From:   Jon Good <therealjongood@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Saturday, October 08, 2011 9:39:30 AM
To:   september17@googlegroups.com
Subject:   Re: [september17discuss] Article about OWS finances
 

The thought of a 501c3 leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  It feels kind of like starting to play by the rules of big business and big government, using the frameworks provided by the very thing we're trying to fight.  

Jon

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:25 PM, grimwomyn <grimwomyn@gmail.com> wrote:
It might not be a bad problem to set up some kind of 501c3 or llc for
OWS-- we at the OWSJ are right now trying to figure out a solution for
the kickstarter monies and where it should go-- we have secured Arts
Engine (http://www.artsengine.net/) to be a fiscal sponsor for our
projects, but we need to have an llc to have the money ultimately sent
to... I would love to work with finance on this and figure out a
solution. The kickstarter money (raised over $50K at this point!) is
for all printed materials abt OWS... and with the fiscal sponsorship
we would love to continue to fundraise for all other OWS media
projects if possible... and help make more media happen.

Lemme know-grim

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Charles Lenchner <clenchner@gmail.com> wrote:
> What a fascinating article.
> Please know that www.donationpay.com will process money for groups that are
> not 501c3 nonprofits. But they need to send the cash somewhere.
> Individuals are allowed to receive up to $13k a year in 'gifts' that are not
> taxable. This means that if ten people stepped up today, they could accept
> this amount into their bank account, and then withdraw it in cash to spend.
> Not elegant, but might work as a stopgap measure.
> Read more here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_tax_in_the_United_States
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Justin Wedes <jwedes@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/occupy_wall_street_money/id_40932
>>
>> Hats off to finance for attempting, and widely succeeding, in being
>> financially transparent.
>>
>> If the banks were half this open in their books...
>

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >