(c). The Church challenged the revocation of its tax-exempt status, alleging that
the IRS had no authority to revoke its tax exemption, that the revocation violated its right
to free speech and to freely exercise its religion under the First Amendment and the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb (“RFRA”), and that the
IRS engaged in selective prosecution in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fifth Amendment. After allowing discovery on the Church's selective prosecution
claim, Branch Ministries, Inc. v. Richardson, 970 F.Supp. 11 (D.D.C.1997), the district
court granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS. Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 40
F.Supp.2d 15 (D.D.C.1999).
The Church filed a timely appeal, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1291. We review summary judgment decisions de novo, see Everett v. United States,
158 F.3d 1364, 1367 (D.C.Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1132, 119 S.Ct. 1807, 143
L.Ed.2d 1010 (1999), and will affirm only if there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c).
II. Analysis
The Church advances a number of arguments in support of its challenges to the
revocation. We examine only those that warrant analysis.
A. The Statutory Authority of the IRS
The Church argues that, under the Internal Revenue Code, the IRS does not have the
statutory authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of a bona fide church. It reasons as
follows: section 501(c)(3) refers to tax-exempt status for religious organizations, not
churches; section 508, on the other hand, specifically exempts “churches” from the
requirement of applying for advance recognition of tax-exempt status, id. §
508(c)(1)(A); therefore, according to the Church, its tax-exempt status is derived not
from section 501(c)(3), but from the lack of any provision in the Code for the taxation of
churches. The Church concludes from this that it is not subject to taxation and that the
Page 35 of 183

IRS is therefore powerless to place conditions upon or to remove its tax-exempt status
as a church.
We find this argument more creative than persuasive. The simple answer, of course,
is that whereas not every religious organization is a church, every church is a religious
organization. More to the point, irrespective of whether it was required to do so, the
Church applied to the IRS for an advance determination of its tax-exempt status. The
IRS granted that recognition and now seeks to withdraw it. CAPA gives the IRS this
power.
That statute, which pertains exclusively to churches, provides authority for revocation of
the tax-exempt status of a church through its references to other sections of the Internal
Revenue Code. The section of CAPA entitled “Limitations on revocation of tax-exempt
status, etc.” provides that the Secretary of the Treasury may “determine that an
organization is not a church which [ ] (i) is exempt from taxation by reason of section
501(a), or (ii) is described in section 170(c).” 26 U.S.C. § 7611(d)(1)(A)(i), (ii). Both
of these sections condition tax-exempt status on non-intervention in political campaigns.
Section 501(a) states that “[a]n organization described in subsection (c) ․ shall be
exempt from taxation․” Id. § 501(a). Those described in subsection (c) include
corporations ․ organized and operated exclusively for religious ․ purposes ․ which do[ ]
not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements),
any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
Id. § 501(c)(3). Similarly, section 170(c) allows taxpayers to deduct from their taxable
income donations made to a corporation
organized and operated exclusively for religious ․ purposes ․ which is not disqualified for
tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) by reason of attempting to ․ intervene in
(including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf
of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
Id. § 170(c)(2)(B), (D).
The Code, in short, specifically states that organizations that fail to comply with the
restrictions set forth in section 501(c) are not qualified to receive the tax exemption that
it provides. Having satisfied ourselves that the IRS had the statutory authority to
revoke the Church's tax-exempt status, we now turn to the free exercise challenges.
B. First Amendment Claims and the RFRA
The Church claims that the revocation of its exemption violated its right to freely
exercise its religion under both the First Amendment and the RFRA. To sustain its
claim under either the Constitution or the statute, the Church must first establish that its
free exercise right has been substantially burdened. See Jimmy Swaggart Ministries
v. Board of Equalization, 493 U.S. 378, 384-85, 110 S.Ct. 688, 107 L.Ed.2d 796 (1990)
Page 36 of 183

(“Our cases have established that the free exercise inquiry asks whether government
has placed a substantial burden on the observation of a central religious belief or
practice and, if so, whether a compelling governmental interest justifies the burden.”)
(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a), (b) (
“Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion” in the
absence of a compelling government interest that is furthered by the least restrictive
means.). We conclude that the Church has failed to meet this test.
The Church asserts, first, that a revocation would threaten its existence. See Affidavit
of Dan Little dated July 31, 1995 at 22, reprinted in App. at Tab 8 (“The Church at
Pierce Creek will have to close due to the revocation of its tax exempt status, and the
inability of congregants to deduct their contributions from their taxes.”). The Church
maintains that a loss of its tax-exempt status will not only make its members reluctant to
contribute the funds essential to its survival, but may obligate the Church itself to pay
taxes.
The Church appears to assume that the withdrawal of a conditional privilege for
failure to meet the condition is in itself an unconstitutional burden on its free exercise
right. This is true, however, only if the receipt of the privilege (in this case the tax
exemption) is conditioned
upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or ․ denie[d] ․ because of conduct
mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to
modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.
Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 493 U.S. at 391-92, 110 S.Ct. 688 (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). Although its advertisements reflected its religious convictions on
certain questions of morality, the Church does not maintain that a withdrawal from
electoral politics would violate its beliefs. The sole effect of the loss of the tax
exemption will be to decrease the amount of money available to the Church for its
religious practices. The Supreme Court has declared, however, that such a burden “is
not constitutionally significant.” Id. at 391, 110 S.Ct. 688; see also Hernandez v.
Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 700, 109 S.Ct. 2136, 104 L.Ed.2d 766 (1989) (the
“contention that an incrementally larger tax burden interferes with [ ] religious activities ․
knows no limitation”).
In actual fact, even this burden is overstated. Because of the unique treatment
churches receive under the Internal Revenue Code, the impact of the revocation is likely
to be more symbolic than substantial. As the IRS confirmed at oral argument, if the
Church does not intervene in future political campaigns, it may hold itself out as a
501(c)(3) organization and receive all the benefits of that status. All that will have
been lost, in that event, is the advance assurance of deductibility in the event a donor
should be audited. See 26 U.S.C. § 508(c)(1)(A); Rev. Proc. 82-39 § 2.03.
Contributions will remain tax deductible as long as donors are able to establish that the
Church meets the requirements of section 501(c) (3).
Page 37 of 183

Nor does the revocation necessarily make the Church liable for the payment of taxes.
As the IRS explicitly represented in its brief and reiterated at oral argument, the
revocation of the exemption does not convert bona fide donations into income taxable to
the Church. See 26 U.S.C. § 102 (“Gross income does not include the value of
property acquired by gift․”). Furthermore, we know of no authority, and counsel
provided none, to prevent the Church from reapplying for a prospective determination of
its tax-exempt status and regaining the advance assurance of deductibility-provided, of
course, that it renounces future involvement in political campaigns.
We also reject the Church's argument that it is substantially burdened because it has no
alternate means by which to communicate its sentiments about candidates for public
office. In Regan v. Taxation With Representation, 461 U.S. 540, 552-53, 103 S.Ct.
1997, 76 L.Ed.2d 129 (1983) (Blackmun, J., concurring), three members of the
Supreme Court stated that the availability of such an alternate means of communication
is essential to the constitutionality of section 501(c)(3)'s restrictions on lobbying. The
Court subsequently confirmed that this was an accurate description of its holding. See
FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364, 400, 104 S.Ct. 3106, 82 L.Ed.2d 278
(1984). In Regan, the concurring justices noted that “TWR may use its present §
501(c)(3) organization for its nonlobbying activities and may create a § 501(c)(4)
affiliate to pursue its charitable goals through lobbying.” 461 U.S. at 552, 103 S.Ct.
1997.
The Church has such an avenue available to it. As was the case with TWR, the
Church may form a related organization under section 501(c)(4) of the Code. See 26
U.S.C. § 501(c)(4) (tax exemption for “[c]ivic leagues or organizations not organized for
profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare”). Such
organizations are exempt from taxation; but unlike their section 501(c)(3) counterparts,
contributions to them are not deductible. See id. § 170(c); see also Regan, 461 U.S.
at 543, 552-53, 103 S.Ct. 1997. Although a section 501(c)(4) organization is also
subject to the ban on intervening in political campaigns, see 26 C.F.R. § 1.501(c)(4)-
1(a)(2)(ii) (1999), it may form a political action committee (“PAC”) that would be free to
participate in political campaigns. Id. § 1.527-6(f), (g) (“[A]n organization described in
section 501(c) that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) may, [if it is not a
section 501(c)(3) organization], establish and maintain such a separate segregated fund
to receive contributions and make expenditures in a political campaign.”).
At oral argument, counsel for the Church doggedly maintained that there can be no
“Church at Pierce Creek PAC.” True, it may not itself create a PAC; but as we have
pointed out, the Church can initiate a series of steps that will provide an alternate
means of political communication that will satisfy the standards set by the concurring
justices in Regan. Should the Church proceed to do so, however, it must understand
that the related 501(c)(4) organization must be separately incorporated; and it must
maintain records that will demonstrate that tax-deductible contributions to the Church
have not been used to support the political activities conducted by the 501(c)(4)
organization's political action arm. See 26 U.S.C. § 527(f)(3); 26 C.F.R. § 1.527-
6(e), (f).
Page 38 of 183

That the Church cannot use its tax-free dollars to fund such a PAC unquestionably
passes constitutional muster. The Supreme Court has consistently held that, absent
invidious discrimination, “Congress has not violated [an organization's] First Amendment
rights by declining to subsidize its First Amendment activities.” Regan, 461 U.S. at
548, 103 S.Ct. 1997; see also Cammarano v. United States, 358 U.S. 498, 513, 79
S.Ct. 524, 3 L.Ed.2d 462 (1959) (“Petitioners are not being denied a tax deduction
because they engage in constitutionally protected activities, but are simply being
required to pay for those activities entirely out of their own pockets, as everyone else
engaging in similar activities is required to do under the provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code.”).
Because the Church has failed to demonstrate that its free exercise rights have been
substantially burdened, we do not reach its arguments that section 501(c)(3) does not
serve a compelling government interest or, if it is indeed compelling, that revocation of
its tax exemption was not the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
Nor does the Church succeed in its claim that the IRS has violated its First
Amendment free speech rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination. The
restrictions imposed by section 501(c)(3) are viewpoint neutral; they prohibit
intervention in favor of all candidates for public office by all tax-exempt organizations,
regardless of candidate, party, or viewpoint. Cf. Regan, 461 U.S. at 550-51, 103 S.Ct.
1997 (upholding denial of tax deduction for lobbying activities, in spite of allowance of
such deduction for veteran's groups).
C. Selective Prosecution (Fifth Amendment)
The Church alleges that the IRS violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth
Amendment by engaging in selective prosecution. In support of its claim, the Church
has submitted several hundred pages of newspaper excerpts reporting political
campaign activities in, or by the pastors of, other churches that have retained their taxexempt
status. These include reports of explicit endorsements of Democratic
candidates by clergymen as well as many instances in which favored candidates have
been invited to address congregations from the pulpit. The Church complains that
despite this widespread and widely reported involvement by other churches in political
campaigns, it is the only one to have ever had its tax-exempt status revoked for
engaging in political activity. It attributes this alleged discrimination to the Service's
political bias.
To establish selective prosecution, the Church must “prove that (1) [it] was singled out
for prosecution from among others similarly situated and (2) that [the] prosecution was
improperly motivated, i.e., based on race, religion or another arbitrary classification.”
United States v. Washington, 705 F.2d 489, 494 (D.C.Cir.1983). This burden is a
demanding one because “in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts
presume that [government prosecutors] have properly discharged their official duties.”
Page 39 of 183

United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
At oral argument, counsel for the IRS conceded that if some of the church-sponsored
political activities cited by the Church were accurately reported, they were in violation of
section 501(c)(3) and could have resulted in the revocation of those churches' taxexempt
status. But even if the Service could have revoked their tax exemptions, the
Church has failed to establish selective prosecution because it has failed to
demonstrate that it was similarly situated to any of those other churches. None of the
reported activities involved the placement of advertisements in newspapers with
nationwide circulations opposing a candidate and soliciting tax deductible contributions
to defray their cost. As we have stated,
[i]f ․ there was no one to whom defendant could be compared in order to resolve the
question of [prosecutorial] selection, then it follows that defendant has failed to make
out one of the elements of its case. Discrimination cannot exist in a vacuum; it can be
found only in the unequal treatment of people in similar circumstances.
Attorney Gen. v. Irish People, Inc., 684 F.2d 928, 946 (D.C.Cir.1982); see also United
States v. Hastings, 126 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.1997) ( “[D]efendants are similarly
situated when their circumstances present no distinguishable legitimate prosecutorial
factors that might justify making different prosecutorial decisions with respect to them.”)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Because the Church has failed to establish that it was singled out for prosecution from
among others who were similarly situated, we need not examine whether the IRS was
improperly motivated in undertaking this prosecution.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the revocation of the Church's tax-exempt status
neither violated the Constitution nor exceeded the IRS's statutory authority. The
judgment of the district court is therefore
Affirmed.
Opinion for the court filed by Senior Judge bUCKLEY.
…
Page 40 of 183

III. Self Organizational Evaluation(s)
Strategic Triangle Model
Organizational Analysis Models
This model relies on three key calculations to determine the efficiency and effectiveness
of an organization. First, is the value, or mission, that guides the organization. Second,
is operational capacity, the knowledge and capability to carry out the mission. Third, is
legitimacy and support, or the environment, that authorize the value of the organization,
and offer support, (specifically financial support). Using this model, a strategy for an
organization is considered good if these three components are in alignment.
SWOT Model
A SWOT analysis (alternatively SWOT matrix) is a structured planning method used to
evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats involved in a project or in
a business venture. A SWOT analysis can be carried out for a product, place, industry
or person. It involves specifying the objective of the business venture or project and
identifying the internal and external factors that are favorable and unfavorable to
achieve that objective. The degree to which the internal environment of the entity
matches with the external environment is expressed by the concept of strategic fit.
Strengths: characteristics of the business or project that give it an advantage over
others.
Weaknesses: characteristics that place the business or project at a disadvantage
relative to others
Opportunities: elements that the project could exploit to its advantage
Threats: elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the business or
project
First, the decision makers should consider whether the objective is attainable, given the
SWOTs. If the objective is not attainable a different objective must be selected and the
process repeated. Users of SWOT analysis need to ask and answer questions that
generate meaningful information for each category (strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats) to make the analysis useful and find their competitive
advantage.
The McKinsey 7S Model
The McKinsey 7S Framework emphasizes balancing seven key aspects of an
organization, operating unit, or project. Three of the seven elements—strategy,
structure, and systems—are considered "hard" elements, easily identified, described,
Page 41 of 183

and analyzed. The remaining four elements—shared value, staff, skill, and style—are
fluid, difficult to describe, and dependent upon the actors within the organization at any
given time. The 7S organizational analysis framework is based on the premise that all
seven elements are interdependent, and must be mutually reinforcing in order to be
successful. Changes in a single element can result in misalignment and dysfunction
throughout the organization, disrupting organizational harmony.
Rational Model
The rational model stems from the Frederick W. Taylor's (1911) Structural Perspective.
Taylor was the father of time-and-motion studies and founded an approach he called
"scientific management." It was Taylor's stance that organisations should be as
mechanistic and efficient as possible.
These Scientific Management principles served a valuable purpose for the Ford Motor
Company, where the first American, mass-produced automobiles were being
created. The rational model views organizations as a mechanism that is made up of
various parts that can be modified in order to create an output in the shortest amount of
time and without deviation.
Natural System Model
The natural system model is in many ways the opposite of the rational model in that it
focuses on the activities that may negatively impact the organization and therefore aims
at maintaining an equilibrium in order to meet its goals. The Natural System model
views organizations as an organic organism which is holistically interconnected. The
parts of the organization are not seen as independent units but rather as a whole that
can orchestrate together to prepare for inevitable change.
Sociotechnical Model
The sociotechnical model, also known as Sociotechnical Systems (STS), is an
approach to complex organizational work design that recognizes the interaction
between people and technology in workplaces. The term also refers to the interaction
between society's complex infrastructures and human behavior. This model identifies
the environment as a key factor that interacts with the organization.
Cognitive Model
Behavior, cognitive, and other personal factors as well as environmental events,
operate as interacting determinants that influence each other bi-directionally. Personal
goals of the managers and staff are seen as assisting in the effort toward organizational
objective attainment. Decision making processes are focused on and specialization is
deemed as important to the flow of information.
Page 42 of 183

Meta Models
Attempts have also been made to put elements of the above models into a kind of metamodel.
Based on a theorized blindness of a single perspective, Lee Bolman and
Terrence Deal have designed a model that splits analysis into four distinct paradigms.
These 'frames' are to be used as a pluralistic model, and therefore allow analysts to
change thinking by re-framing understanding and points of reference.
Structural Frame Here organizations are to be understood by role definitions and clear
hierarchy. Problems come from overlapping responsibilities and unclear instructions.
The assumptions are similar to the rational model shown above and Taylorism.
Human Resource Frame According to this frame organizations exist to serve society,
they are places for growth and development. Problems come from when people are not
motivated or trained sufficiently. This is Similar to the Sociotechnical model, or the work
of Daniel Pink.
Political Frame this frame posits that organizations are cutthroat jungles, where only
the strongest survive. Problems come from poor power coalitions or overly centralized
power.
Symbolic Frame This frame supposes that organizations are deeply symbolic and
successful business is about the representation genuine meaning. Problems occur
when actors fail to play their parts.
Bolman and Deal lay out these frames in their book Reframing Organizations: Artistry,
Choice and Leadership the authors also provide many examples of how best to apply
their four frames analysis.
Organizational Network Analysis
Organizational network analysis (ONA) is a method for studying communication within a
formal organization to make invisible patterns of information flow and collaboration in
strategically important groups visible. The method is applied by first mapping the
relationships among people, tasks, groups, knowledge and resources of organizational
systems. Then, analyzing the collected data with a social network analysis software in
order to find organic clusters, opinion leaders, peripheral and bridging actors, indirect
relations that are otherwise invisible.
________
Organizational Analysis Examples
Reflective Practitioner Model: Washington D.C. School System
In the early 2000s, the Washington D.C. public schools (DCPS) faced an organizational
crisis. D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty sought advice to determine what was the best way to
effectively improve the Washington D.C. public schools. Fenty employed Michelle
Page 43 of 183

Rhee as the DCPS superintendent. Rhee initiated her job by analyzing all the factors
that affected the DCPS. After evaluating all the factors Rhee decided to restructure the
DCPS. Rhee set defined metrics in order to hold teachers accountable and measure
whether they were reaching goals. Rhee wanted to eliminate tenure for teachers in
order to increase teacher accountability. Rhee wanted to increase the DCPS efficiency,
and believed that restructuring the teachers would achieve this. The process and results
were controversial but illustrate an organizational approach to overcoming a policy
crisis.
Strategic Triangle Model OK: Casa de Esperanza
In 1982, a group of women formed a shelter in St. Paul, Minnesota to address the
needs of Latina women in the community that were victims of domestic violence. Casa
de Esperanza immediately reached capacity, but the majority of occupants were
Caucasian and African-American women. The Board of Directors was surprised to
realize that very few women from the Latina community were utilizing the shelter. Casa
de Esperanza continued to serve women from all backgrounds, and received
government stipends for their work. The organization strove to be multicultural, while
also maintaining the same mission of empowering Latinas. Many of the staff members
identified with the mission of helping all women, while the Board of Directors maintained
their stance on specifically helping Latinas.
The theoretical model of the, "strategic triangle," can be applied in order to better
understand the organizational challenges of Casa de Esperanza. The mission and
capacity of the organization are misaligned due to a few key factors. The mission of the
organization is vague and overly broad, which led the staff and Board to develop
opposing views of the mission. Most importantly, they could not agree on who their
target demographic was. The organization’s capacity is rooted in helping women from
all backgrounds with a variety of services, while the mission seems to indicate they
serve Latina women predominantly. The environment suggests that there is a need
amongst a broader population than just Latina women. In addition, the government is
the main source of funding for the organization and they are failing at financial
sustainability. In order to bring these three components into alignment, the organization
would need to make a clear and specific mission statement, tailor their capacity to reach
that mission, and look for alternate forms of funding. Other recommendations could be
made using the strategic triangle model. The model is a useful tool to examine the
organizations in a crisis situation.
Page 44 of 183

IV. Amended State Filing(s)
Exercise
Pennsylvania
STEP BY STEP GUIDE TO PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION AMENDMENTS
How to file a Pennsylvania Corporation Amendment:
To make amendments to your Pennsylvania Corporation, you must provide the
completed Articles of Amendment-Domestic Corporation (DSCB: 15-1915) form to
the Department of State Corporation Bureau by mail or in person. If your amendment
does not fit on the two lines of section 7, attach them as Exhibit A. Include with your
filing, two copies of a completed DSCB: 15-134B, Docketing Statement-Changes.
Can you re-state the initial articles instead of filing an amendment?
Yes but it is more expensive to do so.
Are there any specifics you can or can’t include with a Pennsylvania Corporation
amendment?
No.
How much does a Pennsylvania Corporation amendment cost?
To amend your Pennsylvania corporation, there is a $70.00 filing fee required.
Expedited service within 1 day is available for an additional $70.00 fee with an
accompanying cover letter that highlights the request for expedited processing.
How long does it take the state to process a Pennsylvania Corporation
amendment?
Normal Processing: 3-5 working days, plus additional time for return mailing.
In Person Processing: 3-5 working days, plus additional time for return mailing.
Expedite Processing: 1 day, plus additional time for return mailing notice.
How will the corporation amendment be returned?
You will receive a confirmation of processing notice by mail.
What state agency do you file an amendment with?
Page 45 of 183

Pennsylvania Department of State
Corporation Bureau
PO Box 8722
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8722
Phone: (717) 787-1057
Website: http://www.dos.state.pa.us
Can you change the Pennsylvania Corporation members or managers on an
amendment?
Yes.
Can you change the Pennsylvania registered agent on the amendment?
No. To change your Pennsylvania registered agent, you will need to provide the
completed Statement of Change of Registered Office form, to the Department of
State Corporation Bureau by mail or in person. There is a $70.00 filing fee for
processing that form. The registered office provider does not sign this form. An
officer of the corporation needs to sign it.
Can you change the principal office address and/or the mailing address on a
corporation amendment?
Yes.
Page 46 of 183

New Jersey
STEP BY STEP GUIDE TO NEW JERSEY CORPORATION AMENDMENTS
How to amend New Jersey Certificate of Incorporation:
Filing corporate amendments in New Jersey is complicated by the fact that you can
submit several different forms to make changes to your New Jersey corporation. The
division provides three different amendment forms for domestic corporations. You are
not required to use the New Jersey Division of Revenue forms to amend your
certificate of incorporation. You may draft your own amendment. However, the division
recommends using their forms because if the filing does not include all the required
information, it will be rejected.
• C-102, Certificate of Amendment by Incorporator(s) is for profit and nonprofit
corporations that have not yet held an organizational meeting of the first board of
directors or trustees.
• C-102A, Certificate of Amendment by Shareholders(s) is for profit
corporations. C-102B, Certificate of Amendment by Members or Trustees is for
nonprofit corporations.
• Another option is to file one of the forms included in the New Jersey Business
Registration Packet. These forms are also available on the Division of Revenue
website (see link below). The Business Entity Amendment Filing form (page 39)
can be used to change numbered articles in the original certificate of any entity.
How do I actually file the amendment form with the New Jersey Division of
Revenue?
You can submit the amendment form by mail, fax, or in person. There are specific
filing instructions for each option. You should always include a filing coversheet.
Mail or in person
You may submit the amendment to the Division of Revenue by regular mail, USPS
overnight, express mail, courier, or in person. You need submit the original
amendment and a duplicate.
The filing cover letter must include:
1. The name of firm or individual submitting the amendment;
2. Payment method:
• Credit card, number, cardholder name, billing address,
• Division of Revenue depository account number, or
• Check;
Page 47 of 183

3. Description of the filing (“Certificate of Amendment”);
4. If filing in person, choose expedited or same day processing;
5. The entity’s name;
6. The entity’s business ID; and
7. Return instructions:
8.
• Include a return address for mailed documents, or
• If you delivered documents by express or courier and you want them
returned that way, include completed air bill
Checks should be payable to the Treasurer, State of New Jersey. The Division of
Revenue does not accept cash.
Fax
Complete the amendment form, prepare a fax coversheet and fax your form to the
division. Your fax coversheet must be entitled DIVISION OF REVENUE FACSIMILE
FILING SERVICE REQUEST.
The fax filing coversheet needs to include:
1. The name of the firm or individual filing the form;
2. Date of submission;
3. Method of payment:
• Visa, MasterCard, or Discover Card number, name, address, and
expiration; or
• Division of Revenue depository account number;
4. Description of the service requested;
5. Choice of expedited or same day service;
6. Business name;
7. Total number of pages (including coversheet); and
8. Fax number to fax filed documents back to
Fax the form and the coversheet to the New Jersey Division of Revenue at 609-984-
6851.
If your document is accepted, it will be stamped “filed” and faxed back to the filer with
a receipt. If it is rejected, the unfiled document will be returned with a rejection notice
and the fee is refunded.
Can you re-state the initial certificate instead of filing an amendment?
Yes. You would file Restated Certificate form to restate or restate and amend the
certificate of incorporation. For profit corporations would file form C-100A Restated
Certificate of Incorporation. There are two pages required to restate the certificate.
Make sure you submit both pages to the Division of Revenue.
Page 48 of 183

The filing fee for a restated certificate is $75.
Are there any specifics you can or can’t include with a New Jersey corporation
amendment?
You can change your business name and change your New Jersey registered agent
information. You also can change any other original articles.
How much does a New Jersey corporation amendment cost?
The certificate of amendment filing fee is $75.
If you file over-the-counter, there is an additional $15 fee for 8.5 business hour
expedited service.
If you fax the certificate of amendment, you pay the filing fee, an expedite fee, and a
$1 per page fax back fee for returning filed documents. The additional expedite fee for
8.5 business hour processing is $15. The expedite fee for same day processing of
faxed documents is $50
How long does it take the state to process a New Jersey corporation amendment?
Mailing documents is the slowest way to file with the Division of Revenue. Expect 3-10
business days for Division of Revenue processing plus 3-6 days mail time each way.
Include a self addressed stamped envelope to minimize processing time.
Over the counter filings are processed in 8.5 business hours. Fax filing is also
expedited. You can choose 8.5 business hour or same day processing. Documents
submitted for same day processing by 12:30 done by 5:00 (on business days).
How will the New Jersey corporation amendment be returned?
Mailed documents are mailed to the registered office address. If you request that
documents be mailed to a different address, (on a self-addressed envelope or cover
letter) the division of revenue will send documents to that address.
If you select expedited processing, you can include instructions as to how you would
like the filing returned to you. You may choose to have expedited documents picked
up by a courier or express mail service if you include a package and air bill.
Page 49 of 183

What state agency do you file an amendment with?
Mail or USPS overnight:
New Jersey Division of Revenue
Corporate Filing
PO Box 308
Trenton, NJ 08625-0308
Over the counter, express mail, or courier:
33 West State Street, 5th Floor
Trenton, NJ 08608-1214
Phone: (609)292-9292
Fax filings: (609) 984-6851
Can you change the New Jersey corporation officers or directors on an
amendment?
Yes you can file an amendment to the article of the certificate that lists officers and
directors.
You will have to list the corporations officers and directors in the annual report.
Can you change the New Jersey registered agent on the amendment?
Yes. You can change the corporation’ registered agent when you file an amendment.
You can also change the New Jersey registered agent when you file the New Jersey
corporation annual report.
Can you change the principal office address and/or the mailing address on an
corporation amendment?
Yes. You can change the corporations principal address when you file an amendment.
You can also change the principal address on the corporations annual report.
New Jersey Division of Revenue forms
New Jersey Business Registration Package
Page 50 of 183

Delaware
STEP BY STEP GUIDE TO DELAWARE CORPORATION AMENDMENTS
How to file a Delaware Corporation Amendment:
To make amendments to your Delaware Stock Corporation, you submit the completed
State of Delaware Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation form to the
Department of State by mail, fax or in person, along with the filing fee and the Filing
Cover Memo. Non-stock corporations use a separate amendment form.
If you are amending more than one article, you may attach a list of the articles being
amended with the amendments stated.
Can you restate the initial articles instead of filing an amendment?
Yes. The filing fee for a restated certificate is $194 without amendments. If you wish to
re-state the initial articles you must draft your own restated articles. There is no form
available for restated articles.
Are there any specifics you can or can’t include with a Delaware Corporation
amendment?
The original articles of incorporation may be amended as desired; however, if you
wish to change your original registered agent, you are required to use the Statement
of Agent Change form.
How much does a Delaware Corporation amendment cost?
To amend your corporation in Delaware, there is a $194 filing fee required. You may
request expedited processing for an additional $1000 for one-hour service, $500 for
two-hour service, $200 for same day service, or within 24 working hours for an
additional $100 fee.
How long does it take the state to process a Delaware Corporation amendment?
Normal processing in Delaware is approximately two to three weeks. You may request
expedited service with processing from 24 hours to one hour.
How will the corporation amendment be returned?
You will receive a confirmation copy of your filing by the return service method that
you indicate on your Filing Cover Memo.
Page 51 of 183

What state agency do you file an amendment with?
Delaware Department of State
Division of Corporations
John G. Townsend Building
401 Federal Street – Suite 4
Dover, DE 19901
Phone: (302)739-3073
Fax: (302)739-3812
Email: corp@delaware.gov
Website: http://www.corp.delaware.gov
Can you change the Delaware Corporation officers or directors on an
amendment?
You do not list corporate officers on a Delaware Certificate of Incorporation. You may
change your officers on your annual report that you file online every year prior to
March 1st.
Can you change the Delaware registered agent on the amendment?
You are not able to change your Delaware registered agent on the Amendment form.
You will need to provide the completed Certificate of Change of Agent form and fee, to
the Department of State.
Can you change the principal office address and/or the mailing address on a
corporation amendment?
The Delaware Department of State does not keep principal office or mailing address
information on file.
Page 52 of 183

V. Political Lobbying for Nonprofits
and Faith-Based Organizations
“Churches” (which is how the Internal Revenue Code describes all houses
of worship, including churches, temples, synagogues, and mosques), as
with all other public charities, can lobby. Federal tax law draws a
distinction between activities intended to influence public policy, and
campaigning for a specific candidate. Campaigning for a candidate is
strictly prohibited, while influencing the passage of legislation is allowed.
- See AFJ’s “Election Checklist for Houses of Worship” for more information on
what churches can and cannot do in the context of elections.
________
Lobbying in the United States
describes paid activity in which special
interests hire well-connected
professional advocates, often lawyers,
to argue for specific legislation in
decision-making bodies such as the
United States Congress. It is a highly
controversial phenomenon, often seen
in a negative light by journalists and the
American public. While lobbying is
subject to extensive and often complex
rules which, if not followed, can lead to
penalties including jail, the activity of
lobbying has been interpreted by court
rulings as free speech and is therefore
protected by the Constitution. Since the
1970s, lobbying activity has grown
immensely in terms of the numbers of
lobbyists and the size of lobbying
budgets, and has become the focus of
much criticism of American governance.
Since lobbying rules require extensive
disclosure, there is a large amount of
information in the public sphere about
which entities lobby, how, at whom, and
for how much. The current pattern
suggests much lobbying is done by
corporations although a wide variety of
coalitions representing diverse groups is
possible. Lobbying happens at every
level of government, including federal,
state, county, municipal, and even local
governments. In Washington, lobbying
usually targets congresspersons,
although there have been efforts to
influence executive agency officials as
well as Supreme Court appointments. It
has been the subject of academic
inquiry in various fields, including law,
public policy, and economics. While the
number of lobbyists in Washington is
over twelve thousand, those with real
clout number in the dozens, and a small
group of firms handles much of lobbying
in terms of expenditures. A report in The
Nation in 2014 suggested that while the
number of 12,281 registered lobbyists
was a decrease since 2002, lobbying
activity was increasing and "going
underground" as lobbyists use
"increasingly sophisticated strategies" to
obscure their activity. Analyst James
Thurber estimated that the actual
number of working lobbyists was close
to 100,000 and the industry brings in $9
billion annually.
Page 53 of 183

Political scientist Thomas R. Dye once
said that politics is about battling over
scarce governmental resources: who
gets them, where, when, why and how.
Since government makes the rules in a
complex economy such as the United
States, it is logical that various
organizations, businesses, individuals,
nonprofits, trade groups, religions,
charities and others—which are affected
by these rules—will exert as much
influence as they can to have rulings
favorable to their cause. And the battling
for influence has happened in every
organized society since the beginning of
civilization, whether it was Ancient
Athens, Florence during the time of the
Medici, Late Imperial China, and the
present-day United States. Modern-day
lobbyists in one sense are like the
courtiers of the Ancien Régime. If voting
is a general way for a public to control a
government, lobbying is a more specific,
targeted effort, focused on a narrower
set of issues.
The term lobby has etymological roots in
the physical structure of the British
Parliament, in which there was an
intermediary covered room outside the
main hall. People pushing an agenda
would try to meet with members of
Parliament in this room, and they came
to be known, by metonymy, as lobbyists,
although one account in 1890
suggested that the application of the
word "lobby" is American and that the
term is not used as much in Britain.
The term lobbying in everyday parlance
can describe a wide variety of activities,
and in its general sense, suggests
advocacy, advertising, or promoting a
cause. In this sense, anybody who tries
to influence any political position can be
thought of as "lobbying", and sometimes
the term is used in this loose sense. A
person who writes a letter to a
congressperson, or even questions a
candidate at a political meeting, could
be construed as being a lobbyist.
However, the term "lobbying" generally
means a paid activity with the purpose
of attempting to "influence or sway" a
public official - including bureaucrats
and elected officials - towards a desired
specific action often relating to specific
legislation. If advocacy is disseminating
information, including attempts to
persuade public officials as well as the
public and media to promote the cause
of something and support it, then when
this activity becomes focused on
specific legislation, either in support or
in opposition, then it crosses the line
from advocacy and becomes lobbying.
This is the usual sense of the term
"lobbying." One account suggested that
much of the activity of nonprofits was
not lobbying per se, since it usually did
not mean changes in legislation.
A lobbyist, according to the legal sense
of the word, is a professional, often a
lawyer. Lobbyists are intermediaries
between client organizations and
lawmakers: they explain to legislators
what their organizations want, and they
explain to their clients what obstacles
elected officials face. One definition of a
lobbyist is someone "employed to
persuade legislators to pass legislation
that will help the lobbyist's employer."
Many lobbyists work in lobbying firms or
law firms, some of which retain clients
outside lobbying. Others work for
advocacy groups, trade associations,
companies, and state and local
governments. Lobbyists can be one type
of government official, such as a
governor of a state, who presses
Page 54 of 183

officials in Washington for specific
legislation. A lobbyist may put together a
diverse coalition of organizations and
people, sometimes including lawmakers
and corporations, and the whole effort
may be considered to be a lobby; for
example, in the abortion issue, there is a
"pro-choice lobby" and a "pro-life lobby".
An estimate from 2007 reported that
more than 15,000 federal lobbyists were
based in Washington, DC; another
estimate from 2011 suggested that the
count of registered lobbyists who have
actually lobbied was closer to 12,000.
While numbers like these suggest that
lobbying is a widespread activity, most
accounts suggest that the Washington
lobbying industry is an exclusive one run
by a few well-connected firms and
players, with serious barriers to entry for
firms wanting to get into the lobbying
business, since it requires them to have
been "roaming the halls of Congress for
years and years."
Different Types of Lobbying
The Focus of Lobbying Efforts
Generally, lobbyists focus on trying to
persuade decision-makers: Congress,
executive branch agencies such as the
Treasury Department and the Securities
and Exchange Commission, the
Supreme Court, state governments
(including governors). Federal agencies
have been targeted by lobbyists since
they write industry-specific rules;
accordingly, interest groups spend
"massive sums of money" trying to
persuade them to make so-called
"carve-outs" or try to block specific
provisions from being enacted. A large
fraction of overall lobbying is focused on
only a few sets of issues, according to
one report. It is possible for one level of
government to lobby another level; for
example, the District of Columbia has
been lobbying Congress and the
President for greater power, including
possible statehood or voting
representation in Congress; one
assessment in 2011 suggested that the
district needed to rethink its lobbying
strategy, since its past efforts have only
had "mixed results". Many executive
branch agencies have the power to write
specific rules and are a target of
lobbying. Federal agencies such as the
State Department make rules such as
giving aid money to countries such as
Egypt, and in one example, an
Egyptian-American businessman named
Kais Menoufy organized a lobby to try to
halt U.S. aid to Egypt. Since the
Supreme Court has the power of judicial
review and can render a congressional
law unconstitutional, it has great power
to influence the course of American life.
For example, in the Roe v. Wade
decision, it ruled on the legality of
abortion. A variety of forces use
lobbying tactics to pressure the court to
overturn this decision.
Lobbyists represent their clients' or
organizations' interests in state capitols.
An example is a former school
superintendent who has been lobbying
state legislatures in California, Michigan
and Nevada to overhaul teacher
evaluations, and trying to end the "Last
In, First Out" teacher hiring processes;
according to one report, Michelle Rhee
Page 55 of 183

is becoming a "political force." State
governments can be lobbied by groups
which represent other governments
within the state, such as a city authority;
for example, the cities of Tallahassee
and St. Petersburg lobbied the Florida
legislature using paid lobbyists to
represent the city's interests. There is
lobbying activity at the county and
municipal levels, especially in larger
cities and populous counties. For
example, officials within the city
government of Chicago called aldermen
became lobbyists after serving in
municipal government, following a oneyear
period required by city ethics rules
to abstain from lobbying.
Paid Versus Free Lobbying
While the bulk of lobbying happens by
business and professional interests who
hire paid professionals, some lobbyists
represent non-profits pro-bono for
issues in which they are personally
interested. Pro bono publico clients offer
activities to meet and socialize with local
legislators at events like fundraisers and
awards ceremonies.
Single Issue vs
Multiple Issue Lobbying
Lobbies which push for a single issue
have grown in importance during the
past twenty years, according to one
source. Corporations generally would be
considered as single issue lobbies. If a
corporation wishes to change public
policy, or to influence legislation which
impacts its success as a business, it
may use lobbying as a "primary avenue"
for this purpose. One research study
suggested that single issue lobbies
often operate in different kinds of
institutional venues, sometimes bringing
the same message to different groups.
Lobbies which represent groups such as
labor unions, business organizations,
trade associations and such are
sometimes considered to be multiple
issue lobbies, and to succeed they must
be somewhat more flexible politically
and be willing to accept compromise.
Inside vs Outside Lobbying
• Inside lobbying, or sometimes
called direct lobbying, describes
efforts by lobbyists to influence
legislation or rule-making directly
by contacting legislators and their
assistants, sometimes called
staffers or aides.
• Outside lobbying, or sometimes
indirect lobbying, includes
attempts by interest group
leaders to mobilize citizens
outside the policymaking
community, perhaps by public
relations methods or advertising,
to prompt them to pressure public
officials within the policymaking
community. One example of an
outside lobbying effort is a film
entitled InJustice, made by a
group promoting lawsuit reform.
Page 56 of 183

Key Players
Lobbyists
The number of registered Washington lobbyists is substantial. In 2009, the Washington
Post estimated that there were 13,700 registered lobbyists, describing the nation's
Capitol as "teeming with lobbyists.". In 2011, The Guardian estimated that in addition to
the approximately 13,000 registered lobbyists, thousands more unregistered lobbyists
could exist in Washington. The ratio of lobbyists employed by the healthcare industry,
compared with every elected politician, was six to one, according to one account.
Nevertheless, the numbers of lobbyists actively engaged in lobbying is considerably
less, and the ones occupied with lobbying full-time and making significant money is
even less.
• Law firms. Several law firms, including Patton Boggs, Akin Gump and Holland & Knight, had sizable
departments devoted to so-called "government relations". One account suggested that the lobbying arms of
these law firms were not held as separate subsidiaries, but that the law practices involved in government
lobbying were integrated into the overall framework of the law firm. A benefit to an integrated arrangement
was that the law firm and the lobbying department could "share and refer clients back and forth". Holland &
Knight earned $13.9 million from lobbying revenue in 2011. One law firm employs so-called "power brokers"
including former Treasury department officials such as Marti Thomas, and former presidential advisers such
as Daniel Meyer. There was a report that two law firms were treating their lobbying groups as separate
business units, and giving the non-lawyer lobbyists an equity stake in the firm.
• Lobbying firms. These firms usually have some lawyers in them, and are often founded by former
congressional staffers, legislators, or other politicians. Some lobbying groups have been bought by large
advertising conglomerates.
Corporations
Corporations which lobby actively tend to be few in number, large, and often sell to the
government. Most corporations do not hire lobbyists. One study found that the actual
number of firms which do lobbying regularly is fewer than 300, and that the percent of
firms engaged in lobbying was 10% from 1998–2006, and that they were "mainly large,
rich firms getting in on the fun." These firms hired lobbyists year after year, and there
was not much evidence of other large firms taking much interest in lobbying.
Corporations considering lobbying run into substantial barriers to entry: corporations
have to research the relevant laws about lobbying, hire lobbying firms, and cultivate
influential people and make connections. When an issue regarding a change in
immigration policy arose, large corporations currently lobbying switched focus
somewhat to take account of the new regulatory world, but new corporations—even
ones likely to be affected by any possible rulings on immigration—stayed out of the
lobbying fray, according to the study.
Still, of all the entities doing lobbying in Washington, the biggest overall spenders are, in
fact, corporations. In the first decade of the 2000s, the most lucrative clients for Gerald
Cassidy's lobbying firm were corporations, displacing fees from the appropriations
Page 57 of 183

usiness. Wall Street lobbyists and the financial industry spent upwards of $100 million
in one year to "court regulators and lawmakers", particularly since they were "finalizing
new regulations for lending, trading and debit card fees." One academic analysis in
1987 found that firms were more likely to spend on lobbying if they were both large and
concerned about "adverse financial statement consequences" if they did not lobby. Big
banks were "prolific spenders" on lobbying; JPMorgan Chase has an in-house team of
lobbyists who spent $3.3 million in 2010; the American Bankers Association spent $4.6
million on lobbying; an organization representing 100 of the nation's largest financial
firms called the Financial Services Roundtable spent heavily as well. A trade group
representing Hedge Funds spent more than $1 million in one quarter trying to influence
the government about financial regulations, including an effort to try to change a rule
that might demand greater disclosure requirements for funds. Amazon.com spent
$450,000 in one quarter lobbying about a possible online sales tax as well as rules
about data protection and privacy. Corporations which sell substantially to the
government tend to be active lobbiers. For example, aircraft manufacturer Boeing,
which has sizeable defense contracts, pours "millions into lobbying":
Boeing Co. is one of the most influential companies in airline manufacturing and has
continually shown its influence in lobbying Congress ... Between January and
September, Boeing spent a total of $12 million lobbying according to research by the
Center for Responsive Politics. Additionally, Boeing has its own political action
committee, which donated more than $2.2 million to federal candidates during the 2010
Page 58 of 183

election cycle. Of that sum, 53 percent went to Democrats. ...Through September,
Boeing's PAC has donated $748,000 to federal politicians.
—Chicago Sun-Times quoting OpenSecrets.org, 2011
Unions
One report suggested the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union
spent $80,000 lobbying the federal government on issues relating to "the tax code, food
safety, immigration reform and other issues."
Other Players
Other possible players in the lobbying arena are those who might influence legislation:
House & Senate colleagues, public opinion in the district, the White House, party
leaders, union leaders, and other influential persons and groups. Interest groups are
often thought of as "nonparty organizations" which regularly try to change or influence
government decision-making.
Lobbying Methods and Techniques
Lobbying has much in common with highly people-intensive businesses such as
management consulting and public relations, but with a political and legal sensibility.
Like lawmakers, many lobbyists are lawyers, and the persons they are trying to
influence have the duty of writing laws. That the disciplines of law and lobbying are
intertwined could be seen in the case of a Texas lawyer who had been seeking
compensation for his unfairly imprisoned client; since his exonerated-prisoner client had
trouble paying the legal expenses, the lawyer lobbied the Texas state legislature to
raise the state's payment for unfairly imprisoned prisoners from $50,000 per year to
$80,000 per year; it succeeded, making it possible for his newly freed client to pay the
lawyer's fees.
Well-connected lobbyists work in Washington for years, know the issues, are highly
skilled advocates, and have cultivated close connections with members of Congress,
regulators, specialists, and others. They understand strategy and have excellent
communication skills; many are well suited to be able to choose which clients they
would like to represent. Lobbyists patiently cultivate networks of powerful people, over
many years, trying to build trust and maintain confidence and friendships. When a client
hires them to push a specific issue or agenda, they usually form coalitions to exert
political pressure. Lobbying, as a result, depends on trying to be flexible to new
opportunities, but at the same time, to act as an agent for a client. As one lobbyist put it:
It's my job to advance the interests of my association or client. Period.
—comment by a lobbyist
Page 59 of 183

Access is important and often means a one-on-one meeting with a legislator. Getting
access can sometimes be difficult, but there are various avenues: email, personal
letters, phone calls, face-to-face meetings, meals, get-togethers, and even chasing after
congresspersons in the Capitol building:
My style of lobbying is not to have big formal meetings, but to catch
members on the fly as they're walking between the House and the office
buildings.
—Lobbyist, commenting on access
When getting access is difficult, there are ways to wear down the walls surrounding a
legislator. Jack Abramoff explained:
Access is vital in lobbying. If you can't get in your door, you can't make
your case. Here we had a hostile senator, whose staff was hostile, and we
had to get in. So that's the lobbyist safe-cracker method: throw
fundraisers, raise money, and become a big donor.
—Lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2011
Lobbyists often assist congresspersons with campaign finance by arranging fundraisers,
assembling PACs, and seeking donations from other clients. Many lobbyists become
campaign treasurers and fundraisers for congresspersons. This helps incumbent
members cope with the substantial amounts of time required to raise money for
reelection bids; one estimate was that congresspersons had to spend a third of their
working hours on fundraising activity. PACs are fairly easy to set up; it requires a lawyer
and about $300, roughly. An even steeper possible reward which can be used in
exchange for favors is the lure of a high-paying job as a lobbyist; according to Jack
Abramoff, one of the best ways to "get what he wanted" was to offer a high-ranking
congressional aide a high-paying job after they decided to leave public office. When
such a promise of future employment was accepted, according to Abramoff, "we owned
them". This helped the lobbying firm exert influence on that particular congressperson
by going through the staff member or aide. At the same time, it is hard for outside
observers to argue that a particular decision, such as hiring a former staffer into a
lobbying position, was purely as a reward for some past political decision, since staffers
often have valuable connections and policy experience needed by lobbying firms.
Research economist Mirko Draca suggested that hiring a staffer was an ideal way for a
lobbying firm to try to sway their old bosses—a congressperson—in the future.
Lobbyists, according to several sources, strive for communications which are clear,
straightforward, and direct. In a one-on-one meeting with a lobbyist, it helps to
understand precisely what goal is wanted. A lobbyist wants action on a bill; a legislator
wants to be re-elected. The idea is to persuade a legislator that what the lobbyist wants
is good public policy. Lobbyists often urge lawmakers to try to persuade other
lawmakers to approve a bill.
Page 60 of 183

Still, persuasion is a subtle business, requiring a deft touch, and carelessness can
boomerang. In one instance of a public relations reversal, a lobbying initiative by the
Cassidy firm which targeted Senator Robert C. Byrd blew up when the Cassidy-Byrd
connection was published in the Washington Post; this resulted in a furious Byrd
reversing his previous pro-Cassidy position and throwing a "theatrical temper tantrum"
regarding an $18 million facility. Byrd denounced "lobbyists who collect exorbitant fees
to create projects and have them earmarked in appropriation bills... for the benefit of
their clients."
Since it often takes a long time to build the network of relationships within the lobbying
industry, ethical interpersonal dealings are important. A maxim in the industry is for
lobbyists to be truthful with people they are trying to persuade; one lobbyist described it
this way: "what you've basically got is your word and reputation". An untruth, a lie is too
risky to the successful development of a long-term relationship and the potential gain is
not worth the risk. One report suggested that below-the-belt tactics generally do not
work. One account suggest that groping for "personal dirt" on opponents was
counterproductive since it would undermine respect for the lobbyist and their clients.
And, by reverse logic, if an untruth is told by an opponent or opposing lobby, then it
makes sense to publicize it. But the general code among lobbyists is that
unsubstantiated claims are bad business. Even worse is planting an informant in an
opponent's camp, since if this subterfuge is ever discovered, it will boomerang
negatively in a hundred ways, and credibility will drop to zero. The importance of
personal relationships in lobbying can be seen in the state of Illinois, in which father-son
ties helped push a smart-grid energy bill, although there were accusations of favoritism.
And there is anecdotal evidence that a business firm seeking to profitably influence
legislation has to pay particular attention to which lobbyist it hires.
Strategic considerations for lobbyists, trying to influence legislation, include "locating a
power base" or a constituency logically predisposed to support a given policy. Timing,
as well, is usually important, in the sense of knowing when to propose a certain action
and having a big-picture view of the possible sequence of desired actions. Strategic
lobbying tries to estimate the possible responses of different groups to a possible lobby
approach; one study suggested that the "expectations of opposition from other
interests" was a key factor helping to determine how a lobby should operate.
Increasingly, lobbyists seek to put together coalitions and use outside lobbying by
swaying public opinion. Bigger, more diverse and deep pocketed coalitions tend to be
more effective in outside lobbying, and the "strength in numbers" principle often applies.
Interest groups try to build "sustainable coalitions of similarly situated individual
organizations in pursuit of like-minded goals". According to one study, it is often difficult
for a lobbyist to influence a staff member in Congress directly, since staffers tend to be
well-informed and subject to views from competing interests. As an indirect tactic,
lobbyists can try to manipulate public opinion which, in turn, can sometimes exert
pressure on congresspersons. Activities for these purposes include trying to use the
mass media, cultivating contacts with reporters and editors, encouraging them to write
editorials and cover stories to influence public opinion, which may have the secondary
Page 61 of 183

effect of influencing Congress. According to analyst Ken Kollman, it is easier to sway
public opinion than a congressional staff member since it is possible to bombard the
public with "half-truths, distortion, scare tactics, and misinformation." Kollman suggests
there should be two goals: (1) communicate that there is public support behind an issue
to policymakers and (2) increase public support for the issue among constituents.
Kollman suggested outside lobbying was a "powerful tool" for interest group leaders. In
a sense, using these criteria, one could consider James Madison as having engaged in
outside lobbying, since after the Constitution was proposed, he wrote many of the 85
newspaper editorials arguing for people to support the Constitution, and these writings
later became the Federalist Papers. As a result of this "lobbying" effort, the Constitution
was ratified, although there were narrow margins of victory in four of the state
legislatures. Lobbying today generally requires mounting a coordinated campaign, using
targeted blitzes of telephone calls, letters, emails to congressional lawmakers, marches
down the Washington Mall, bus caravans, and such, and these are often put together by
lobbyists who coordinate a variety of interest group leaders to unite behind a hopefully
simple easy-to-grasp and persuasive message.
It is important for lobbyists to follow rules governing lobbying behavior. These can be
difficult and complex, take time to learn, require full disclosure, and mistakes can land a
lobbyist in serious legal trouble.
Gifts for congresspersons and staffers can be problematic, since anything of sizeable
value must be disclosed and generally such gifts are illegal. Failure to observe gift
restrictions was one factor which caused lobbyist Jack Abramoff to eventually plead
guilty to a "raft of federal corruption charges" and led to convictions for 20 lobbyists and
public officials, including congressperson Bob Ney and Bush deputy interior secretary
Stephen Griles. Generally gifts to congresspersons or their staffs or federal officials are
not allowed, but with a few exceptions: books are permitted, provided that the inside
cover is inscribed with the congressperson's name and the name of one's organization.
Gifts under $5 are allowed. Another exception is awards, so it is permitted to give a
congressperson a plaque thanking him or her for support on a given issue. Cash gifts
payable by check can only be made to campaign committees, not to a candidate
personally or to his or her staff; it is not permitted to give cash or stock.
Wealthy lobbyists often encourage other lobbying clients to donate to a particular cause,
in the hope that favors will be returned at a later date. Lobbyist Gerald Cassidy
encouraged other clients to give for causes dear to a particular client engaged in a
current lobbying effort. Some lobbyists give their own money: Cassidy reportedly
donated a million dollars on one project, according to one report, which noted that
Cassidy's firm received "many times that much in fees from their clients" paid in monthly
retainers. And their clients, in turn, had received "hundreds of millions in earmarked
appropriations" and benefits worth "hundreds of millions more".
The dynamics of the lobbying world make it fairly easy for a semi-skilled operator to
defraud a client. This is essentially what happened in the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying
scandal. There was a concerned client—in this case, an Indian casino—worried about
Page 62 of 183

possible ill-effects of legislation on its gambling business; and there were lobbyists such
as Jack Abramoff who knew how to exploit these fears. The lobbyists actively lobbied
against their own casino-client as a way to ratchet up their fears of adverse legislation
as well as stoke possible future contributions; the lobbyists committed other violations
such as grossly overbilling their clients as well as violating rules about giving gifts to
congresspersons. Numerous persons went to jail after the scandal. The following are
factors which can make fraud a fairly easy-to-do activity: that lobbyists are paid only to
try to influence decision-makers, and may or may not succeed, making it hard to tell if a
lobbyist did actual work; that much of what happens regarding interpersonal relations is
obscure despite rather strict disclosure and transparency requirements; that there are
sizable monies involved—factors such as these almost guarantee that there will be
future scandals involving fraudulent lobbying activity, according to one assessment. A
fraud similar to Abramoff's was perpetrated in Maryland by lobbyist Gerald E. Evans,
who was convicted of mail and wire fraud in 2000 in a case involving falsely creating a
"fictitious legislative threat" against a client, and then billing the client to work against
this supposed threat.
Lobbyists routinely monitor how congressional officials vote, sometimes checking the
past voting records of congresspersons. One report suggested that reforms requiring
"publicly recorded committee votes" led to more information about how
congresspersons voted, but instead of becoming a valuable resource for the news
media or voters, the information helped lobbyists monitor congressional voting patterns.
As a general rule, lawmakers must vote as a particular interest group wishes them to
vote, or risk losing support.
Strategy usually dictates targeting specific office holders. On the state level, one study
suggested that much of the lobbying activity targeted the offices of governors as well as
state-level executive bureaucrats; state lobbying was an "intensely personal game" with
face-to-face contact being required for important decisions.
Lobbying can be a counteractive response to the lobbying efforts of others. One study
suggested this was particularly true for battles surrounding possible decisions by the
Supreme Court which is considered as a "battleground for public policy" in which
differing groups try to "etch their policy preferences into law". Sometimes there are
lobbying efforts to slow or derail other legislative processes; for example, when the FDA
began considering a cheaper generic version of the costly anti-clotting drug Lovenox,
the French pharmaceutical firm Sanofi "sprang into action to try and slow the process."
Lobbyists are often assembled in anticipation of a potential takeover bid, particularly
when there are large high-profile companies, or a large foreign company involved, and
substantial concern that the takeover may be blocked by regulatory authorities.
An example may illustrate. The company Tyco had learned that there had been
discussion about a possible new tax provision that might have cost it $4 billion overall.
So the firm hired Jack Abramoff and paid him a retainer of $100,000 a month. He
assembled dozens of lobbyists with connections to key congressional committees with
the ultimate objective being to influence powerful Senator Charles Grassley. Abramoff
Page 63 of 183

egan with a fundraising effort to round up "every check" possible. He sought funds
from his other lobbying clients:
I had my clients understand that just as other clients who had nothing to
do with them, would step up and give contributions to congressmen they
needed to have some sway with, so similarly they needed to do the
same. I went to every client I could, and rounded up every check we
could for him.
—Lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2011
Educators & Advisors
Since government has
grown increasingly
complex, having to
deal with new
technologies, the task
of writing rules has
become more
complex.
"Government has
grown so complex that
it is a virtual certainty
that more than one
agency would be
affected by any piece
of legislation,"
according to one view.
Lobbyists, therefore,
spend considerable
time learning the ins and outs of issues, and can use their expertise to educate
lawmakers and help them cope with difficult issues. Lobbyists' knowledge has been
considered to be an intellectual subsidy for lawmakers. Some lobbyists become
specialists with expertise in a particular set of issues, although one study suggested that
of two competing criteria for lobbyists—expertise or access—that access was far more
important.
Lobby groups and their members sometimes also write legislation and whip bills, and in
these instances, it is helpful to have lawyers skilled in writing legislation to assist with
these efforts. It is often necessary to research relevant laws and issues beforehand. In
many instances lobbyists write the actual text of the proposed law, and hire lawyers to
"get the language down pat"—an omission in wording or an unclear phrase may open
up a loophole for opponents to wrangle over for years. And lobbyists can often advise a
lawmaker on how to navigate the approval process.
Page 64 of 183

Lobbying firms can serve as mentors and guides. For example, after months of
protesting by the Occupy Wall Street, one lobbying firm prepared a memo to its clients
warning that Republicans may "turn on big banks, at least in public" which may have the
effect of "altering the political ground for years to come." Here are parts of the memo
which were broadcast on the MSNBC network.
Leading Democratic party strategists have begun to openly discuss the benefits of embracing
the growing and increasingly organized Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement ... This would
mean more than just short-term discomfort for
Wall Street firms. If vilifying the leading
companies of this sector is allowed to become
an unchallenged centerpiece of a coordinated
Democratic campaign, it has the potential to
have very long-lasting political, policy and
financial impacts on the companies in the center
of the bullseye. ... the bigger concern should be
that Republicans will no longer defend Wall
Street companies...
—Clark, Lytle, Geduldig, Cranford, law/lobbying
firm, to a Wall Street client
Effectiveness
The general consensus view is that
lobbying generally works overall in
achieving sought-after results for clients,
particularly since it has become so
prevalent with substantial and growing
budgets, although there are dissenting
views. A study by the investmentresearch
firm Strategas which was cited
in The Economist and the Washington
Post compared the 50 firms that spent
the most on lobbying relative to their
assets, and compared their financial
performance against that of the S&P
500 in the stock market; the study
concluded that spending on lobbying
was a "spectacular investment" yielding
"blistering" returns comparable to a
high-flying hedge fund, even despite the
financial downturn of the past few years.
A 2009 study by University of Kansas
professor Raquel Meyer Alexander
suggested that lobbying brought a
substantial return on investment. A 2011
meta-analysis of previous research
findings found a positive correlation
between corporate political activity and
firm performance.
There is widespread agreement that a
key ingredient in effective lobbying is
money. This view is shared by players in
the lobbying industry.
Deep pockets speak; the money
trumps it all.
—Anonymous lobbyist, 2002
Page 65 of 183

Still, effectiveness can vary depending
on the situational context. One view is
that large multiple-issue lobbies tend to
be effective in getting results for their
clients if they are sophisticated,
managed by a legislative director
familiar with the art of compromise, and
play "political hardball". But if such
lobbies became too big, such as large
industrial trade organizations, they
became harder to control, often leading
to lackluster results. A study in 2001
which compared lobbying activity in USstyle
congressional against Europeanstyle
parliamentary systems, found that
in congressional systems there was an
advantage favoring the "agendasetters",
but that in both systems,
"lobbying has a marked effect on
policies". One report suggested that the
1,000 registered lobbyists in California
were highly influential such that they
were called the Third House.
Studies of lobbying by academics in
previous decades painted a picture of
lobbying being an ineffectual activity,
although many of these studies were
done before lobbying became prevalent
in American politics. A study in 1963 by
Bauer, Pool, & Dexter suggested
lobbyists were mostly "impotent" in
exerting influence. Studies in the early
1990s suggested that lobbying exerted
influence only "marginally", although it
suggested that when lobbying activity
did achieve political impacts, that the
results of the political choices were
sufficient to justify the expenditure on
lobbying. A fairly recent study in 2009 is
that Washington lobbies are "far less
influential than political rhetoric
suggests", and that most lobbying
campaigns do not change any views
and that there was a strong
entrenchment of the status quo. But it
depends on what is seen as "effective",
since many lobbying battles result in a
stalemate, since powerful interests
battle, and in many cases, merely
keeping the "status quo" could be seen
as a victory of sorts. What happens
often is that varying coalitions find
themselves in "diametrical opposition to
each other" and that stalemates result.
There is anecdotal evidence from
numerous newspaper accounts of
different groups battling that lobbying
activity usually achieves results. For
example, the Obama administration
pledged to stop for-profit colleges from
"luring students with false promises", but
with this threat, the lobbying industry
sprang into action with a $16 million
campaign, and their efforts succeeded
in watering down the proposed
restrictions.
How did the lobbying campaign
succeed? Actions taken included:
1. Spent $16 million;
2. Hired "all-star list" of prominent
players including Democrats
with White House ties;
3. Plotted strategy;
4. Worked with "fund-raising
bundler" Jamie Rubin, a former
Obama communications
director;
5. Won support from influential
people
including
congressperson-turned-lobbyist
Dick Gephardt, senator-turnedlobbyist
John Breaux, lobbyist
Tony Podesta, Washington Post
CEO Donald E. Graham,
education entrepreneur and
University of Phoenix founder
John Sperling, others;
Page 66 of 183

6. Key leaders made "impassioned
appeals";
7. Mobilization effort produced
90,000 public documents to the
Education department
advocating against changes.
And sometimes merely keeping the
status quo could be seen as a victory.
When gridlock led to the supposed
supercommittee solution, numerous
lobbyists from all parts of the political
spectrum worked hard, and a stalemate
resulted, but with each side defended
their own special interests. And while
money is an important variable, it is one
among many variables, and there have
been instances in which huge sums
have been spent on lobbying only to
have the result backfire. One report
suggested that the communications firm
AT&T failed to achieve substantial
results from its lobbying efforts in 2011,
since government antitrust officials
rejected its plan to acquire rival T-
Mobile.
Lobbying is a practical necessity for
firms that "live and die" by government
decisions, such as large government
contractors such as Boeing. A study
done in 2006 by Bloomberg News
suggested that lobbying was a "sound
money-making strategy" for the 20
largest federal contractors. The largest
contractor, Lockheed Martin
Corporation, received almost $40 billion
in federal contracts in 2003-4, and spent
$16 million on lobbying expenses and
campaign donations. For each dollar of
lobbying investment, the firm received
$2,517 in revenues, according to the
report. When the lobbying firm Cassidy
& Associates began achieving results
with earmarks for colleges and
universities and medical centers, new
lobbying firms rose to compete with
them to win "earmarks of their own", a
clear sign that the lobbying was
exceedingly effective.
Controversy
There is general consensus that lobbying
has been a significant corrupting influence
in American politics, although criticism is
not universal, and there have been
arguments put forward to suggest that the
system is working properly.
Unfavorable Image
Generally the image of lobbyists and
lobbying in the public sphere is not a
positive one, although this is not a universal
sentiment. Lobbyists have been described
as a "hired gun" without principles or
positions. Scandals involving lobbying have
helped taint the image of the profession,
Page 67 of 183

such as ones involving Jack Abramoff, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and Bob Ney and
others, and which featured words such as "bribery", "lobbyist", "member of Congress"
and "prison" tending to appear together in the same articles. Negative publicity can sully
lobbying's image to a great extent: high-profile cases of lobbying fraud such as
Abramoff's; dubious father-son exchange-of-favors ties; public officials such as Newt
Gingrich being accused and then denying accusations of having done lobbying and
earning $1.6 million from "strategic advice". There are a variety of reasons why lobbying
has acquired a negative image in public consciousness. While there is much disclosure,
much of it happens in hard-to-disclose personal meetings, and the resulting secrecy and
confidentiality can serve to lower lobbying's status.
Revolving door
Since the 1980s, congresspersons and staffers have been "going downtown"—
becoming lobbyists—and the big draw is money. The "lucrative world of K Street"
means that former congresspersons with even "modest seniority" can move into jobs
paying $1 million or more annually, without including bonuses for bringing in new
clients. The general concern of this revolving-door activity is that elected officials—
persons who were supposed to represent the interests of citizens—have instead
become entangled with the big-money interests of for-profit corporations and interest
groups with narrow concerns, and that public officials have been taken over by private
interests.
In July 2005, Public Citizen published a report entitled "The Journey from
Congress to K Street": the report analyzed hundreds of lobbyist registration
documents filed in compliance with The Lobbying Disclosure Act and The
Foreign Agents Registration Act among other sources. It found that since
1998, 43 percent of the 198 members of Congress who left government to join
private life have registered to lobby. A similar report from the Center for Responsive
Politics found 370 former members were in the "influence-peddling business", with 285
officially registered as federal lobbyists, and 85 others who were described as providing
"strategic advice" or "public relations" to corporate clients. The Washington Post
described these results as reflecting the "sea [of] change that has occurred in
lawmakers' attitudes toward lobbying in recent years." The report included a case study
of one particularly successful lobbyist, Bob Livingston, who stepped down as Speakerelect
and resigned his seat in 1999. In the six years since his resignation, The
Livingston Group grew into the 12th largest non-law lobbying firm, earning nearly $40
million by the end of 2004. During roughly the same time period, Livingston, his wife,
and his two political action committees (PACs) contributed over $500,000 to the
campaign funds of various candidates.
Numerous reports chronicle the revolving door phenomenon. A 2011 estimate
suggested that nearly 5,400 former congressional staffers had become federal
lobbyists over a ten-year period, and 400 lawmakers made a similar jump. It is a
"symbiotic relationship" in the sense that lobbying firms can exploit the "experience and
Page 68 of 183

connections gleaned from working inside the legislative process", and lawmakers find a
"ready pool of experienced talent." There is movement in the other direction as well: one
report found that 605 former lobbyists had taken jobs working for lawmakers over a tenyear
period. A study by the London School of Economics found 1,113 lobbyists who had
formerly worked in lawmakers' offices. The lobbying option is a way for staffers and
lawmakers to "cash in on their experience", according to one view. Before the 1980s,
staffers and aides worked many years for congresspersons, sometimes decades, and
tended to stay in their jobs; now, with the lure of higher-paying lobbying jobs, many
would quit their posts after a few years at most to "go downtown."
And it is not just staffers, but lawmakers as well, including high-profile ones such as
congressperson Richard Gephardt. He represented a "working-class" district in
Missouri for many years but after leaving Congress, he became a lobbyist. In
2007, he began his own lobbying firm called "Gephardt Government Affairs
Group" and in 2010 it was earning close to $7 million in revenues with clients
including Goldman Sachs, Boeing, Visa Inc., Ameren Corporation, and Waste
Management Inc.
Senators Robert Bennett and Byron Dorgan became lobbyists too. Mississippi governor
Haley Barbour became a lobbyist. In 2010, former representative Billy Tauzin earned
$11 million running the drug industry's lobbying organization. called the Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers of America. Many former representatives earned over $1
million in one year, including James Greenwood and Daniel Glickman.
Insider's game
A similar concern voiced by critics of lobbying is that Washington politics has become
dominated by elites, and that it is an "insider's game" excluding regular citizens and
which favors entrenched firms. Individuals generally can not afford to lobby, and critics
question whether corporations with "deeper pockets" should have greater power than
regular persons. In this view, the system favors the rich, such that the "rich have gotten
richer, the weak weaker", admits lobbyist Gerald Cassidy. There is concern that those
having more money and better political connections can exert more influence than
others. However, analyst Barry Hessenius made a case that the excessive for-profit
lobbying could be counteracted if there were more efforts to increase nonprofit lobbying
and boost their effectiveness. There is so much money that it has been described as a
"flood" that has a "corrupting influence", so that the United States appears to be
"awash" in interest groups. If coalitions of different forces battle in the political arena for
favorable treatment and better rules and tax breaks, it can be seen as fair if both sides
have equal resources and try to fight for their interests as best they can. Gerald Cassidy
said:
In a lot of areas, the stakes are between big companies, and it's hard to argue that one solution
is better than another solution with regard to the consumer's interest ... The issue ... is whether
Company A's solution, or Company B's solution, based on their technology or their footprint, is
the right one.
Page 69 of 183

—Lobbyist Gerald Cassidy
A related but slightly different criticism is that the problem with lobbying as it exists
today is that it creates an "inequity of access to the decision-making process". As a
result, important needs get left out of the political evaluation, such that there are no antihunger
lobbies or lobbies seeking serious solutions to the problem of poverty. Nonprofit
advocacy has been "conspicuously absent" from lobbying efforts, according to one
view. Critics suggest that when a powerful coalition battles a less powerful one, or one
which is poorly connected or underfunded, the result may be seen as unfair and
potentially harmful for the entire society. The increasing number of former lawmakers
becoming lobbyists has led Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) to propose paring back the
many Capitol Hill privileges enjoyed by former senators and representatives. His plan
would deprive lawmakers-turned-lobbyists of privileges such as unfettered access to
otherwise "members only" areas such as the House and Senate floors and the House
gym.
Reform
Critics suggest that Congress has the
power to fix itself, but is reluctant to
sacrifice money and power. One report
suggested that those in control had an
"unbroken record of finding ways to
navigate around reform laws or turn
Page 70 of 183

egulatory standards to their own
advantage."
There are counterarguments that the
system is working as it should, despite
being rather messy. According to this
line of argument, the Madisonian view of
politics—in which factions were
supposed to compete with other
factions—is working exactly as it should.
Competing factions, or in this case,
competing interest groups, square off.
Battling happens within the federal
government, but instead of by settling
arguments by elections, arguments are
settled by powerful interest groups
fighting each other, often financially.
And it might appear to members of
groups which lost in a lobbying battle
that the reason for their loss was that
the other side lobbied unfairly using
more money. There are numerous
instances in which opposed lobbies
stalemate, and instances in which these
stalemates have been seen as a
positive result. And sometimes powerful
financial interests lose the battle.
Lobbying brings valuable information to
policymakers, according to another
argument in favor of lobbying. Since
lobbyists often become highly
knowledgeable about a specific issue by
studying it in depth over years, they can
bring considerable expertise to help
legislators avoid errors as well as grasp
the nuances of complex issues. This
information can also help Congress
oversee numerous federal agencies
which often regulate complex industries
and issue highly detailed and specific
rulings. Accordingly, it is difficult for
Congress to keep track of what these
agencies do. It has been argued that
lobbyists can help Congress monitor this
activity by possibly raising "red flags"
about proposed administrative rulings.
Further, congresspersons can quickly
gauge where they stand about a
proposed administrative ruling simply by
seeing which lobbying groups support
the proposal, and which oppose it.
Another argument in support of lobbying
is that different interest groups and
lobbyists, while trying to build coalitions
and win support, often amend or soften
or change their positions in this process,
and that interest groups and lobbyists
regulate each other, in a sense.
But a more general sentiment
supporting the lobbying arrangement is
that every citizen can be construed as
being "represented" by dozens of
special interests:
Every citizen is a special interest...
Blacks, consumers, teachers, prochoicers,
gun control advocates,
handicapped people, aliens, exporters,
and salesmen -- are all special interests...
There is not an American today who is not
represented (whether he or she knows it
or not) by at least a dozen special interest
groups. ... One person's special interest is
another person's despotism...
—Donald E. deKieffer, The Citizen's
Guide to Lobbying Congress, 2007
If powerful groups such as the oil
industry succeed in winning a battle in
government, consumers who drive gaspowered
cars stand to benefit a little bit,
according to this view. Even readers of
Wikipedia could be conceived as being
a special interest and represented by
various lobbies. For example,
opponents of the Stop Online Piracy Act
believed that the act might restrict sites
such as Wikipedia; on January 18,
2012, as a form of protest and as a way
to encourage readers and contributors
of Wikipedia to write their
Page 71 of 183

congresspersons, the online
encyclopedia was "blacked out for a day
as part of an effort to lobby the
government.
Another view in support of lobbying is
that it serves a helpful purpose as
helping guard against extremism.
According to this view, lobbying adds
"built-in delays" and permits and
encourages opposing lobbies to battle.
In the battling, possibly damaging
decrees and incorrect decisions are
stymied by seemingly unhelpful delays
and waits.
A slightly different view is that lobbying
is no different from other professions:
Lobbying is no more perfect than is the practice
of law or the practice of medicine.
—Lobbyist Gerald S. J. Cassidy, 2007
The Lobbying Disclosure Act
The Lobbying and Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. § 1601) was
legislation aimed at bringing a level of accountability to federal lobbying
practices in the United States. The law was amended substantially by
the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Under
provisions which took effect on January 1, 2006, lobbyists are required
to register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the
Secretary of the Senate. Anyone failing to do so is punishable by a civil
fine of up to $50,000. The clerk and secretary must refer any acts of
non-compliance to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.
The LDA defines a number of provisions attempting to maintain a degree of
transparency in the activities of lobbyists. The legislation defines a client as "any person
or entity that employs or retains another person for financial or other compensation to
conduct lobbying activities on behalf of that person or entity. A person or entity whose
employees act as lobbyists on its own behalf is both a client and an employer of such
employees". The legislation also includes lobbyists that are affected: "The term
"lobbyist" means any individual who is employed or retained by a client for financial or
other compensation for services that include more than one lobbying contact, other than
an individual whose lobbying activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time
engaged in the services provided by such individual to that client over a six-month
period". Also included in the legislation are the definitions of what actions must be
disclosed which includes lobbying to certain members of the Executive Branch who are
included on specific payrolls. Also included are members of Congress.
Loopholes
The legislation does not include those lobbyists whose "activities constitute less than 20
percent of the time engaged in services", thus failing to regulate grassroots (small
donors) lobbying. The LDA includes a number of other "thresholds" that define what
must be recorded. Any organization that contributes more than $10,000 towards
Page 72 of 183

lobbying activities must also be registered. Amounts even slightly below this threshold
are exempt from reporting. The outline for registration includes "name, address,
business telephone number, and principal place of business of the registrant, and a
general description of its business or activities", as well as for the client. The register
must also include a statement of what issues the registrant expects to lobby or what
may have already been lobbied.
After recording, the records are maintained by the Clerk of the House and the Secretary
of the Senate. Due to severe understaffing, these two offices are unable to check for
illegal activities or corrupt practices, which is the most glaring shortcoming of the
legislation.
During a hearing before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senator
Christopher Dodd stated that “[s]".Θ< the Office of Public Records has referred over
2,000 cases to the Department of Justice, and nothing’s been heard from them again”.
Disclosure and Domestic Regulations
Generally, the United States requires systematic disclosure of lobbying, and it may be
one of the few countries to have such extensive requirements. Disclosure in one sense
allows lobbyists and public officials to justify their actions under the banner of openness
and with full compliance of the law. The rules often specify how much a lobbyist can
spend on specific activities, and how to report expenses; many of the laws and
guidelines are specified in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Transparency and
disclosure requirements mean that there are volumes of statistics available for all kinds
of analyses—by journalists, by the public, by rival lobbying efforts. Researchers can
subdivide lobbying expenditures by numerous breakdowns, such as by contributions
from energy companies.
Sometimes defining clearly who is a "lobbyist" and what precisely are lobbying activities
can be difficult. According to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, several authorized definitions
include:
• Lobbying activities means "lobbying contacts and efforts in support of such
contacts, including preparation and planning activities, research and other
background work that is intended, at the time it is performed, for use in contacts,
and coordination with the lobbying activities of others."
• Lobbying contact means "any oral or written communication (including an
electronic communication) to a covered executive branch official or a covered
legislative branch official".
Still, distinguishing lobbyists from a strategic adviser can be difficult, since the duties of
each can often overlap and are hard to define precisely. There have been issues raised
about what constitutes the difference between a lobbyist and a bundler; one report
described bundlers as "supporters who contribute their own money to his campaign and
solicit it from others", and there was a question whether such persons were really
Page 73 of 183

lobbyists involved with raising campaign monies for the election of Barack Obama, and
whether Obama had broken his own pledge not to receive money from lobbyists. The
legal ramifications of lobbying are further intertangled with aspects of campaign finance
reform, since lobbyists often spend time seeking donations for the reelection efforts of
congresspersons; sorting out these issues can pose ethical challenges.
There are numerous regulations governing the practice of lobbying, often ones requiring
transparency and disclosure. People paid to lobby must register with the secretary of
the Senate and the clerk of the House of Representatives within 45 days of contacting a
legislator for the first time, or 45 days after being employed. An exception is that
lobbyists who earn less than $3,000 per client for each fiscal quarter, or whose total
lobbying expenses are less than $11,500 each quarter, do not need to register. Parttime
lobbyists are exempt from registering unless they spend more than 20% of their
working hours doing lobbying activities in any quarter. If lobbyists have two or more
contacts with a legislator as a lobbyist, then they must register. Requirements for
registering also apply to companies that specialize in lobbying, or ones that have an inhouse
lobbyist, particularly if they spend more than $11,500 on lobbying. Generally,
nonprofit organizations, other than churches, are exempt from registering if they hire an
outside lobbying firm. Filing must be made each quarter, and a separate file is needed
for each of the lobbyist's clients, and include information such as the name and title of
the client, an estimate of lobbying expenses, and an estimate of income the lobbyist
achieved after doing the lobbying.
States, in addition, are moving in the direction of greater disclosure and transparency
regarding lobbying activities. California has an online database called Cal-Access
although there were reports that it has been underfunded. Money collected from
registration fees are often used to pay for the disclosure services such as Cal-Access.
There were complaints in Illinois that the disclosure requirements were often not
rigorous enough and allowed lobbyists to work "without public notice" and with possible
"conflicts of interest". Many local municipalities are requiring legislative agents register
as lobbyists to represent the interests of clients to local city council members such as in
the swing state of Ohio cities such as Columbus and Cincinnati.
Laws requiring disclosure have been more prevalent in the twentieth century. In 1946,
there was a so-called "sunshine law" requiring lobbyists to disclose what they were
doing, on whose behalf, and how much they received in payment. The resulting Federal
Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 governed lobbying rules up until 1995 when the
Lobbying Disclosure Act replaced it. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, later
amended in 2002 as the McCain Feingold Act, had rules governing campaign
contributions. Each branch of Congress has rules as well. Legislation generally requires
reports containing an accounting of major expenditures as well as legislation that was
influenced; the wording of some of the pertinent laws can be found in 2 U.S.C. ch. 26.
Lobbying law is a constantly evolving field; the American Bar Association published a
book of guidelines in 2009 with over 800 pages. The laws are often rather specific, and
when not observed, can lead to serious trouble. Failing to file a quarterly report, or
Page 74 of 183

knowingly filing an incorrect report, or failing to correct an incorrect report, can lead to
fines up to $200,000 and imprisonment up to five years. Penalties can apply to lobbyists
who fail to list gifts made to a legislator. In other situations, the punishment can be light:
for example, Congressional aide-turned-lobbyist Fraser Verrusio spent a few hours in
jail after pleading guilty to report taking a client to a World Series baseball game and
failing to report it. Tax rules can apply to lobbying. In one situation, the charity Hawaii
Family Forum risked losing its tax-exempt status after it had engaged in lobbying
activity; federal tax law requires charities such as that one to limit their lobbying to 20%
of their overall expenditures or else be eligible for being taxed like a for-profit
corporation.
Lobbyists sometimes support rules requiring greater transparency and disclosure:
Our profession is at a critical point where we can either embrace the constructive changes and
reforms by Congress or we can seek out loopholes and continue the slippery slide into history
along side the ranks of snake oil salesmen.
—Lobbyist Gerald S. J. Cassidy, 2007
Scandals can spur impetus towards greater regulation as well. The Jack Abramoff
Indian lobbying scandal, which started in the 1990s and led to a guilt plea in 2006,
inspired the 'Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006' (S. 2349).
According to Time Magazine the Senate bill:
1. barred lobbyists themselves from buying gifts and meals for legislators, but left a
loophole in which firms and organizations represented by those lobbyists could
still dole out gifts and perks;
Page 75 of 183

2. allowed privately funded trips if lawmakers got prior approval from a
commissioned ethics committee;
3. required lobbyists to file frequent and detailed activity reports and have them
posted publicly. The bill was approved in 2006 by a 90-8 vote.
In 1995, the 104th Congress tried to reform Lobbying by passing the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 which defines and requires lobbyists who are compensated for
their actions to register with congressional officials. The legislation was later amended
by the Lobbying Disclosure Technical Amendments Act of 1998. There were
subsequent modifications leading to the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act
of 2007. The Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006 (H.R. 4975)
legislation modified Senate rules, although some senators and a coalition of goodgovernment
groups assailed the bill as being too weak. The Honest Leadership and
Open Government Act of 2007 was a comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform bill,
(H.R. 2316), which passed in 2007 in the House and Congress by a large majority. A
parallel Senate version of the legislation, (S. 1), passed in 2007 by a nearly unanimous
vote. After the House & Senate resolved their differences and passed an amended
revision, President Bush signed the enrolled bill into law (Pub.L. 110–81).
Some states have considered banning government employees permanently from
lobbying on issues they had worked on. For example, there was a proposal along these
lines to prevent county employees in Maryland from ever lobbying on issues they had
worked on. The proposal insisted that county officials post financial disclosures as well
as prohibit gifts from contractors.
Jack Abramoff, emerging from prison, has spoken publicly about lobbying. In his view,
regulations designed to rein in the excesses of lobbying have not been effective, and
that reforms and regulations have not cleaned up the system "at all". Abramoff said
lobbyists could "find a way around just about any reform Congress enacted", and gave
an example:
You can't take a congressman to lunch for $25 and buy him a hamburger or a steak or
something like that ... But you can take him to a fund-raising lunch and not only buy him that
steak, but give him $25,000 extra and call it a fund-raiser -- and have all the same access and
all the same interactions with that congressman.
—Jack Abramoff, commenting on 60 Minutes, according to CNN
A similar view suggested that lobbying reform efforts have been "fought tooth and nail to
prevent its passage" since the people with the power to reform would curtail their own
powers and income flows.
Page 76 of 183

US v. Harriss
347 U.S. 612 (1954)
United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (1954), was a U.S. Supreme Court case
applied directly to the Regulation of Lobbying Act.
Lobbyists challenged the Regulation of Lobbying Act for being unconstitutionally vague
and unclear. In Harriss, the Supreme Court responded by upholding the act's
constitutionality, but also by narrowing the scope and application of the act.
The Court ruled that the act applies only to paid lobbyists who directly communicate
with members of Congress on pending or proposed federal legislation. This means that
lobbyists who visit with congressional staff members rather than members of Congress
themselves are not considered lobbyists. In addition, the act covers only attempts to
influence the passage or defeat of legislation in Congress, and excludes other
congressional activities. Further, the act applies to and restricts only individuals who
spend at least half of their time lobbying.
Page 77 of 183

…
Page 78 of 183

VI. Critical Thinking
for Transformative Social Impact
Paradigm Shifting
and Change Management
Critical Thinking
Disciplined thinking that is clear, rational,
open-minded, and informed by evidence.
- Dictionary.com
________
The National Council for Excellence in
Critical Thinking defines it as the
intellectually disciplined process of actively
and skillfully conceptualizing, applying,
analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating
information gathered from, or generated by,
observation, experience, reflection,
reasoning, or communication, as a guide to
belief and action.
Critical thinking is a rich concept that has
been developing throughout the past 2500
years. The term "Critical Thinking" has its
roots in the mid-late 20th century. [There
are] overlapping definitions [that] form a
substantive, trans-disciplinary conception of
critical thinking.
Critical Thinking as Defined by
The National Council for Excellence in
Critical Thinking (1987)
A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul, presented at the 8th Annual
International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform (Summer 1987)
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully
conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information
gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or
communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on
Page 79 of 183

universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy,
precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and
fairness.
It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all
reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical
grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences;
objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference.
Critical thinking — in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and
purposes — is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them:
scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking,
economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.
Critical thinking can be seen as having two components:
1. A set of information and belief generating and processing skills, and
2. The habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide
behavior.
It is thus to be contrasted with:
1. The mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a
particular way in which information is sought and treated;
2. The mere possession of a set of skills, because it involves the continual use of them;
and
3. The mere use of those skills ("as an exercise") without acceptance of their results.
Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in
selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of
one’s own, or one's groups’, vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed,
however pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fair-mindedness and
intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the
charge of "idealism" by those habituated to its selfish use.
Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to
episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality is therefore typically a matter
of degree and dependent on, among other things, the quality and depth of experience in
a given domain of thinking or with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a
critical thinker through-and-through, but only to such-and-such a degree, with
such-and-such insights and blind spots, subject to such-and-such tendencies
towards self-delusion.
Page 80 of 183

For this reason, the development of critical thinking skills and dispositions is a life-long
endeavor.
Another Brief Conceptualization of Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is self-guided, self-disciplined thinking which attempts to reason at the
highest level of quality in a fair-minded way.
People who think critically consistently attempt to live rationally, reasonably, empathically.
They are keenly aware of the inherently flawed nature of human thinking when left
unchecked. They strive to diminish the power of their egocentric and sociocentric
tendencies. They use the intellectual tools that critical thinking offers – concepts and
principles that enable them to analyze, assess, and improve thinking. They work
diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility,
intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in
reason. They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always
improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning,
human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and
taboos, self-interest, and vested interest. They strive to improve the world in whatever
ways they can and contribute to a more rational, civilized society. At the same time,
they recognize the complexities often inherent in doing so. They avoid thinking
simplistically about complicated issues and strive to appropriately consider the rights and
needs of relevant others. They recognize the complexities in developing as thinkers,
and commit themselves to life-long practice toward self-improvement. They embody the
Socratic principle: The unexamined life is not worth living , because they realize that
many unexamined lives together result in an uncritical, unjust, dangerous world.
Why Critical Thinking?
The Problem
- Linda Elder, September, 2007
Everyone thinks; it is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is
biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life
and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our
thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in
thought, however, must be systematically cultivated.
A Definition
Critical thinking is that mode of thinking - about any subject, content, or problem - in
which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of
the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.
The Result
A well cultivated critical thinker:
Page 81 of 183

• Raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
• Gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it
effectively comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them
against relevant criteria and standards;
• Thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and
• Assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical
consequences; and
• Communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex
problems.
Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and selfcorrective
thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and
mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving
abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
- Richard Paul and Linda Elder: The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and
Tools
Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008
Critical Thinking Defined
by Edward Glaser
In a seminal study on critical thinking and education in 1941, Edward Glaser defines
critical thinking as follows “The ability to think critically, as conceived in this volume,
involves three things:
1. An attitude of being disposed to consider in a thoughtful way the problems and
subjects that come within the range of one's experiences;
2. Knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning; and
3. Some skill in applying those methods.
Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of
knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to
which it tends. It also generally requires ability to recognize problems, to find workable
means for meeting those problems, to gather and marshal pertinent information, to
recognize unstated assumptions and values, to comprehend and use language with
accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and
evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical
relationships between propositions, to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations,
to put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives, to reconstruct
Page 82 of 183

one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience, and to render accurate
judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life.
- Edward M. Glaser, An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking,
Teacher’s College, Columbia University, 1941)
________
Inner-Cities Strategic
Revitalization Planning
Revitalization
Neighborhood Revitalization starts at the
grassroots level — with people in the
community determining the goals for their
neighborhood.
______
It is defined as the process of making
something grow, develop, or become
successful again (e.g. A new indoor
sports arena has played a key role in the
revitalization of its neighborhood).
- Cambridge Dictionaries Online
“Neighborhood Revitalization is the
way of the future and is an essential
element of [our] work. By focusing on
entire neighborhoods, we can greatly
increase our impact.”
— Jonathan Reckford, CEO,
Habitat for Humanity International
Revitalization of Our Inner-Cities Can Transform Our Culture
- by Scruffus
“It is only when the basic needs are met that culture can thrive. Revitalization of our
inner-cities is the innovation that will allow for maximum cultural growth in this country.
Making sure that all Americans have access to opportunity and technology will ensure
future generations of city dwellers do not live in poverty. By investing in these areas,
developers and businesses are investing in the base of this country. Music, art and the
sciences require a healthy, vibrant, and supportive community and the work being done
to rebuild our inner cities is essential to our culture[s] as a whole.”
Page 83 of 183

Spanning the Delaware River, the “Trenton Makes” Bridge in giant neon red letters
proclaims to all, "Trenton Makes, The World Takes.". Hearkening back to the time
when Trenton was a center of manufacture, these days the sign seems a bit of an
anachronism. Trenton and many other American cities have decayed to the point that
they are shells of their former selves. Businesses and people slowly disappeared from
American cities over the decades since the sixties. No longer centers of thriving
industry, they are now crime-ridden, politically corrupt, and decaying. Despite this, cities
are now the focus of revitalization efforts. If done properly, revitalization can be a way to
alleviate the poverty and crime suffered in many American inner cities. Revitalization is
a recent innovation that takes advantage of the existing enterprise and infrastructure in
cities and tries to bring value back to the community there. Efforts to revitalize cities
meet with varied success.
It is important to elevate the standard of living for the existing community, not
just shove it aside in the pursuit of a gentrified city. Giving the existing people a
chance at independence raises the standard of living for all residents in the city
and preserves the rich heritage and character of the city.
In the effort to attract people back to the cities, revitalization increases the
independence of all Americans, utilizes existing infrastructure, and encourages cultural
growth.
One cannot speak of a city's and a people's
independence without speaking of their economic
independence. The ability of people to obtain jobs
and meet their basic needs is a huge determinant
of how well that people's culture will flourish. It is
difficult to pursue the arts or education if one is
impoverished. The rebuilding of inner cities can
raise the quality of life for many Americans by
bringing businesses that provide jobs and
opportunity back to the cities. Also, a city that has
a thriving business community has a healthy tax
base to support its public education system. The
public school is an integral part of revitalization.
Providing students with a high-quality, technologybased
education prepares them to become
successful, contributing citizens. Inner city school
systems are notorious for their high dropout rates
and general difficulty in producing good students.
By revitalizing inner cities, parents are given
access to jobs and can provide a better home environment for their children.
The use of existing infrastructure in revitalization efforts reduces suburban sprawl.
Areas that were long ago developed for housing and business are made attractive
through remodeling, which is less costly and environmentally destructive than building
new homes in the suburbs. Encouraging city living also encourages use of mass transit
Page 84 of 183

systems, decreasing reliance on the automobile. Our current culture is very much
entwined with the automobile. Reduction of our reliance on automobiles is beneficial in
reducing pollutants. Additionally, inner cities have often been characterized as food
deserts, where nutritious, low-cost food is difficult to find because large supermarkets
refuse to build there. Hopefully with the influx of jobs and money to the cities,
supermarkets will follow. Bringing new life to cities will definitely improve the options
available to all residents there.
Cities are where culture, technology and the arts can flourish. The exchange of ideas
and open-mindedness to these ideas occurs because of the cosmopolitan nature of
cities. By renewing interest in our cities, we can create dynamic centers of innovation
and technology that are not found in our suburbs. Suburban living has long been cliched
to have sapped the creativity and vitality from our society. There is a grain of truth to
this. Suburbanites often do not meet their neighbors and spend a great deal of time
driving to their destinations. Urban areas, by design, force people to interact with their
surroundings. It is this interaction that allows the acceptance of new ideas that build up
culture.
Page 85 of 183

Page 86 of 183

VII. Ongoing Seminars
and Workshops
The Transformative Justice Project
1. Building Resilient Youth – A Multidisciplinary Approach
1. The BRY-AMA PowerPoint
2. The All-Sports Ministries of …
3. The Community Engagement Strategy
4. Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice
5. The Economic Impact of Social Programs Development
6. Culturally Relevant Programming
7. Inner-Cities Strategic Revitalization Planning
8. Train Police Friendly
9. Strategic Housing Revitalization
10. Solutions for Homelessness
11. Financial Literacy
12. Concentrated Poverty
13. The Effects of De-Industrialization in the US
14. The Jobs Training, Educational Redevelopment & Economic Emancipation
Initiative
15. The Second Chance Project
16. The Mental Health Group
17. The Opioid Crisis in America Series
1. The Advocacy Foundation Opioid Initiative Partnership (Working Binder)
2. Evidence-Based Solutions at The Grassroots Level
3. The Drug Culture in The US
4. Drug Abuse Among Veterans
5. Drug Abuse Among America’s Teens
6. Alcoholism
7. The Economic Consequences of Opioid Addiction in America
18. The 21st Century Charter Schools Initiative
19. The Adversity/ Advantage Series:
a) The Gift of Adversity
b) Overcoming Dyslexia
c) The Gift of Hypersensitivity
d) The Advantages of An Attention Deficit
e) The Gift of Introspection
f) The Gift of Introversion
Page 87 of 183

g) The Gift of Spirituality
h) The Gift of Transformation
20. The Economic Consequences of Homelessness in America
21. Cultural Transformation
22. Gentrification
23. Environmental Racism
24. Generational Progression
25. Predatory Lending
26. Hidden Unemployment
27. Slavery in The 21st Century
28. Debt Reduction & Debt Relief
29. The Uniform Code of Military Justice
30. Wills, Trusts and Estates
The ComeUnity ReEngineering Project
1. C.I.A. (Community Intelligence & Application)
1. Know Now Technologies
2. The Regional Education Training and Resource Complex (RETRC)
3. The ComeUnity Bridge
4. The Triangular Resolution Model
5. F.A.C.E. (Fiduciary Accountability assuring the Capacity to perform Efficiently)
6. The Advocacy Foundation Balanced Home Mortgage Initiative
7. ComeUnity Capacity-Building
The Nonprofit Advisors Group
1. The 501(c)(3) Acquisition Process
2. Staff & Management Leadership ReEngineering (Change Management)
3. Organizational & Professional Development
4. The Economic Empowerment Emancipation Project
5. Evidence-Based Programs Development
6. The Inner Circle
7. The Board of Directors
8. The Advisory Council
9. Strategic Planning
10. Budgeting
11. Fundraising
a) The Advocacy Foundation Endowments Initiative
b) CROWDFUNDING (for Nonprofits)
c) The US Stock Market
Page 88 of 183

d) Mass Media for Nonprofits
e) Social Media for Nonprofits
f) UBIT Sustainability Initiatives
12. Social Entrepreneurship
13. Social Impact Investing
14. Data-Driven Resource Allocation
15. Nonprofit Confidentiality In The Age of Big Data)
16. Community Collaboration
17. Culturally-Relevant Programming
18. Evidence-Based Criteria Training
a) Evidence-Based Programming
b) Evidence-Based Program Application Processing
19. Social Media Development (for Nonprofits)
20. Structuring Subsidiary Entities
21. Social Equity Planning
22. Succession Planning
23. Property Acquisition for Organizational Sustainability
24. Investing for Organizational Sustainability
25. The Nonprofit Incubator: for Transformative Social Impact
26. Accountability
27. Nonprofit Transparency
28. Nonprofit Organizational Assessment
29. Organizational Dysfunction
30. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
31. Nonprofit Marketing
32. Community Policing
The Adolescent Law Group
1. Representation of Juveniles
2. The Juvenile Justice Legislative Reform Initiative
3. The Economic Consequences of Legal Decision-Making
4. The Landmark Cases In US Juvenile Justice
a. Pennsylvania
b. New Jersey
c. Georgia
5. Unjust Legal Reasoning
6. Opportunity (Disenfranchised) Youth
7. Interpreting the Facts – Blame Remover
8. The First Amendment Project
9. The Second Amendment Project (Gun Control)
10. The Fourth Amendment Project
Page 89 of 183

11. The Sixth Amendment Project (Right to Competent Counsel)
12. The Eighth Amendment Project (Cruel and Unusual Punishment)
13. Literacy-Based Prison Construction
14. Children of Incarcerated Parents
15. African-American Youth in The Juvenile Justice System
16. Latino and Hispanic Youth in The Juvenile Justice System
17. Native-American Youth in The Juvenile Justice System
18. Racial Profiling
19. Prison-Based Gerrymandering
20. Gang Deconstruction
21. Expungements & Pardons
22. Barriers to Reducing Confinement
23. ReEngineering Juvenile Justice
24. Lobbying for Nonprofits
25. Judicial ReEngineering
26. Alternative Legal Solutions
27. Law for The Poor
28. Case Law, Statutory Law, Municipal Ordinances & Policy
29. Organized Crime In The New Millennium
30. Judicial Mistakes
The Collaborative US/ International
1. Caribbean Direct Investing
a. The Advocacy Foundation Coalition for Drug-Free Communities
b. The EB-5 Investors Immigration Project
c. International Labor Relations
d. Collaborative Economics and Leveraging
e. Mass Collaboration
2. The NuVision Consulting Group
3. Institutional Racism
The Theological Law Firm Academy
1. The Theological Foundations of US Law & Government
2. God’s Will and The 21st Century Democratic Process
3. The Diversity of Theology
4. The Scriptural Application to The Model Criminal Code
5. The Scriptural Application to The ABA’s Tort Reform Model
6. The Scriptural Application to The ABA’s Contracts Reform Initiative
7. The Scriptural Application to The ABA’s Property Law Review
8. The Scriptural Application to The United States Constitution
9. The Scriptural Application for Juvenile Justice Reform
10. The Scriptural Application for Tort Reform
Page 90 of 183

11. The Scriptural Application to Contemporary Legal Process
12. The Scriptural Application to The Uniform Commercial Code
13. The Scriptural Application to The Law of Property
14. The Scriptural Application to The Canons of Ethics
15. Biblical Law and Justice
16. Biblically Responsible Investing
17. Spiritual Rights
18. Acquiesce to Righteousness
19. The Ripple Effects of Ministry
Legal Missions International
1. Domestic
2. Foreign
3. International Law & Justice
4. International Criminal Procedure
5. The Theology of Missions
6. International Legal Evangelism: Intelligence, Reconnaissance & Missions
7. The Law of War
8. Conflicts to Watch in The New Millennium
9. International Hotspots
10. International Cyber Terrorism
11. Brexit
Page 91 of 183

Notes
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 92 of 183

Notes
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 93 of 183

Page 94 of 183

Attachment A
Why All Churches
Should Be A 508(c)(1)(a)
Page 95 of 183

Page 96 of 183

Page 97 of 183

Page 98 of 183

Page 99 of 183

Page 100 of 183

Page 101 of 183

Page 102 of 183

Page 103 of 183

Page 104 of 183

Page 105 of 183

Page 106 of 183

Page 107 of 183

Page 108 of 183

Page 109 of 183

Page 110 of 183

Attachment B
IRS Tax Guide for Churches &
Religious Organizations
Page 111 of 183

Page 112 of 183

Page 113 of 183

Page 114 of 183

Page 115 of 183

Page 116 of 183

Page 117 of 183

Page 118 of 183

Page 119 of 183

Page 120 of 183

Page 121 of 183

Page 122 of 183

Page 123 of 183

Page 124 of 183

Page 125 of 183

Page 126 of 183

Page 127 of 183

Page 128 of 183

Page 129 of 183

Page 130 of 183

Page 131 of 183

Page 132 of 183

Page 133 of 183

Page 134 of 183

Page 135 of 183

Page 136 of 183

Page 137 of 183

Page 138 of 183

Page 139 of 183

Page 140 of 183

Page 141 of 183

Page 142 of 183

Page 143 of 183

Page 144 of 183

Page 145 of 183

Page 146 of 183

Page 147 of 183

Page 148 of 183

Page 149 of 183

Page 150 of 183

Page 151 of 183

Page 152 of 183

Attachment C
Lobbying Rules for Houses of Worship
Page 153 of 183

Page 154 of 183

Page 155 of 183

Page 156 of 183

Advocacy Foundation Publishers
Page 157 of 183

Page 158 of 183

Advocacy Foundation Publishers
The e-Advocate Quarterly
Page 159 of 183

Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. I 2015 The Fundamentals
I
The ComeUnity ReEngineering
Project Initiative
Q-1 2015
II The Adolescent Law Group Q-2 2015
III
Landmark Cases in US
Juvenile Justice (PA)
Q-3 2015
IV The First Amendment Project Q-4 2015
Vol. II 2016 Strategic Development
V The Fourth Amendment Project Q-1 2016
VI
Landmark Cases in US
Juvenile Justice (NJ)
Q-2 2016
VII Youth Court Q-3 2016
VIII
The Economic Consequences of Legal
Decision-Making
Q-4 2016
Vol. III 2017 Sustainability
IX The Sixth Amendment Project Q-1 2017
X
The Theological Foundations of
US Law & Government
Q-2 2017
XI The Eighth Amendment Project Q-3 2017
XII
The EB-5 Investor
Immigration Project*
Q-4 2017
Vol. IV 2018 Collaboration
XIII Strategic Planning Q-1 2018
XIV
The Juvenile Justice
Legislative Reform Initiative
Q-2 2018
Page 160 of 183

XV
XVI
The Advocacy Foundation Coalition
for Drug-Free Communities
Landmark Cases in US
Juvenile Justice (GA)
Q-3 2018
Q-4 2018
Page 161 of 183

Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. V 2019 Organizational Development
XVII The Board of Directors Q-1 2019
XVIII The Inner Circle Q-2 2019
XIX Staff & Management Q-3 2019
XX Succession Planning Q-4 2019
XXI The Budget* Bonus #1
XXII Data-Driven Resource Allocation* Bonus #2
Vol. VI 2020 Missions
XXIII Critical Thinking Q-1 2020
XXIV
The Advocacy Foundation
Endowments Initiative Project
Q-2 2020
XXV International Labor Relations Q-3 2020
XXVI Immigration Q-4 2020
Vol. VII 2021 Community Engagement
XXVII
The 21 st Century Charter Schools
Initiative
Q-1 2021
XXVIII The All-Sports Ministry @ ... Q-2 2021
XXIX Lobbying for Nonprofits Q-3 2021
XXX
XXXI
Advocacy Foundation Missions -
Domestic
Advocacy Foundation Missions -
International
Q-4 2021
Bonus
Page 162 of 183

Vol. VIII
2022 ComeUnity ReEngineering
XXXII
The Creative & Fine Arts Ministry
@ The Foundation
Q-1 2022
XXXIII The Advisory Council & Committees Q-2 2022
XXXIV
The Theological Origins
of Contemporary Judicial Process
Q-3 2022
XXXV The Second Chance Ministry @ ... Q-4 2022
Vol. IX 2023 Legal Reformation
XXXVI The Fifth Amendment Project Q-1 2023
XXXVII The Judicial Re-Engineering Initiative Q-2 2023
XXXVIII
The Inner-Cities Strategic
Revitalization Initiative
Q-3 2023
XXXVIX Habeas Corpus Q-4 2023
Vol. X 2024 ComeUnity Development
XXXVX
The Inner-City Strategic
Revitalization Plan
Q-1 2024
XXXVXI The Mentoring Initiative Q-2 2024
XXXVXII The Violence Prevention Framework Q-3 2024
XXXVXIII The Fatherhood Initiative Q-4 2024
Vol. XI 2025 Public Interest
XXXVXIV Public Interest Law Q-1 2025
L (50) Spiritual Resource Development Q-2 2025
Page 163 of 183

LI
Nonprofit Confidentiality
In The Age of Big Data
Q-3 2025
LII Interpreting The Facts Q-4 2025
Vol. XII 2026 Poverty In America
LIII
American Poverty
In The New Millennium
Q-1 2026
LIV Outcome-Based Thinking Q-2 2026
LV Transformational Social Leadership Q-3 2026
LVI The Cycle of Poverty Q-4 2026
Vol. XIII 2027 Raising Awareness
LVII ReEngineering Juvenile Justice Q-1 2027
LVIII Corporations Q-2 2027
LVIX The Prison Industrial Complex Q-3 2027
LX Restoration of Rights Q-4 2027
Vol. XIV 2028 Culturally Relevant Programming
LXI Community Culture Q-1 2028
LXII Corporate Culture Q-2 2028
LXIII Strategic Cultural Planning Q-3 2028
LXIV
The Cross-Sector/ Coordinated
Service Approach to Delinquency
Prevention
Q-4 2028
Page 164 of 183

Vol. XV 2029 Inner-Cities Revitalization
LXIV
LXV
LXVI
Part I – Strategic Housing
Revitalization
(The Twenty Percent Profit Margin)
Part II – Jobs Training, Educational
Redevelopment
and Economic Empowerment
Part III - Financial Literacy
and Sustainability
Q-1 2029
Q-2 2029
Q-3 2029
LXVII Part IV – Solutions for Homelessness Q-4 2029
LXVIII
The Strategic Home Mortgage
Initiative
Bonus
Vol. XVI 2030 Sustainability
LXVIII Social Program Sustainability Q-1 2030
LXIX
The Advocacy Foundation
Endowments Initiative
Q-2 2030
LXX Capital Gains Q-3 2030
LXXI Sustainability Investments Q-4 2030
Vol. XVII 2031 The Justice Series
LXXII Distributive Justice Q-1 2031
LXXIII Retributive Justice Q-2 2031
LXXIV Procedural Justice Q-3 2031
LXXV (75) Restorative Justice Q-4 2031
LXXVI Unjust Legal Reasoning Bonus
Page 165 of 183

Vol. XVIII 2032 Public Policy
LXXVII Public Interest Law Q-1 2032
LXXVIII Reforming Public Policy Q-2 2032
LXXVIX ... Q-3 2032
LXXVX ... Q-4 2032
Page 166 of 183

The e-Advocate Monthly Review
2018
Transformational Problem Solving January 2018
The Advocacy Foundation February 2018
Opioid Initiative
Native-American Youth March 2018
In the Juvenile Justice System
Barriers to Reducing Confinement April 2018
Latino and Hispanic Youth May 2018
In the Juvenile Justice System
Social Entrepreneurship June 2018
The Economic Consequences of
Homelessness in America S.Ed – June 2018
African-American Youth July 2018
In the Juvenile Justice System
Gang Deconstruction August 2018
Social Impact Investing September 2018
Opportunity Youth: October 2018
Disenfranchised Young People
The Economic Impact of Social November 2018
of Social Programs Development
Gun Control December 2018
2019
The U.S. Stock Market January 2019
Prison-Based Gerrymandering February 2019
Literacy-Based Prison Construction March 2019
Children of Incarcerated Parents April 2019
Page 167 of 183

African-American Youth in The May 2019
Juvenile Justice System
Racial Profiling June 2019
Mass Collaboration July 2019
Concentrated Poverty August 2019
De-Industrialization September 2019
Overcoming Dyslexia October 2019
Overcoming Attention Deficit November 2019
The Gift of Adversity December 2019
2020
The Gift of Hypersensitivity January 2020
The Gift of Introspection February 2020
The Gift of Introversion March 2020
The Gift of Spirituality April 2020
The Gift of Transformation May 2020
Property Acquisition for
Organizational Sustainability June 2020
Investing for Organizational
Sustainability July 2020
Biblical Law & Justice TLFA August 2020
Gentrification AF September 2020
Environmental Racism NpA October 2020
Law for The Poor AF November 2020
…
Page 168 of 183

2021
Biblically Responsible Investing TLFA – January 2021
International Criminal Procedure LMI – February 2021
Spiritual Rights TLFA – March 2021
The Theology of Missions TLFA – April 2021
Legal Evangelism, Intelligence,
Reconnaissance & Missions LMI – May 2021
The Law of War LMI – June 2021
Generational Progression AF – July 2021
…
Page 169 of 183

The e-Advocate Quarterly
Special Editions
Crowdfunding Winter-Spring 2017
Social Media for Nonprofits October 2017
Mass Media for Nonprofits November 2017
The Opioid Crisis in America: January 2018
Issues in Pain Management
The Opioid Crisis in America: February 2018
The Drug Culture in the U.S.
The Opioid Crisis in America: March 2018
Drug Abuse Among Veterans
The Opioid Crisis in America: April 2018
Drug Abuse Among America’s
Teens
The Opioid Crisis in America: May 2018
Alcoholism
The Economic Consequences of June 2018
Homelessness in The US
The Economic Consequences of July 2018
Opioid Addiction in America
Page 170 of 183

The e-Advocate Journal
of Theological Jurisprudence
Vol. I - 2017
The Theological Origins of Contemporary Judicial Process
Scriptural Application to The Model Criminal Code
Scriptural Application for Tort Reform
Scriptural Application to Juvenile Justice Reformation
Vol. II - 2018
Scriptural Application for The Canons of Ethics
Scriptural Application to Contracts Reform
& The Uniform Commercial Code
Scriptural Application to The Law of Property
Scriptural Application to The Law of Evidence
Page 171 of 183

Page 172 of 183

Legal Missions International
Page 173 of 183

Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. I 2015
I
II
God’s Will and The 21 st Century
Democratic Process
The Community
Engagement Strategy
Q-1 2015
Q-2 2015
III Foreign Policy Q-3 2015
IV
Public Interest Law
in The New Millennium
Q-4 2015
Vol. II 2016
V Ethiopia Q-1 2016
VI Zimbabwe Q-2 2016
VII Jamaica Q-3 2016
VIII Brazil Q-4 2016
Vol. III 2017
IX India Q-1 2017
X Suriname Q-2 2017
XI The Caribbean Q-3 2017
XII United States/ Estados Unidos Q-4 2017
Vol. IV 2018
XIII Cuba Q-1 2018
XIV Guinea Q-2 2018
XV Indonesia Q-3 2018
XVI Sri Lanka Q-4 2018
Page 174 of 183

Vol. V 2019
XVII Russia Q-1 2019
XVIII Australia Q-2 2019
XIV South Korea Q-3 2019
XV Puerto Rico Q-4 2019
Issue Title Quarterly
Vol. VI 2020
XVI Trinidad & Tobago Q-1 2020
XVII Egypt Q-2 2020
XVIII Sierra Leone Q-3 2020
XIX South Africa Q-4 2020
XX Israel Bonus
Vol. VII 2021
XXI Haiti Q-1 2021
XXII Peru Q-2 2021
XXIII Costa Rica Q-3 2021
XXIV China Q-4 2021
XXV Japan Bonus
Vol VIII 2022
XXVI Chile Q-1 2022
Page 175 of 183

The e-Advocate Juvenile Justice Report
______
Vol. I – Juvenile Delinquency in The US
Vol. II. – The Prison Industrial Complex
Vol. III – Restorative/ Transformative Justice
Vol. IV – The Sixth Amendment Right to The Effective Assistance of Counsel
Vol. V – The Theological Foundations of Juvenile Justice
Vol. VI – Collaborating to Eradicate Juvenile Delinquency
Page 176 of 183

The e-Advocate Newsletter
Genesis of The Problem
Family Structure
Societal Influences
Evidence-Based Programming
Strengthening Assets v. Eliminating Deficits
2012 - Juvenile Delinquency in The US
Introduction/Ideology/Key Values
Philosophy/Application & Practice
Expungement & Pardons
Pardons & Clemency
Examples/Best Practices
2013 - Restorative Justice in The US
2014 - The Prison Industrial Complex
25% of the World's Inmates Are In the US
The Economics of Prison Enterprise
The Federal Bureau of Prisons
The After-Effects of Incarceration/Individual/Societal
The Fourth Amendment Project
The Sixth Amendment Project
The Eighth Amendment Project
The Adolescent Law Group
2015 - US Constitutional Issues In The New Millennium
Page 177 of 183

2018 - The Theological Law Firm Academy
The Theological Foundations of US Law & Government
The Economic Consequences of Legal Decision-Making
The Juvenile Justice Legislative Reform Initiative
The EB-5 International Investors Initiative
2017 - Organizational Development
The Board of Directors
The Inner Circle
Staff & Management
Succession Planning
Bonus #1 The Budget
Bonus #2 Data-Driven Resource Allocation
2018 - Sustainability
The Data-Driven Resource Allocation Process
The Quality Assurance Initiative
The Advocacy Foundation Endowments Initiative
The Community Engagement Strategy
2019 - Collaboration
Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice
International Labor Relations
Immigration
God's Will & The 21st Century Democratic Process
The Community Engagement Strategy
The 21st Century Charter Schools Initiative
2020 - Community Engagement
Page 178 of 183

Extras
The Nonprofit Advisors Group Newsletters
The 501(c)(3) Acquisition Process
The Board of Directors
The Gladiator Mentality
Strategic Planning
Fundraising
501(c)(3) Reinstatements
The Collaborative US/ International Newsletters
How You Think Is Everything
The Reciprocal Nature of Business Relationships
Accelerate Your Professional Development
The Competitive Nature of Grant Writing
Assessing The Risks
Page 179 of 183

Page 180 of 183

About The Author
John C (Jack) Johnson III
Founder & CEO
Jack was educated at Temple University, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Rutgers
Law School, in Camden, New Jersey. In 1999, he moved to Atlanta, Georgia to pursue
greater opportunities to provide Advocacy and Preventive Programmatic services for atrisk/
at-promise young persons, their families, and Justice Professionals embedded in the
Juvenile Justice process in order to help facilitate its transcendence into the 21 st Century.
There, along with a small group of community and faith-based professionals, “The Advocacy Foundation, Inc." was conceived
and developed over roughly a thirteen year period, originally chartered as a Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Educational
Support Services organization consisting of Mentoring, Tutoring, Counseling, Character Development, Community Change
Management, Practitioner Re-Education & Training, and a host of related components.
The Foundation’s Overarching Mission is “To help Individuals, Organizations, & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential”, by
implementing a wide array of evidence-based proactive multi-disciplinary "Restorative & Transformative Justice" programs &
projects currently throughout the northeast, southeast, and western international-waters regions, providing prevention and support
services to at-risk/ at-promise youth, to young adults, to their families, and to Social Service, Justice and Mental
Health professionals” everywhere. The Foundation has since relocated its headquarters to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and been
expanded to include a three-tier mission.
In addition to his work with the Foundation, Jack also served as an Adjunct Professor of Law & Business at National-Louis
University of Atlanta (where he taught Political Science, Business & Legal Ethics, Labor & Employment Relations, and Critical
Thinking courses to undergraduate and graduate level students). Jack has also served as Board President for a host of wellestablished
and up & coming nonprofit organizations throughout the region, including “Visions Unlimited Community
Development Systems, Inc.”, a multi-million dollar, award-winning, Violence Prevention and Gang Intervention Social Service
organization in Atlanta, as well as Vice-Chair of the Georgia/ Metropolitan Atlanta Violence Prevention Partnership, a state-wide
300 organizational member, violence prevention group led by the Morehouse School of Medicine, Emory University and The
Original, Atlanta-Based, Martin Luther King Center.
Attorney Johnson’s prior accomplishments include a wide-array of Professional Legal practice areas, including Private Firm,
Corporate and Government postings, just about all of which yielded significant professional awards & accolades, the history and
chronology of which are available for review online. Throughout his career, Jack has served a wide variety of for-profit
corporations, law firms, and nonprofit organizations as Board Chairman, Secretary, Associate, and General Counsel since 1990.
www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org
Clayton County Youth Services Partnership, Inc. – Chair; Georgia Violence Prevention Partnership, Inc – Vice Chair; Fayette
County NAACP - Legal Redress Committee Chairman; Clayton County Fatherhood Initiative Partnership – Principal
Investigator; Morehouse School of Medicine School of Community Health Feasibility Study - Steering Committee; Atlanta
Violence Prevention Capacity Building Project – Project Partner; Clayton County Minister’s Conference, President 2006-2007;
Liberty In Life Ministries, Inc. – Board Secretary; Young Adults Talk, Inc. – Board of Directors; ROYAL, Inc - Board of
Directors; Temple University Alumni Association; Rutgers Law School Alumni Association; Sertoma International; Our
Common Welfare Board of Directors – President)2003-2005; River’s Edge Elementary School PTA (Co-President); Summerhill
Community Ministries; Outstanding Young Men of America; Employee of the Year; Academic All-American - Basketball;
Church Trustee.
Page 181 of 183

www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org
Page 182 of 183

Page 183 of 183