Americans for Limited Gov't

open ltr freq flier eg ~ Jan 6 ginni

We ask that the GOP conference meet immediately to vote on stripping Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger from their membership in the GOP conference. We further inform you that conservative leaders are launching a nationwide movement to add citizens’ voices to this effort.

:{All organizations listed for IDENTIFICATION purposes only.

Signatures updated: 12/21/21.}:

===

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/06/rich-rewards-one-mans-shadow-money-network/

howard rich 2012

 is the eighth story in anexclusive series about the funding behind politically active tax-exempt organizations that don’t disclose their donors. You can read the other stories in the series here.

Long ago, Earth Day rooted itself in the minds of many Americans as a regular annual event — not bad for what started 42 years ago as a “teach-in” about the dangers of an industrial economy running amok.

But there have always been opponents to the environmentalist agenda, and on Earth Day 2012, they found that they had their own, modern-day “teach-in” — a four-and-a-half minute video posted on YouTube. The slick production, titled ,” is a laundry list of libertarian grievances against big government billed as a response to the “economic suicide pact” of environmentalism.

“If I wanted America to fail, I would create countless new regulations and seldom cancel old ones,” says the narrator, black background and foreboding music adding to an apocalyptic tone. “They would be so complicated that only bureaucrats, lawyers and lobbyists could understand them. That way, small businesses with big ideas wouldn’t stand a chance.”

He goes on to mock alternative energy, the public education system and other standards of the left. “If I wanted America to fail, I would prey on the goodness and decency of ordinary Americans,” he concludes. “I would only need to convince them that all of this is for the greater good. If I wanted America to fail, I…I suppose I wouldn’t change a thing.”

Heavily promoted by Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing commentators, the video went viral, racking up 2.3 million views since it debuted.

But few, if any, of those millions of viewers understand the complicated web of secretive, densely interwoven political groups from which the video emerged.

While the network is built around nonprofits with vague names and grassroots slogans that imply the participation of many ordinary Americans, it’s primarily the handiwork of one man: Howard Rich.

Rich, 72, made his fortune in Manhattan real estate, but since at least the early 1970s, his passion has been libertarian politics. He decamped from the Libertarian Party in the 1980s to establish his own network of like-minded think-tanks and publishing companies.

Rich is also prominently attached to leading national libertarian groups — he sits on the boards of directors of the Club for Growth and the Cato Institute.Yet he remains a mysterious figure, rarely interviewed and almost always several steps removed from any direct action.

Still, an examination of the publicity-shy mogul’s efforts makes several things clear. He is deeply committed to his ideological values — willing to spend massive amounts of money to push projects even in places where he has little apparent personal or business connection. He is single-minded in his approach, willing to lash out at conservatives as quickly and as viciously as he will go after liberals. And all indications are that he believes the ends justify the means, sometimes using money as a blunt force object to get his way.

His involvement in electoral politics usually consists of transferring money — though it’s often difficult to say exactly whose money — into nonprofit groups that don’t disclose their donors. When he funds causes — or candidates — directly, Rich frequently camouflages his donations under any of dozens of nearly anonymous shell corporations. In that way, he’s the antithesis of a Sheldon Adelson, an ultra-rich Republicans who has openly given tens of millions to GOP presidential super PACs. On those occasions when Rich is revealed as the source of contributions, though, he’s been unapologetic about his role.

According to Internal Revenue Service records analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics, from the early 2000s at least through 2010 Rich was the linchpin holding together a confusing, swirling array of political organizations — all of them nondisclosing nonprofit groups — that spent heavily to influence state and federal politics around the country. The constellation of organizations that operate out of a handful of Rich-related addresses is constantly changing, but some of them are well-known: Rich, in his role as chairman of U.S. Term Limits, a 501(c)(4)group under tax rules, has for years been the driving force of the movement to curtail how long  elected officials can stay in office. He’s also the chairman of a 501(c)(4) group called Americans for Limited Government, which spent $1.02 million in 2010 targeting Democrats running for Congress and distributed millions more to other groups.

“If I Wanted America to Fail” is a textbook example of Rich’s tangled web. It was produced by a group calledFree Market America,which, according to its website, is a joint project of Rich’s Americans for Limited Government and another group, Citizens for Limited Taxes and a Stronger Economy, Inc. Florida state records show that Citizens for Limited Taxes is registered at a Tampa address that also is home to at least 30 political action committees; the group’s only listed officers are two political operatives and the head of the Florida Chamber of Commerce. State campaign finance records show that in 2010, the group collected and spent more than $12 million helping defeat a proposition that would have slowed development in Florida. Its relationship with Rich? Like so much about his empire, that’s not entirely clear.

OpenSecrets.org made multiple attempts to interview Rich and other individuals involved with his groups, including several board members. But Ray Wotring, Americans for Limited Government’s treasurer, said the group would not allow any representative to comment.

“You can keep pushing, but we’re not going to talk to you,” Wotring said,complaining that OpenSecrets.org published a “hatchet job on Howie in 2006.” For the record, OpenSecrets.org did not publish any articles about Rich in 2006, and has never written specifically about him.

Eric O’Keefe, who co-founded U.S. Term Limits with Rich and is currently the CEO of the Sam Adams Alliance, a tea party group, and board member of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, was the only individual close to Rich who would comment for this story. O’Keefe, who is no longer part of Rich’s organizations but said he follows them and counts Rich as a friend, said it is Rich’s deep commitment to libertarian ideals, not an expectation of payback, that drives his donations to political groups and candidates.

“Howie has given millions of dollars to these causes,” O’Keefe said. “All of us benefit from a functioning democracy and a functioning market economy, but he has never expected to have a tangible return on his investments.”

O’Keefe said Rich is careful to obey laws as they are written, but opposes limits on campaign contributions.

“I can’t speak for him, but I know he pays a lot of money to attorneys to follow the rules,” O’Keefe said. “I know he doesn’t favor the system for limits on contributions” because he believes it favors incumbents.

Occasionally, Rich grants an interview or offers his opinion more directly — posting columns on his own website, for instance. In 2010, he penned one about the Rod Blagojevich scandal in Chicago, in which the former governor of Illinois was accused of selling political favors for campaign contributions. Rich, dripping with cynicism, portrayed the world of politics as a grimy, corrupt place.

“First of all, if you think this sort of pay-to-play scamming doesn’t go on every single day in Washington D.C. and state capitals all across America, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you,” Rich wrote, continuing:

It may not always be so mindlessly overt (and the tape recorder may not always be on), but in the post-Jack Abramoff world we live in – a world of “free home renovations” for U.S. Senators and cash hidden away in Representatives’ freezers – let’s not delude ourselves.

The network

One way to begin tracing Rich’s network is to follow the numbers — for example, 9900. At least six of the groups affiliated with Rich are based out of an office at 9900 Main Street in Fairfax, VA.

Suite 303 of that four-story office building is home to Americans for Limited Government Inc., Americans for Limited Government Foundation, U.S. Term Limits, Inc., U.S.Term Limits Foundation, Legislative Education Action Drive and Parents In Charge Foundation. Some are 501(c)(3) charities under the tax code, and some are 501(c)(4)s.

Rich is the chairman or president of all of them, with a tight circle of trusted lieutenants in key positions. Bill Wilson, a libertarian political operative who has worked with Rich since the 1990s, is a paid employee of all of the groups. And their various boards of directors are strikingly similar — and dominated by other prominent libertarians, like Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, who in 2010 was a board member of four of Rich’s groups. Frayda Levy, who sits on the board of Club for Growth, is listed as a director of two of Rich’s groups.

Together, these six groups listed $11.6 million in revenues in 2010, the most recent year for which a report is available, and $12.8 million spent on things like political consultants, mass mailings and grants to other politically-oriented nonprofits. There tax status prevents them from having to publicly disclose their funders, so almost none of the $11.6 million these groups reported in revenue can be traced to a specific source.

One exception: A recent OpenSecrets.org investigation into a previously unreported group called the Center to Protect Patient Rights found that the group gave tens of millions to major conservative 501(c)(4) organizations — including $5.6 million to Americans For Limited Government, Inc., in 2010. But that trail dead-ends at a post office box in Arizona, with no indication of who is providing the Center’s funds. And there’s very little indication where the rest of Rich’s network gets its money — although Rich’s own pocket is a possibility.

O’Keefe declined to say whether Rich’s own money drives his organizations.

But O’Keefe said that he and Rich share the belief that donors have a constitutionally protected right to contribute to political causes (though not candidates) without having to reveal their names.

“Our position was always that we were always happy to have people brag about their money, but it’s not our business to brag about their donations,” O’Keefe said.

Repeating an argument often made by those who oppose disclosure, O’Keefe said that when donors’ names are made public, they become targets for solicitations from other people seeking money, and it opens them up to retribution from powerful interests.

“That’s a real and ongoing concern,” he said. “We viewed it as our role to protect [donors] from that.”

The churn

Trying to trace the cashflow between Rich’s groups is a little like watching a Rube Goldberg contraption: there are a lot of moving parts. For instance, in 2010, Americans for Limited Government Foundation gave theParents In Charge Foundation a grant of $225,000,and the U.S. Term Limits Foundation a grant of $234,000. But it also owed $1 million to its 501(c)(4) sibling, Americans for Limited Government, Inc.

Americans for Limited Government, Inc., in turn, gave a grant of $125,000 to U.S. Term Limits Inc. — and then lent it $346,000 more.

Yet the same year, U.S. Term Limits Foundation lent $85,000 back to Americans for Limited Government, Inc.

Confused yet? This may well be the point, or, according to tax attorney and former top IRS official Marcus Owens, it may be a clever system to skirt restrictions on how the organizations can operate. Because of the similarities between the various groups — their staffs, board members, missions and organizations they fund — the churn of cash back and forth raises questions, Owens said.

“It’s the same group, at the same address, with occasionally some new faces and they all seem to act on the same set of principles — limited government and term limits — so it seems kind of implausible that there is some sort of benefit from these internal financial relationships other than to disguise and modify the character of the money,” he said.

For example, grants from a 501(c)(3) organization, such as U.S. Term Limits Foundation, couldn’t be used by a 501(c)(4), such as Americans for Limited Government, Inc., for political activity. Loans from the same group, structured as ordinary business transactions, would have no such restrictions, Owens noted.

Also, tax law requires 501(c)(4)s like Americans for Limited Government, Inc., to spend the majority of their resources on “social welfare” activities. Spending too much on politics can lead to a challenge of their tax-exempt status.

***

“If you have a 501(c)(4) that’s heavily engaged in political activity, it needs to somehow establish that 51 percent of what it does, isn’t political — how do you do that quickly? Make a grant,” Owens said. “You could have a sort of circular cycling of dollars that attempts to support the tax status of all the (c)(4)s in the network.”

And moving money between groups may help Rich’s organizations appear to be funded by multiple sources. Receiving all its donations from a single source can be problematic for an organization trying to maintain its favorable tax status, according to Owens, as it suggests the group’s purpose is to benefit that single donor.

The fact that Rich lends money to the groups in his network is unusual, Owens noted.

In 2010 Rich lent $772,000 to U.S. Term Limits, Inc., through Rich Lending Corporation. In previous years he lent money to Americans for Limited Government, Inc., and sometimes the group lent money back to Rich Lending Corporation, as well.

According to Owens, this may be a way to gain a tax benefit for funding a politically active nonprofit. Simply donating money to the group money might not be tax deductible as a business expense — particularly if the group engages in lobbying or political activity, which Americans for Limited Government does. But if the money is loaned by a for-profit company it can be used for any purpose by the recipient and the source of the funds would avoid limitations on business deductions.

“If they loan money, then it’s not an expenditure, it’s a business transaction and any related expenses would likely be deductible,” Owens said.

The spread

Rich’s network, though, isn’t entirely a closed system. The groups also spend money on political campaigns directly. OpenSecrets.org data shows Americans for Limited Government spent $1.02 million on mailers attacking Democrats in 2010 — the biggest target being Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) Another $6 million was spent hiring political consultants and direct-mailing firms in Utah, California and Arizona, according to the group’s tax form.

And Rich’s groups also distribute to an array of other nondisclosing nonprofits in the form of grants.

In 2010, Americans for Limited Government sent $250,000 to Americans for Job Security,a nonprofit closely linked to several of George W. Bush’s top political advisers. Americans for Job Security spent almost $9 million in 2010, targeting mostly Democratic congressional candidates. It also stepped into an Alaskan state ballot initiative fight, spending $1.6 million supporting a local 501(c)(4) in an effort to try to defeat a referendum limiting mining. In response to complaints filed about the local group and its claims to be a grassroots organization, the Alaska Public Offices Commission opened an investigation to determine the group’s funding sources.

“Americans for Job Security has no purpose other than to cover various money trails all over the country,” the commission’s report concluded.

AJS, whose executive director shared office space with the Karl Rove-linked organization American Crossroads, was also accused in the report of being an improper conduit for money from the mine’s owner. Though AJS never admitted wrongdoing, it paid a $20,000 settlement.

Most of the grants Americans for Limited Government gave in 2010 seemed to follow a similar playbook: at least $1.1 million went to other 501(c)(4)s in three states — Colorado, South Carolina and Alaska. Those groups, in turn, passed much of the money on to other groups, which then intervened directly in local and state elections. Rich’s other groups made similar donations to many of the same local groups.

In Alaska, Americans for Limited Government sent $66,000 to a 501(c)(4) called Alaskans for Open Government — which in turn sent most of the money to another group called Clean Team Alaska. That group spent heavily to promote a ballot measure that would have banned virtually anyone who received public money — government contractors, municipalities, public employee unions (a regular hobgoblin in Rich’s writings) — from lobbying the government or contributing money to political campaigns. The effort was abruptly abandoned just before the Alaskan Public Offices Commission required the Alaskan groups to disclose their funders.

Rich is fond of ballot initiatives for a very simple reason, U.S. Term Limits co-founder O’Keefe says.

“They don’t change their mind after the election,” he said. “They don’t renege on campaign promises. It’s a policy, not a candidate. You don’t actually know what you’re getting back from a candidate.”

[dyn graph] cf

Rich’s Network: This interactive graphic displays some of the groups that are either part of Rich’s network of non-disclosing 501(c) organizations, or have received money from them, based on 990 forms filed with the Internal Revenue Service. You can zoom in or out, reduce the number of organizations to see only the larger ones, or reshape the network. To see the data behind this visualization — including the value and type of transaction between each group — click here to download an Excel (.xlsx) spreadsheet. 

Palmetto State Politics

Rich may have made his biggest mark in South Carolina— a state where he appears to have no personal connections or obvious business interests. But since 2006, Rich has spent large sums in the state, largely to pursue one of his favored causes: School vouchersto allow parents to send their children to educational institutions other than their local neighborhood schools.

In 2010 alone, Rich’s organizations gave more than $1.7 million to a handful of South Carolina non-profits — groups like South Carolinians for Responsible Government and Conservatives In Action. South Carolinians for Responsible Government is actually two separate nonprofits, one a 501(c)(3) and another a 501(c)(4). Both groups are based at the same address and have the same president and identical boards of directors. Combined, they listed having more than $1.6 million in revenue in 2010.

“South Carolinians for Responsible Government is a statewide grassroots non-profit organization,” the group claims on its website. “Unlike our opponents, who use tax dollars to fund their operations, we depend entirely on the generosity of citizens like you.”

But that’s true only if “citizens like you” includes four of Rich’s groups, which, according to their tax filings, made five grants to the two South Carolina organizations totaling $1.5 million — about 90 percent of the recipient groups’ revenues. It’s a classic Rich maneuver, indirect and complicated.

As is Rich’s sidestepping of South Carolina’s campaign finance laws: A recent investigation by The State newspaper found that since 2008, Rich had contributed at least $188,000 to 38 members of the South Carolina House of Representatives. An OpenSecrets Blog review of South Carolina’s campaign finance disclosures indicate that since that article was published, Rich has given at least another $19,000 to three state Senate candidates facing primary fights.

But since South Carolina caps individual donations at $2,000, Rich had to be creative. Instead he made his gifts through shell companies with names like Stillrich LLC, Coolcal LLC, 188 Claremont LLC, 123 LaSalle, Inc., and 51 First Avenue, LLC. The companies, many of which appear to linger from Rich’s time in real estate – a realm in which it’s common for each property to exist as its own LLC — all list 1420 Walnut Street, Suite 1011, Philadelphia, PA, as their address.

That’s the address of the Center for Independent Thought, the libertarian think tank run by Rich’s wife, Andrea Millen Rich.

Dick Harpootlian, the chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, is blunt in his assessment of Rich.

“He owns the whole f***ing state,” Harpootlian said recently in an interview with OpenSecrets Blog.

Phil Noble, a Democratic party activist who in 2010 traveled the state confronting candidates for taking Rich’s campaign contributions, is almost as blunt.

“He’s basically bought the Republican Party and virtually all the state House candidates is what it boils down to,” Noble told OpenSecrets Blog. “God knows how many millions he has spent here.” According to Noble, Rich first came to the state to back former governor Mark Sanford, who was a prominent school voucher proponent.

Noble said that Rich has targeted candidates, often moderate Republicans, in primary contests, usually shortly before an election. One left-wing South Carolina blog found that in 2008, LLCs and individuals affiliated with Rich contributed $40,000 to a conservative state Senate candidate, Lee Bright, in the final two weeks before he faced off against an incumbent Republican. The contributions, which were not made public until after the vote, accounted for 20 percent of Bright’s funds in that election.

Simultaneously, the South Carolina Club For Growth — a group affiliated with the national Club For Growth, where Rich is a board member — dropped, blasting him for taking money from trial lawyers.

Bright narrowly won the race.

Noble blames Rich for corrupting South Carolina’s political culture by encouraging the development and use of secretive non-profits to attack political enemies.

“He was sort of the impetus for the the creation of a whole (c)(4) support network for Sanford and his agenda,” Noble said. “He brought that whole culture with him.”

Furthermore, said Noble, Rich and his network “don’t care at all” about bad publicity. “They just spend what they have to, and they keep spending big.”

Continuing to Spend

There are indications that increasingly Rich is aiming his operation at federal politics. For the past two years, OpenSecrets.org data shows, Americans For Limited Government, Inc., has employed a federal lobbyist. So far this year, the group has lobbied in support of two anti- union bills, including one sponsored by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), to whose campaign Rich personally gave $2,500. NetRightDaily.com, an online publication sponsored by Americans for Limited Government, has trumpeted the role the group played helping Duncan develop the legislation.

In March, Rich gave $50,000 to the Club For Growth Action Fund, a super PAC affiliated with the libertarian Club For Growth where Rich is on the board. Characteristically, Rich shrouded the donation under cover of a shell corporation, Ashborough Investors LLC, which lists his wife as the manager.

He has given another $48,500 directly to candidates like Richard Mourdock, the Indiana Tea Party challenger who successfully upset long-time incumbent Republican Sen. Dick Lugar, as well as to PACs — including Club for Growth and the Term Limits America PAC.

If Rich is gearing up his operation for a big effort at the federal level, there will likely be a liberal pushback — his name is often mentioned on liberal blogs in the same breath as the Koch brothers (although CRP found no direct connection between Rich and the Kochs).

But if Rich is pushed on his campaign finance activities, expect him to push back.

In 2008, when a liberal group took it upon itself to notify conservative donors with ties to non-disclosing outside spending groups that they were being watched for possible election and tax law violations, Howard Rich — despite his own extensive involvement with political groups that hide their funding sources — sent a similar letter to liberal donors.

“As a donor to one or more of these organizations and efforts, you have been able to engage in these activities without notice, operating in relative obscurity. I am writing to inform you that this will no longer be the case,” Rich wrote in his letter. “Your name has been put in our database. We are monitoring all reports of a wide variety of leftist organizations. As your name appears in subsequent reports, it is our intent to publicize your involvement in your local community.”

Center for Responsive Politics researcher Robert Maguire contributed to this story.

==

! GP 2013

Americans for Limited Govt Res. Fdn $3,450,000

==

Americans for Limited Government, Inc., "is all about action." Their website goes on to note that:

"Each year, the government becomes increasingly disconnected from the people. Both parties have lost their way. Many politicians don't honor their own principles or platforms.Voters are cynical and increasingly alienated from political parties, politicians, and the government."The time is ripe for an independent, nonpartisan political movement that fights for hardworking taxpayers and against the special interests that continually push for big government nationwide." [1]

A November 2006 report by the Center for Public Integrity notes that they are "the driving force behind this year’s eminent-domain and regulatory-takings ballot initiatives in the West, calls itself a grass-roots organization." It is "financed almost entirely that year by a handful of large donors... connected to ALG’s chairman, New York real estate investor Howard Rich." [2]

Nonprofit status

Americans for Limited Government Inc. - a 501(c)(4), EIN 36-3975580 - was founded in 1996[3]; Americans for Limited Government Research Foundation Inc. - a 501(c)(3), EIN 52-2020468 - was founded in 1997.[4]

Funding

2010: Secret Nonprofit Group Gives Nearly $4.2 Million

In 2010, ATR received $4,189,000 from the Center to Protect Patients' Rights, another 501(c)4 that acted as a conduit for around $55 million in secret funding distributed to other nonprofit groups that attacked Democrats in the 2010 elections. ^[1]

2005: 3 individuals gave 99% of funding

"Americans for Limited Government, the tax-exempt organization that bankrolled a series of controversial [takings] ballot initiatives this year, raised 99 percent of its $5.4 million in total contributions in 2005 from just three donors..."^[2]

2004: "handful of large donors"

A "review of public records from 2004, however, shows that the operations of Americans for Limited Government and its affiliated foundation were financed almost entirely that year by a handful of large donors, as were the operations of other tax-exempt organizations led by or otherwise connected to ALG’s chairman, New York real estate investor Howard Rich.

"A review of these documents by the Center shows that the Rich-connected organizations, whose stated missions have little in common, appear to have operated essentially as interrelated bank accounts, collecting money from donors and sharing it among themselves.

"In 2004, for example, Legislation Education Action Drive, a tax-exempt organization that Rich founded to promote vouchers and tuition tax credits, collected more than $1.35 million for “research and public education of the developments in school choice initiatives,” according to its federal tax returns." [5]

Directors

• Howard Rich, Chairman
• Eric O'Keefe, Chair, Executive Committee
• John Tillman
• Edward H. Crane
• Willliam Wilson

Source

Contact

Web: http://www.getliberty.org

Articles and resources

References

1. ↑ Vivica Novak and Robert Macguire: Mystery Health Care Group Funneled Millions to Conservative Causes, Opensecrets.org, Accessed Monday October 1st, 2012
2. ↑ Bill Hogan (2006-12-21). Takings Initiatives - Articles: Three Big Donors Bankrolled Americans for Limited Government in 2005. Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved on 2011-07-26. “Americans for Limited Government, the tax-exempt organization that bankrolled a series of controversial ballot initiatives this year, raised 99 percent of its $5.4 million in total contributions in 2005 from just three donors, the Center for Public Integrity has learned. The number of ALG’s major donors in 2005, but not their identities, was disclosed in financial statements obtained by the Center. ... The reliance of Americans for Limited Government on such a small number of big donors is at sharp variance with how the organization bills itself to journalists and to the public.”

Related SourceWatch articles

External resources

• Jim Morris and Robert Brodsky, "Following the Money (Part 1)", The Center for Public Integrity, November 1, 2006.
• Jim Morris and Robert Brodsky, "Following the Money (Part 2)", The Center for Public Integrity, November 2, 2006.

External articles

Wikipedia also has an article on Americans for Limited Government. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the GFDL.

Categories:

• Politics (U.S.)
• Elections (U.S.)

 TABOR

wiki

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (abbreviated TABOR) is a concept advocated by conservative and free market libertarian groups, primarily in the United States, as a way of limiting the growth of government. It is not a charter of rights but a provision requiring that increases in overall tax revenue be tied to inflation and population increases unless larger increases are approved by referendum.^{[citation needed]}

Contents

  [hide] 

• 1 Colorado example
• 2 Advocates
• 3 Opponents
• 4 TABOR in other states
• 5 See also
• 6 References
• 7 External links

Colorado example

The most well-known example of TABOR legislation is in the state of Colorado.^[1] In 1992, the voters of the state approved a measure which amended Article X of the Colorado Constitution that restricts revenues for all levels of government (state, local, and schools).^[2] Under TABOR, state and local governments cannot raise tax rates without voter approval and cannot spend revenues collected under existing tax rates if revenues grow faster than the rate of inflation and population growth, without voter approval.^[2] Revenue in excess of the TABOR limit, commonly referred to as the “TABOR surplus,” must be refunded to taxpayers, unless voters approve a revenue change as an offset in a referendum.^[3] Under TABOR, the state has returned more than $2 billion to taxpayers.^[2]

The allowance for spending to grow at the rate of inflation plus population growth means that inflation-adjusted per capita spending generally did not decrease. However, spending growth could be interrupted due to an economic recession, in which case inflation-adjusted per capita spending did decrease -- and TABOR did not permit inflation-adjusted per capita spending to return to its pre-recession level. This was known as the "ratchet-down effect," and it occurred in FY2001-02 and FY2002-03.^[3]The ratchet-down effect was desirable to those who believed government was consuming too large a fraction of Colorado's gross state product (GSP), and undesirable to those who believed government was consuming too small a fraction of Colorado's GSP.

In November 2005, Coloradans approved Referendum C, a ballot measure that loosened many of TABOR's restrictions. This measure allows the state to retain and spend money from existing revenue sources above the TABOR limit each year beginning in FY 2005-06. The state may spend all revenue subject to TABOR for five years through FY 2009-10. Beginning in FY 2010-11, the state may spend revenue above the TABOR limit up to a capped amount known as the "Referendum C cap.^[3] The Referendum C cap grows from the prior year's cap instead of the prior year's spending by inflation plus population growth.^[3] In effect, Referendum C eliminated the ratchet-down effect.^[3]

Any retained Referendum C revenue (revenue above the allowable TABOR limit but below the Referendum C cap) is statutorily required to be spent on health care, education, firefighter and police retirement plans and strategic transportation projects.^[3] Colorado Legislative Council Staff reported in 2009 that the state would have faced a significant budget shortfall had Referendum C not passed.^[3] Therefore, in many instances the Referendum C money that has been spent is not new money to programs, rather it maintained the programs and prevented them from undergoing cuts.^[3] It is money the programs may not have received without Referendum C, but it is not additional money when compared with prior years.^[3] However, the report also admits that it is impossible to enumerate this impact because it would require knowledge of what budgetary actions the state would have taken had Referendum C failed.^[3] Referendum C and other attempts to mitigate the effects of TABOR are referred to as "de-Brucing" after Douglas Bruce, the author of the amendment.^[4]

Advocates

Advocates like Douglas Bruce see the experience of Colorado as an example of the positive effects of tax decreases. They cite the fact that Colorado's economic growth in the dozen or so years since this system was implemented has been well in excess of that of the U.S. as a whole. They also say that deciding tax increases in referendums is more democratic, as legislators may be beholden to Lobby groups, special interests andlobbyists.

One prominent advocacy group in favor of TABOR is Americans for Prosperity. Many of their twenty state chapters are currently working on plans to implement TABOR in their respective states. In Florida, AFP lobbied the Taxation and Budget Reform Committee to place a TABOR on the November 2008 ballot. And in Texas, AFP spearheaded the Taxpayer Protection Act concept of giving taxpayers greater control over how much government taxpayers want and are willing to pay for. It was also on the 2008 Republican Primary Ballot as a nonbinding initiative.

Many advocates of a more libertarian bent, such as Americans for Limited Government, claim that reduced taxation is a noble goal for its own sake, leading to increases in financial freedom and economic prosperity. Others note that Colorado has continued growth as well as larger tax revenues concurrent with the TABOR act.

The TABOR Foundation has partnered with Mountain States Legal Foundation to sue to enforce TABOR in Colorado, challenging car taxes and sales taxes enacted without a vote of the people.^[5][6] MSLF has also sued on behalf of the Colorado Union of Taxpayers Foundation's members, challenging the City of Aspen's grocery bag tax.^[7]

Advocates claim that the assertion that Colorado ranks 47th in school funding is misleading. The figure, which comes from the U.S. Census Bureau's report titled Public School Finances 2004, measures spending as a percentage of personal income. Colorado appears to be low in these rankings because of the high earning power of its taxpaying residents. Using the same set of figures, a poorer state like New Mexico ranks 7th, though it actually spends fewer dollars per pupil than Colorado.^[8]

Measuring all K-12 education expenditures (including construction costs and debt repayment) for 2003–2004, data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) place Colorado at 28th in the nation ($9,073). Strictly measuring operational costs for the same year, Colorado ranks anywhere from 23rd ($8,263 - National Education Association) to 33rd ($7,478 - NCES) in "current" per-pupil spending.^[8]

The proportion of state spending on K-12 education is at an all-time high. In 1992, the year before TABOR took effect, the state of Colorado paid 45 percent of the per-pupil funding for public schools. In 2006, the state's share had grown to 62%. From 2000-01 to 2005-06, Colorado's overall per-pupil contribution in state dollars to K-12 education (including all education funds, not just per-pupil funding under the School Finance Act) had increased by 28% — or by 16% after adjusting for inflation.^[8]

Opponents

Opponents argue that the lack of tax revenue has hurt Colorado in many ways. For instance, Colorado ranks 48th in the nation for higher education funding (per personal income level), which is the lowest in 40 years, representing a drop from 34th in 1992.^[9] In another example, Colorado now ranks 44th in what it spends to repair its roads.

Opponents also argue that Colorado's economic growth has largely been despite - not because of - this system, and is a result of changing societal desires for open spaces, outdoor sports opportunities, and other "quality of life" issues that are now imperiled by Colorado's inability to provide expanding governmental services. They point out that almost 90% of state tax revenues are now already earmarked for various purposes, handicapping the state legislature and giving it very little flexibility.

They also add that the process has not been as "democratic" as its advocates purport, citing the off-year voting and complex wording that may skew results. Some opponents claim that complicated tax decisions are best decided by deliberation based on well-informed argument and informed consent, such as presumably occurs in legislatures, rather than the simplistic and emotionally-charged appeals that tend to dominate referendums.

TABOR in other states

Reforms similar to Colorado's have been put forward in several states. In 2006, two Libertarian groups financially backed by New York real estate developer Howie Rich campaigned for laws similar to TABOR in eight states.^[10][11][12]

Informed observers^[who?] feel that such advocates have the greatest likelihood of success in jurisdictions which have initiative and referendum and can be put on the ballot directly by voters, at least in the short term, as legislators are very unlikely to be willing to give up such control over the power of the purse unless voters overwhelmingly demand it.^{[citation needed]} TABOR advocates were handed a setback when a similar proposition, on the ballot on the same day as the California gubernatorial recall of 2003, was overwhelmingly defeated on the same day that a Democratic governor was being recalled by a large margin.

It appears far more likely, at least in the short term, that measures similar to the "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" will be adopted on the county and municipal level than on a statewide basis beyond Colorado; one municipality adopting the plan in recent years has been Spring Hill, Tennessee. After the November 2005 setback for proponents in Colorado, advocates in many regions are now downplaying the name "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" in favor of other terms such as "Spending Limitation Movement". Organizations dedicated to shrinking government are pushing for the adoption of TABORs in other states. Currently, Colorado is the only state with TABOR. In 2005, TABOR proposals were introduced in about half of the states.^[13] A TABOR referendum on the ballot in Maine as an initiative effort led by Mary Adams was defeated in November 2006. Similar referendums were also defeated in Nebraska and Oregon that year. Similar initiatives in Maine and Washington were defeated in 2009.^[14]

See also

• Taxpayer Bill of Rights III, an Act of Congress
• Proposition 13, which capped property taxes in California

OKLA 3

o'keefe bs:

Those regulations are still overly broad and likely unconstitutional, however Eric’s operations are compliant with even the questionable provisions of the regulations. In 2005, Americans for Limited Government started an effort to bring spending limit initiatives and eminent domain initiatives in front of millions of voters. This effort was organized by those who had run n the term limits operations in the 1990s.

The tax limitation and eminent domain initiatives did not meet with the same level of success, as union organizers had spread their method of “blocking,” where thuggish behavior on the street is used to impair the efforts of petitioners.  They also organized attacks in the media and in courtrooms.  They sued against nearly every effort, and kept initiates off the ballot in several states, while sinking support in others.  Not content with preventing votes, the Attorney General of Oklahoma even indicted three of the organizers of the effort.

By then Eric had launched the Sam Adams Alliance, which employed one of the targets, Paul Jacob.  Paul had a potential ten-year prison sentence hanging over his head, but was patiently defiant during the 17 months of purgatory, before the state dropped the case and mailed a check for $143,000 to our attorneys in Kansas City.

[BS

Susan Johnson is the president of National Voter Outreach.

Johnson is one of the Oklahoma 3. Johnson, Paul Jacob and Rick Carpenter were criminally charged by Drew Edmondson, the Democratic attorney general ofOklahoma in 2007 for allegedly violating the state's residency requirement. The charges were denied and, as the result of a federal lawsuit, Yes on Term Limits v. Savage, the Tenth Circuit ruled unanimously on December 18, 2008 that the law under which Edmondson was criminally prosecuting the trio was unconstitutional. Edmondson asked the court to re-consider; on January 21, the court said it would not do so. Edmondson then on January 22 dropped his prosecution, saying that the 1969 law under which he was prosecuting them was "no longer enforceable."^[1]

In the eighteen months that elapsed between the time that Edmondson filed and then dropped the charges, his attempt to jail the Oklahoma 3 for ten years led theWall Street Journal to compare the government in Oklahoma to that of Pakistan, and led Steve Forbes of Forbes to compare the government of Oklahoma to the government of North Korea.^[2][3]

Background of Oklahoma 3

On October 2, 2007, Johnson, Paul Jacob and Rick Carpenter were indicted in Oklahoma based on allegations about their role in the 2005 petition drive for an Oklahoma TABOR initiative that, had the drive succeeded, would have placed a Taxpayer Bill of Rights initiative on the November 2006 general election ballot in that state.

Jacob, Johnson, and Carpenter were indicted on felony charges of "conspiracy to defraud the state." Carpenter was charged with a second felony, that of violating the state's petition act. According to an AP report, "The indictment accuses the three of 'willfully, corruptly, deceitfully, fraudulently and feloniously' conspiring with each other to defraud the state through the collection of signatures on the TABOR petition."^[4]

In a prepared statement released upon indictment, Paul Jacob wrote that the prosecution was "not about the law, but rather 100 percent politically motivated. This is politics – very ugly politics." As well as challenging the motives of the prosecution, Jacob noted the many troubles of the constitutionality of the laws upon which the prosecution is based, adding that "constitutional or not, we obeyed the statute."^[5]

The multicounty grand jury indictment^[6] was unsealed on Tuesday, October 2, 2007. The defendants were taken out of court shackled to each other with handcuffs and leg-irons, and released later in the day. Paul Jacob was widely quoted as saying that the charges "will not stand."^[7]

Grand jury indictment dismissed

In mid-November 2007, the multi-county grand jury indictment was dismissed, apparently because of flaws in its composition. It is expected that the charges will be refiled directly by Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson.^[8]

Support of Susan Johnson

R-Sen. Randy Brogdon released a public statement on October 5, 2007 supporting Johnson and Paul Jacob, saying "It appears Drew Edmondson is more concerned with protecting his own political power than he is with preserving, protecting, and defending the right of Oklahomans to free speech,” Brogdon said. “This is nothing less than an attack on our Republican form of government.”^{[9][10][11][12][13]}

External links

• National Voter Outreach website
• Free the OK 3
• Susan Johnson bio
• Selection of NVO articles about the 2005 Taxpayer Bill of Rights petition in Oklahoma.
• Has Oklahoma's Attorney General gone overboard?
• Validating Signatures Article by Rick Arnold and Susan Johnson in 1997 "Campaigns and Elections" magazine

References:

1. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ *Associated Press*, "State won't appeal initiative petition ruling," January 22, 2009
2. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ *Wall St. Journal*, "Oklahoma's Most Wanted; The latest thing in political felonies: a petition drive"
3. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ *Forbes* magazine, "Has North Korea Annexed Oklahoma?"
4. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ "Petition Backers Indicted On Felony Charges" Associated Press, 10/2/2007
5. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ "Statement of Paul Jacob", PaulJacob.com, 10/2/2007
6. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ Case#CF-2007-4713, Indictment PDF
7. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ "TABOR petition backers indicted", Tulsa World, October 2, 2007
8. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ *Oklahoma indictment dismissed but re-indictment likely*
9. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ *Sen. Brogdon says Oklahomans Should be Dismayed by Politically Motivated Indictment of Citizen Activists*, Oklahoma State Senate, Oct 5th, 2007
10. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ Payback for Activism
11. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ Unconstitutional Oklahoma law
12. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ Who is next on the state's hit list?
13. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:↑ Outrageous political ploy to quell citizen rights

Category: 

• Petition drive management company personnel------

wiki

In October 2007, Edmondson indicted term limits and initiative rights activist Paul Jacob and two others on the grounds that they had illegally used out-of-state petitioners to collect signatures on a ballot initiative.^[5] On December 18, 2008 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the underlying Oklahoma law that barred out of state petition circulators, noting that it was in violation of the First Amendment. Edmondson appealed the decision on behalf of Secretary of State Susan Savage. On January 21, 2009 the Tenth Circuit court denied the state's appeal, effectively ending the case.^[6] The Attorney General's office dismissed the charges against Jacob and the other defendants, with Edmondson saying "The statute under which these defendants were charged has been declared unconstitutional, and the appellate process is complete...The statute is no longer enforceable."^[7] on January 22, 2009. The indictment of Jacob drew criticism for being politically motivated. 2008 independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader referred to the laws such as the one Jacob was charged with breaking as “Jim Crow laws,” adding, “We’ve seen this before against African Americans.^[8] 404 hmmn] The Wall Street Journal editorialized against the prosecution twice, calling it "bizarre",^[9][10] and Steve Forbes asked the question "Has North Korea Annexed Oklahoma?".^[11]

Indictments for Petition Fraudsters with Connections to Missouri Ballot Initiatives

Yesterday came word from Oklahoma that indictments have been handed down

against Susan Johnson and Paul Jacob for fraud related to initiative

petition signature gathering in connection with that state's TABOR initiative efforts in 2006.  Jacob and Johnson (at left, handcuffed to one another) were key figures in several Missouri initiative efforts last year as well.  From the Tulsa World:

A

multicounty grand jury indictment unsealed Tuesday in

Oklahoma County District

Court names three key figures in the failed effort to put

a taxpayer bill of rights on

state ballots last year. ...

Susan Johnson of Michigan, president of National

Voter Outreach, and Paul Jacob of Virginia, of Citizens in

Charge, were charged with

conspiracy to defraud the

state.

FiredUp! Missouri has been onto the fraudulent antics of Johnson and Jacob for some time.  Last spring, several posts carefully laid out the scam that Johnson and Jacob had perpetrated in trying to foist their TABOR initiative on voters here in Missouri.  That's the same initiative that has led to their indictment in Oklahoma. A look back to June 2006:

If Tuohey is the shiny

package that the TABOR initiative came wrapped in, Paul Jacob is the

brain and guts tucked away inside. Jacob, a national libertarian

operative and pundit for conservative outlets

like TownHall.org, sits at the controls of the Missouri TABOR

initiative by virtue of his position at a national organization called

Americans for Limited Government. He has run these ballot campaigns

before in other states. ...

One possible reason

for why NVO is targeted by fraud investigations and regularly submits

petitions with abnormally high rates of invalid signatures is that they

apparently exercise very little discretion with regard to hiring subcontractors for their campaigns:

National Voter

Outreach, owned by Susan Johnson, hired a subcontractor in southeastern

Michigan to gather signatures for the Stop Overspending Michigan

campaign. Upon an internal review of some of the signatures, the

company found some of the subcontractors turned in fraudulent

signatures, including those of deceased individuals, according to the

police report.

The fraud was

noticed out of the Flint office, Johnson said. Some people on the

circulating crews “turned in several thousand forged signatures” while

the people managing the crew went to Missouri to work on another drive.

A year and a half ago, FiredUp! Missouri was pointing to rampant fraud being committed by Johnson and Jacob in this state.  Now they are on their way up the river for fraud committed at the same time, working on the same initiative in a neighboring state.  What are the odds that the TABOR operation run by Johnson and Jacob in Missouri was fraud free?

And that's not all.  Johnson and Jacob are connected to several other GOP-connected ballot operations in Missouri.

Notably, Johnson's National Voter Outreach petition collection outfit is the firm that proponents of Missouri's anti-stem cell research ballot initiative have planned to use to gather signatures for their 2008 attempt to roll back 2006's constitutional amendment protecting embryonic research.  Jeff Roe --the consultant responsible for managing the anti-cures petition effort-- is linked to Johnson and National Voter Outreach by virtue of his relationship with Paul Jacob, who has consistently used the firm in petition efforts around the country.

Eagle-eyed observers will remember that Roe and Jacob hooked up in 2006 on another devious project --the dishonest campaign to "take a scalp" by running false ads against Cole County Circuit judge Tom Brown during his re-election.

We Missourians have had a front row seat for the fraudulent show out of which Johnson and Jacob have made a career.  Luckily, these fraudsters will now be off the streets for good.  But a word to the wise: the devious and illegal tactics used by GOP operatives and front groups will not disappear because of the indictments of Susan Johnson and Paul Jacob.  Other scumbags will simply use the opportunity to fill the right-wing niche left open by their disappearance from the Missouri scene.

There will be more ballot initiatives in 2008, with petitions circulated by "professional" out of state firms.  If we learn no other lesson from Johnson and Jacob, we should take it as an inducement to treat these outfits with the skepticism they deserve, right from the outset.

Tim Asher and Ward Connerly, consider yourselves on notice.

http://www.firedupmissouri.com/tabor_fraudsters_indicted