Churches and Political Campaign Activity
Churches and other nonprofits are strictly prohibited from engaging in political campaigning. This prohibition stems from the requirements of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”).

An organization that qualifies as “tax-exempt” under Section 501(c)(3) is one that devotes its resources to educational, religious, scientific or other charitable activities, and that complies with a number of other rules, including the prohibition on political activity. In exchange for agreeing to fulfill certain public purposes and following the rules for 501(c)(3)s, these organizations do not pay taxes on their income and contributions received by them are tax-deductible by their donors. Churches are recognized as 501(c)(3) organizations, although under the law, they do not have to get specific approval from the IRS to be tax-exempt under 501(c)(3), unlike other charities.

In order to remain tax-exempt under 501(c)(3), churches must abide by strict guidelines that prohibit election activity. The Code states in relevant part that 501(c)(3) organizations cannot “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.” I.R.C. Sec. 501(c)(3). Thus, as a 501(c)(3) organization, churches are strictly forbidden from supporting or opposing a candidate for public office. To do so jeopardizes their tax-exempt status. Churches cannot engage in any of the following activities under the federal tax law:

Cannot endorse or oppose candidates for public office
Cannot make any communication—either from the pulpit, in a newsletter, or church bulletin—which expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a candidate for public office
Cannot make expenditures on behalf of a candidate for public office or allow any of their resources to be used indirectly for political purposes (e.g., use their phones for a phone bank)
Cannot ask a candidate for public office to sign a pledge or other promise to support a particular issue
Cannot distribute partisan campaign literature
Cannot display political campaign signs on church property
Under current law, churches, as well as other 501(c)(3) organizations, may engage in nonpartisan campaign activities, primarily consisting of voter education. Thus, they may organize and coordinate nonpartisan get-out-the-vote and voter registration drives; sponsor nonpartisan candidate debates or forums, so long as all legally qualified candidates are invited to appear and wide spectrum of issues are covered; educate all candidates on issues of public interest; and create legislative scorecards or voter guides. All of these permissible activities must be done on a nonpartisan basis. A 501(c)(3) entity should not even tacitly express favor or disfavor of a particular candidate.

Spin and obfuscation. Bobbing and weaving around and away from reality.

Will she casually mention that she has just stuck a knife in the backs of fixed income seniors, who make up a large portion of her city? And will she contrast that with the lavish plate of pate she has been hand serving to her wealthy friends and campaign donors? And if so, how will she justify it? Is she in any way conflicted by the message that sends or will she just blather on aimlessly and then retreat to an expensive brunch with her friends at one of her favorite eateries?

Perhaps Taxes will speak of the quadruple whammy she delivered to us Kapanskis this fiscal year – a regular property tax increase, a property tax increase based on the phony reevaluation, a community preservation tax added onto the property tax, and a water and sewer tax increase. And perhaps she will give us a heads up on the massive tax increase coming for the new high school we couldn’t afford and didn’t need.

My street looks like a mud hole, way to much sand.

Roads are bad several accidents, be careful.

Give her chance, this is her first public speech since completing the Dale Carnegie courses.

Looks like Missy Not only not V P, Not O R for her either.

Drop superintendant status thst silly Eberwien gave people with Masimiano sOK

GO DAWGS!

We have what are called “power couples” in this city right now. Two high income people who are married or in partnership in positions of power. Both in politics and in the school department here in Pittsfield there are many high income couples who are completely out of touch with the needs of the lower one income people in the city.

The gap between the haves and the have nots here in Pittsfield is growing significantly everyday. They want you to blame everybody but local politicians for why this is happening. Instead of the fact that local politicians are making decisions that do not benefit everyone in the city. Only a select few are prospering under the current leadership here in Pittsfield. The big 3 as Jonathan mentioned previously.

“Believe that city government is a community partner, a business partner, a good neighbor, and a champion for all our hopes and dreams. One of us cannot succeed without the other.” – Mayor of Pittsfield

“The state must {…} be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for their benefit {…} the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

― Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

You ever notice the chief’s wife is always there front and center? Scabbed knees galore

Taxes Tyers speech was shameful, considering she spoke of responsible budgeting after adding millions to the budget each year My property taxes are up over 7 percent. Her speech is filled with a bunch of visionary bs, when what this city desperately needs is some good old fashioned, effective city management. Dan, I hope you digest, and then disect, this shameful diatribe, and then expose it for what it truly was, and was not. Do it for the Kapanskis that haven’t left yet.

Kufflinks said a couple banks have given 500 g to shot spotter?