[Owasp-board] [Owasp-leaders] OWASP Board decision that I don't agree with

Jim Manico jim.manico at owasp.org
Mon Jan 6 00:24:32 UTC 2014

Exactly, your analysis is spot-on Tobias.
- Jim

> Jim,
> reading your link, *our non-profit status does in fact __not____ forbid
> us from getting involved in politics as in advocating our mission and
> making public statements about it. *
> There is a huge difference between political campaigning on behalf of
> any candidate for elective public office (which is forbidden for
> non-profit) and general advocacy and politics aka an organisation making
> a public statement or advocating that certain things are in line with
> our OWASP mission and a really good idea and others are against the
> OWASP mission aka a really bad idea.
> For anyone interested, I recommend to follow and read the link that you
> sent, it specifies that a political campaign in the sense of the IRS is:
> "What is a political campaign? In general, the IRS rule refers to
> campaigns between people who are running for offices in public
> elections. These can include: candidates running for president of the
> U.S.; candidates running for governor; candidates running for mayor; and
> also candidates for lower elected offices such as school board
> officials, city supervisors, and county trustees."
> And in fact your article explicitly states that: *"Your organization can
> engage in legislative advocacy and issue-related advocacy, as long as it
> follows certain rules and steers clear of political campaigning. "* (for
> those interested in what these certain rules are: that a non-profit does
> not have "substantial part" of its overall activities relates to
> influencing legislation or carrying on propaganda. Roughly anything
> under 5% of the overall budget is considered not substantial, while
> expenditures of above 15% would probably be considered substantial -
> e.g. 5% would be with our current budget size spending of more than USD
> 100.000(!) on lobbying....)
> We are free and safe to advocate our mission and to make public
> statements to communicate our mission. (And nobody would want for OWASP
> to politically campaign for the next candidate for presidency, governor,
> mayor or political party of any country.)
> All the best, Tobias
> On 05/01/14 21:02, Jim Manico wrote:
>>> OWASP _should_ get involved in politics -
>> Our non profit status strictly forbids us from being involved in
>> political campaigns and more. This is a requirement of getting huge
>> tax breaks. If we do want to be more involved in politics we would
>> need to change the organizational structure and drop the non-profit
>> status.
>> http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/limits-political-campaigning-501c3-nonprofits-29982.html
>> --
>> Jim Manico
>> @Manicode
>> (808) 652-3805
>>> On Jan 5, 2014, at 1:05 AM, psiinon <psiinon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> OWASP _should_ get involved in politics -
>> _______________________________________________
>> Owasp-board mailing list
>> Owasp-board at lists.owasp.org
>> https://lists.owasp.org/mailman/listinfo/owasp-board

More information about the Owasp-board mailing list