Posted on 02/21/2023 3:40:31 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
James O’Keefe’s departure from Project Veritas, the right-wing organization known for conducting undercover sting operations, came after the board of directors claimed to staff that O’Keefe had endangered the group’s nonprofit status, according to documents and people familiar with the situation.
In a memo sent to employees last week, the board warned, “THERE IS NO PROJECT VERITAS WITHOUT THE IRS,” referring to the Internal Revenue Service, which regulates nonprofits.
Project Veritas is registered under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code, meaning it cannot engage in politics or operate for the benefit of private interests. In exchange, the group is exempt from paying federal income taxes and disclosing its donors, allowing it to build a reservoir of financial support as it seeks to expose alleged wrongdoing by journalists, liberals, labor unions and others. Project Veritas reported raising about $21 million in 2021, the most recent year for which a public filing is available.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Mission accomplished.
He should run for office.
The restriction in fact is on the IRS.
The freedom runs in favor of the entity not taxed, is NOT at the whim of the IRS, and is NOT perpetually a hair’s-breadth away from disappearing. It’s the IRS that should be living in fear of overreaching, NOT the entity not taxed living in fear of an IRS getting up on the wrong side of the bed on a given morning in the future and arbitrarily or capriciously eliminating some kind of narrow or ephemeral exception/exemption.
Did you watch O’Keefe’s video yesterday? He explained all of these scurrilous charges.
+1.
Yes-please see #20.
Sorry—please see #24.
In that case, there's a lot of churches that need taxing.
So a few thoughts, and I have far more experience in non-profit governance, including with ministries and conservative organizations, than I wish I had. Because probably 75% of that experience was negative.
But a few random thoughts:
1) non-profit might not be a good business organizaiton for Project Veritas. They want to raise money, and this is how it’s done in the US. But the problem is that non-profits are a creation of the (disgusting) IRC. And there are rules. You have to comply, and it is the board’s job to make sure the organization remains in compliance.
2) visionary founders don’t actually work well with boards, in my experience. They understandably want to be solely in charge, because, after all....they are the one who charged the hill, took the shots in the chest, and they created the whole organization/movement, when no one else woudl or could. It seems (understandably) upside down that they would report to and be subject to a board. In their mind, the board is simply their help....and usually their fundraisers. But the problem is, that’s not how a not for profit works. It is also often the case that visionary founders are not good CEOs of a going concern. Different skill set. (And one of those skillls is ....reporting to a BOD).
3) The mission of PV is what matters. From the board’s perspective, they are trying to save the mission because they are in charge of the organization. Their statement is pretty sobering in that regard. Yet, as many here, and elsewhere have pointed out....there is no PV without James. That strikes me as likely true. So in his mind, he’s ALSO trying to save the project - and he thinks the BOD is basically standing in is way and interfering. (I’ve also encountered many a founder who gets irate that he/she shouldn’t spend on whatever they want...even luxury spending...because after all, dammit, they are out in front taking the shots to the chest. From a human perspective, I sort of agree with that. From a non-profit governance perspective, that’s a non-starter).
So how does PV continue? I think it has to continue basically as a crowd-funded FOR PROFIT which is a sole proprietorship of James O’Keefe. Sort of a soft subscription....if you like what he’s doing, then....you pay. Then his sole properietorship pays taxes, and does whatever the heck he wants with the money that rolls in. If donors/subscribers want more accountability, then they can take to social media and call for it. Or stop subscribing. But that’s their only recourse.
I think this is all just a mess.
I think James is awesome and like it was said earlier today, he’s a national treasure. But what he does and who he is is incompatible with non-profit governance. And in that regard, I feel sorry for the board. They were put into an impossible situation.
Here’s to hoping that the good work continues.
Spot on CFW
The IRS came calling with what and to whom?
Bingo. Its like FR not having 503c status or having advertisements, its like a warm blanket no one can force you to do anything.
Excellent point.
I don't feel the least bit sorry for them. Anyone there for the true mission and not just a prestige fantasy would realize that James is their ONLY unique asset. The PV name will forever be associated with him. They can try to operate without him, but it will be like the tepid, RINO National Review without William F. Buckley -- a sort of Lincoln Project for connected losers.
In view of O'Keefe's natural dominance, the Board needed to workshop some better management skills on how to safeguard their duties in cooperation with his driven temperament and groundbreaking originality. Instead, sounds like a couple of Board morons there engaged in ego-driven pissing contests and competitive power struggles, enlisting those who were PV's sissy whiners as human shields. Instead, the Board should have taken a retreat and hired a good management communications coach -- for themselves.
All this is assuming that the Board were acting in good faith; ultimately I don't believe they were. I do think it may not have been Pfizer paying people off, but rather threats and blackmail from the Deep State working through the IRS that caused this boil to pop right after the Pfizer reveal.
and you discussed said risks wi O’Keeffe... right???
Well they can be a non profit nothing now.
I loved the one where they claimed that he spent money on his wedding when he isn’t even married.
nd in that regard, I feel sorry for the board. They were put into an impossible situation.
They were just whores who had their price.
Why do you take the board at their word? The actions of the board and their lackeys are the best evidence for the charges being overblown. If James is dirty, well then, I guess we now have two dirty parties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.