Its time has come - A PRO-CANNABIS SuperPAC. Your ideas are needed!

Just a thought

Just a thought

SuperSilverHaze said:

personally i would stray from naming it anything cannabis/marijuana/420 b/c it might draw unwanted attention to soon.

give it a fancy name as to not draw neg. attention........"Americans for Sensable Policies" or something like that but i think this could be a critical step forward if done right.

Click to expand...

How about:
Citizens Against Abusive Government Powers

We would be able to work with any party that has a candidate or position we support.

As a side note. You do realize that by doing this, any opposing powers that are in the government (city, state or fed) will send their DEA buddies to deal with any future contributors and supporters, Like they are doing now in Cali with anyone that has been tied to the public information machine (ie. Harborside, Oaksterdam ...)

Just something to keep in mind.

As a spoksperson how about someone like Barry Cooper from Kop Busters.
One link: (I like this one)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvOaoTE9xQM&feature=related

niteliteone said:

How about:
Citizens Against Abusive Government Powers

Click to expand...

i like it...

someone here needs to blow sheldon adelson

could you form a 501C breeders collective to sell beans and raise money for your cause at the same time? or would that be to mark emery and thus too risky?

spyro, my bad it was suppose to be a youtube link that show a California judge arguing for decriminalization. I'm better at lurking than posting.

niteliteone said:

How about:
Citizens Against Abusive Government Powers

We would be able to work with any party that has a candidate or position we support.

As a side note. You do realize that by doing this, any opposing powers that are in the government (city, state or fed) will send their DEA buddies to deal with any future contributors and supporters, Like they are doing now in Cali with anyone that has been tied to the public information machine (ie. Harborside, Oaksterdam ...)

Just something to keep in mind.

As a spoksperson how about someone like Barry Cooper from Kop Busters.
One link: (I like this one)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvOaoTE9xQM&feature=related

Click to expand...

I like the Citizens Against Abusive Governmental Powers...maybe Citizens Against Abusive Governmental Edict? A CAAGE PAC? I dunno, I'm trying to find something that rolls off the tongue and is easy to acronym for memorization and domain name purposes.

And per the side note, I don't think it'll be too crucial really. The key difference in forming a 501.3c is that it's a non-profit organization such as NORML, but specifically directed at political action and under a veil of anonymity...besides the founder/front-man, all participants, staff, and contributors can remain anonymous. That doesn't stop them from coming out in support of it publicly, but if they'd prefer not to it's not a problem. They wouldn't be registered with any sort of list or database.

And nothing against Harborside, Oaksterdam or the various large factions out West, but they're still performing federally illegal acts and flaunting it. I'm envious of the scale of their organization and I dream to have something similar in the years to come (as I'm sure many do...), but I certainly wouldn't have gone on TV talking about how much money my business makes and moves off of MMJ when it's still rather illegal.

KnifeWrench said:

someone here needs to blow sheldon adelson

Click to expand...

You don't seem to be that busy...

Infinitesimal said:

could you form a 501C breeders collective to sell beans and raise money for your cause at the same time? or would that be to mark emery and thus too risky?

Click to expand...

You COULD do so, under more legal grounds. I'm sure you COULD right now, but it'd get shut down faster than you can say "Seeds are illegal in the States still?" Even for "souvenir" purposes it'd be too dark of an area, and yes it'd most likely be a re-run of the Emery/OG incident but with Homeland Security, the DEA, FBI, and ICE instead of mostly the RCMP.
Seeds/breeding should be off the table in the current state of illegality.

webecat said:

spyro, my bad it was suppose to be a youtube link that show a California judge arguing for decriminalization. I'm better at lurking than posting.

Click to expand...

No worries, if you find that link again feel free to post it! Inspiration can be drawn from any sort of statement.

niteliteone said:

...As a side note. You do realize that by doing this, any opposing powers that are in the government (city, state or fed) will send their DEA buddies to deal with any future contributors and supporters, Like they are doing now in Cali with anyone that has been tied to the public information machine (ie. Harborside, Oaksterdam ...)

Just something to keep in mind...

Click to expand...

agreed and i think by having a name that implies govt corruption could bring the same unwanted attention.

Anti said:

...Something along the lines of "Restoring Democracy" sounds the best to me.

Something that nobody will want to be heard opposing.

Citizens For Responsible Governance

Restoring Freedom

Patriotic Americans Restoring Liberty

We need to be thinking in those terms and not in 'head lingo.

Click to expand...

i like all of them.


play by their rules and we win

spyro said:

And per the side note, I don't think it'll be too crucial really. The key difference in forming a 501.3c is that it's a non-profit organization such as NORML, but specifically directed at political action and under a veil of anonymity...besides the founder/front-man, all participants, staff, and contributors can remain anonymous. That doesn't stop them from coming out in support of it publicly, but if they'd prefer not to it's not a problem. They wouldn't be registered with any sort of list or database.

Click to expand...

Thats entirely wrong. it needs to be a 501 (c)4 for annonymity, and the primary purpose should not be political action, but rather public welfare or similar. These are also NOT tax deductible donations.

(c)3 ARE tax deductible but are specifically prohibited from participating pretty much AT ALL in politics, or they will lose their tax-exempt status.

Wiki for more info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization

501(c)(3)
Political activity

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are subject to limits or absolute prohibitions on engaging in political activities and risk loss of status as tax exempt status if violated.[28]
Elections

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office.[29] The Internal Revenue Service website elaborates upon this prohibition as follows:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.

501(c)(4)
See also: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

501(c)(4) organizations are generally civic leagues and other corporations operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees with membership limited to a designated company or people in a particular municipality or neighborhood, and with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.[32] 501(c)(4) organizations may lobby for legislation, and unlike 501(c)(3) organizations they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.[33] The tax exemption for 501(c)(4) organizations applies to most of their operations, but contributions may be subject to gift tax, and income spent on political activities - generally the advocacy of a particular candidate in an election - is taxable.[34]

Contributions to 501(c)(4) organizations are usually not deductible as charitable contributions for U.S. federal income tax, with a few exceptions.[35] 501(c)(4) organizations are not required to disclose their donors publicly.[36] This aspect of the law has led to extensive use of the 501(c)(4) provisions for organizations that are actively involved in lobbying, and has become controversial.[37][38] In 2010, a bill (the DISCLOSE Act) was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives that addressed identification of donors to organizations involved in political advocacy,[39] but the Senate Republicans filibustered and prevented a vote on the bill.[40]

Click to expand...

MadBuddhaAbuser said:

Thats entirely wrong. it needs to be a 501 (c)4 for annonymity, and the primary purpose should not be political action, but rather public welfare or similar. These are also NOT tax deductible donations.

(c)3 ARE tax deductible but are specifically prohibited from participating pretty much AT ALL in politics, or they will lose their tax-exempt status.

Wiki for more info
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization

Click to expand...

Nice detail check there. Thank you for the fix and clarification!
So going off the top of my head, I was wrong...a 501c3 wouldn't matter, but the c4 is what would keep contributions anonymous and allow for indirect political influence.

MadBuddah, THANK YOU! I gasped when I read that. There are issues with going for a 501(c)3 status, not the least of which are the fact that non-profits have specific restrictions with regard to political issues. I can't remember exactly what the pertinent section says, but no political donations are one of the requirements. That kind of puts a damper on the whole point of this thread.

SeaMaiden said:

MadBuddah, THANK YOU! I gasped when I read that. There are issues with going for a 501(c)3 status, not the least of which are the fact that non-profits have specific restrictions with regard to political issues. I can't remember exactly what the pertinent section says, but no political donations are one of the requirements. That kind of puts a damper on the whole point of this thread.

Click to expand...

Which is why instead of a 501(c)3, we'd go after a 501(c)4. It would still be unable to directly donate to the campaigns of politicians, but can still be used in the same way CAPE PAC and others are....just for running friendly ads and support in favor of the politician.

For instance, money raised via this PAC couldn't give money directly to RP's campaign or to his Moneybombs,but it could run ads in states where he's likely to get more of a vote or is needing a little extra nudge to push him in the leads....the PAC would run ads such as "Feel like it's time for a change? Ron Paul does too. Enough change to audit the Fed, slim down the governmental powers, and put an end to a needless Drug War. ...fine print: Paid for by Citizens Against Abusive Governmental Edict Political Action Committee. Not associated with the Ron Paul or the Ron Paul 2012 Campaign. For more information see caagepac.com/ronpaul"

So again, indirect political action used to inform, educate, and motivate citizens.

Exactly, Spyro. The whole point of this idea is to run it just like a "spooky pac" and use their own tools against them.

Stephen Colbert has already run ads during the republican primaries without challenge. Best case scenario we make a positive impact on drug laws. Worst case, they change laws to disallow spooky pacs in order to stop us.

its a 503c4 that were after.

pac / super pac / 503 c4 all have their specific purpose and probably all should be utilized.

edit

pac -- they can donate to a polititian (non-connected pac)

super pac -- anonymous doners but it can not give to a politician.

SuperSilverHaze said:

its a 503c4 that were after.

pac / super pac / 503 c4 all have their specific purpose and probably all should be utilized.

edit

pac -- they can donate to a polititian (non-connected pac)

super pac -- anonymous doners but it can not give to a politician.

Click to expand...

No, a 501(c)4. its the section of the tax code where it is created and laid out how it can operate.

The way this whole thing works is, pacs have to disclose donors, super pacs have to disclose donors.

HOWEVER, if a super pac recieves a donation from a 501(c)4 non-profit(us) all it has to do is say it received it from the group(us).

If I gave $50 to a super pac, they would have to report me personally. but if I gave it as a donation to the 501, it can in turn give that to the super PAC, and not report me.

here's a real world example.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ep-opening-wallets-but-public-may-not-see-it/

Washington (CNN) - When the super PAC backing Mitt Romney, Restore Our Future, files its June donation report on Friday with the Federal Election Commission, it is expected to show a six-figure contribution from Wyoming businessman Foster Friess, his first to the group.

But an unwelcome scrutiny came to Friess, Nevada billionaire Sheldon Adelson and some of the other wealthy donors to these super PACs, and some are planning for much of their future generosity to be behind a cloak of anonymity.

Friess said he has decided his financial donations in the future will mostly be to groups that do not have to disclose their donors. He said he is planning on contributing to five or six so-called 501(c)(4) groups named after the section of the tax code they are organized under. These are nonprofit organizations that can advocate on behalf of social welfare causes or to further the community. He refused to discuss which groups, but did say one recipient could be an affiliate of American Crossroads, the group founded by Karl Rove.

Another major donor who has felt the wrath because of his political contributions this year is Adelson, who is considering making at least some of his future contributions to groups that aren't required to reveal the names of their contributors, sources have told CNN.

Adelson, along with his wife, gave $20 million to the super PAC backing Newt Gingrich, Winning Our Future, and those donations caused controversy. The couple last month made its first donation to Restore Our Future.

Click to expand...

some more reading to do, plus I got a couple links in the second page I think

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(3)

Also. These pac cannot directly communicate or plan with a candidate.........officially.

so, its a 501 c4. thx, so much info to digest.


found info on Stephen Colbert's superpac from FEC website.

http://www.fec.gov/law/recentdevelopments.shtml#IECommittees

I just read the thread and saw that a reply hasn't been made since July. Has this project been given up? If not where does it stand?

Im in !!!!!!

This is one of the best threads/ideas I've seen at IC in a long time and it's a shame that this discussion just sort of fizzled out. I agree that the name would have to be very cannabis neutral. It should be tied to the cause by a strong association of the name but, not the name itself. Like "we all know what this is about but still sounds like, acts like and will be treated like a serious political movement".

Names such as "The Green Party" unfortunately turn a lot of conservative minds off instantly despite any admirable cause and position because a lot people don't even bother to learn their cause and position. It's easier to judge them by name alone and imagine a bunch of joint rolling red eyed government wanna-be's giggling and craving bacon while still trying to be taken seriously in Washington. And unfortunately for most people that is essentially that. These days people rarely take the time to read and be informed so you don't want minds to be decided on your name. And that's no matter how otherwise good your cause and position are.

If you really want to play the government's "game" you need to take careful notes on how it is played and do it much like they do (even if the idea of the government "game" is actually quite distasteful to most of us). The name "Patriot Act" is certainly a good example of a propaganda at work. Just think of the implied connotations of saying "I don't support the Patriot Act" (which I extremely don't). Because despite the grass roots initiative here (no pun intended) to be successful you ultimately need to win the hearts and minds of many others who are currently indifferent or more likely very critical of the cause.

What name and mission statement would make it hard for the average Joe to say "I don't support this"?

While I'm not sure I completely understand the actual end result here I certainly do like and support this discussion. Is the idea simply to put up some PAC sponsored tv/radio ads or billboards to try and illuminate the cause in a positive light? Surely any such illumination would be a good thing but I'm not sure this is how you "change the world". Furthermore I don't think the word "legalization" should even enter into it. Not yet by a long shot even if that's what we'd all ultimately like to see. Realistically it doesn't start there. I cringe when I saw all the town hall meetings with Obama and the #1 question was always marijuana legalization. I just think no... No, NO! Walk before you run! It starts with federally rescheduling marijuana as a substance with *any* beneficial purpose at all. Start with that. The benefits of that one change alone would be colossal and extremely far reaching.

30-40+ years ago it seemed easy to understand why the government was so anti-marijuana. Just consider what the entrenched political establishment was at the time. A bunch of old suits like Nixon and similar cronies with no first hand experience or unbiased information about it. But the thing that puzzles me... now we have "new" (old) suits who have admitted to using marijuana in the past. Like our current president: "of course I inhaled... that was the point". They know the score. Somewhere along the line it changes. They go from "this is okay, I rather like this" to "this is very extremely not good".

What happened? Well perhaps once you enter the "political arena" of success the idea and priority of getting blazed with your buddies (or the want of others to) sort of falls by the wayside. And perhaps understandably so. So even if these politicians "grow out of it" still, these individuals in question have that first hand knowledge of what marijuana is and what it's about. They know very well marijuana isn't ruining lives like the DEA insists or like many of the more dangerous substances such as tobacco and alcohol do (and don't even get me stared on "approved" doctor prescribed drugs.) In fact it's the criminal repercussions that are ruining lives.

30-40 years ago no sane politician would go on record as being supportive of any change in the marijuana laws. In all that time the only real strides that seems to have been made is now a few (very few) politicians will go on record saying "yes, yes the marijuana laws should be changed". But no one with the authority to do it will do it. Why? Because currently it's political suicide that's why. Even 2nd term Obama won't do it because he's worried about his "legacy" at that point and the inevitable backlash against the Democratic party if he did. The same backlash that either side would face by making this drastic change. They don't have want or the balls to do it. And to bring this full circle I believe that's because the voters aren't outraged enough on the issue. Yet.

Just over 50% support changing the marijuana laws and while a majority it simply isn't enough. Sadly at our current rate of progress it may take another 50 years to garner the political support necessary for it to instead become political suicide NOT to want to change the laws. Yeah, Obama sure had us going with his seemingly progressive stance "I won't use federal resources to interfere with medical marijuana" but ultimately he caved to the same political pressure too. They all do. Realistically how long will it take until we have an administration who not only doesn't back down but who actually *wants* to be the one responsible for making the change at the federal level?

*a coyote howls in the distance*

Like it or not, despite the "non-profit" guise there's a shit ton money involved in the medical marijuana industry. And that's where the true power of the movement currently lies. The medical marijuana industry could support one hell of a lobby movement... if it chose to. That's the way the government "game" is played and that's how you change the world. The irony is much of the power and money in the medical marijuana industry is firmly entrenched in keeping things exactly the way they are. And divided we fall.

The only other alternative like I said is to win the hearts and minds of the voters on the issue to an extent we have yet to see. This means instead of dividing parties and policies on the issue to actually unite them on it. And our political system seems to become more divisive by the day. On anything. Understanding that this discussion would soon need to be taken off the IC site and given it's own website once the purpose and agenda is firmed up I agree with what has been said about starting by getting in touch with NORML. For a long time I used to think that's where the change would ultimately come but, despite a nice and informative website I'm not really sure what they're about anymore. What their goal or purpose is. Understand that what we're contemplating NORML hasn't been able to do in 40 years.

But things are very different now and the internet can be a strong uniting force. Just look at what social networking has done in Libya and several other countries in the past few years. And yes in winning hearts and minds you will have to play the government "game" probably more than you want to. But it isn't impossible. I still remember the days you would scarcely mention weed to anyone. A far cry from today. So I think it's good that it's become a bit more marginalized (for lack of a better word) in tv and movies these days (Weed Wars aside, I don't think that was a good representation for anyone). Like I say people rarely take the time to read and be informed these days and we would do well to bear in mind that today a video of a dog on a trampoline has the potential to go "viral" and get millions of hits.

How to we harness this power for our cause? What do we do that isn't being done?

Anyway... just one more little rant here. You know what really fuckin' irks me? I mean *really* fuckin' irks me? Coming from a non-med state? The fact that medical marijuana is legal in the District of Columbia! That my friends is hypocrisy at it's very finest. ~The Prof

Props to The Prof.
I think the loss in momentum is just a general loss of organization. Name hasn't even been figured out yet, much less who's actually going to be the front-man and be friendly to the cause, or even what the message/mission is. Most of us here are growing and need to grow so there's a conflict of interest on being the PAC's pretty-boy. Also, that and various other things have tied up time (or at least I know I'm busy as hell...)
Contacting NORML will probably be a good starting point, but again I'm sure they're busy with their own agenda. The agenda which has boiled down to just being a source of information, which is not bad, but I don't feel like they're pushing much nowadays. Might be able to refer to the front-man though...I might get to looking for a source to email them.

Either way though, we don't have a platform to begin real discussion on yet. ICM probably doesn't want a set of posts regarding this specific PAC-noise, so let's take this elsewhere but find out what we can call ourselves first.

Anyone up for a quick poll? Pass the link around, log out of Facebook first though (if you still have one of those...)
http://micropoll.com/t/KE6pFZQGqG
If we can get that up to at least 100 votes, I'll buy the associated domain, and load some software to enable us to further this discussion, and pool resources and data. The banner under which we stand is the crucial first step though, and an easy one.