As Americans we are blessed to live in the freest society in all of history. By merely drawing breath Americans are guaranteed basic freedoms and liberties as individuals that people of ancient times could have only dreamed about. Among our liberties is the right of free speech—the ability to speak out, convince, or persuade others the value of any cause or belief.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that we also have the Internal Revenue Service. More on that in a moment.
At 50,000 members strong, Safari Club International is an organization focused on preserving the freedom to hunt and promoting wildlife conservation throughout the world. While we have many international members and on-going projects overseas, SCI was founded and headquartered in the U.S. and is therefore responsible for complying with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations.
SCI members carry a special burden in our heart to promote the worth of hunting and we carry out several activities, based on our rights, in the U.S. to advance our views and educate our fellow citizens. These activities are conducted transparently and are disclosed to all relevant state or federal election officials. They are also consistent with the 74,000-page Internal Revenue Code.
So what does exercising free speech rights have to do with taxation? The main reason is SCI, like 1.5 million other organizations, is not a profit seeking business. As such we are allowed to claim an exemption from federal taxation. This is done under Section 501(c) of the IRS code which details 29 different types of entities eligible for exemptions. Both SCI and SCI Foundation file under Section 501(c).
As a scientific organization SCI Foundation files as a 501(c)(3). A “C3” designation allows SCI Foundation financial backers to make their donations tax deductible. But the designation also severely limits SCI Foundation from supporting political candidates or lobbying office holders. C3s who violate these restrictions endanger their tax-exempt status. There are about 100,000 foundations among the 1.5 million non-profit entities that file under this designation.
SCI files as a 501(c)(4). The actual description for a “C4” in the IRS code reads as follows: “Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare…” SCI’s funding is also “devoted exclusively” to educational purposes. A C4 can lobby government officials and support political candidates; however, those activities cannot be its primary purpose. SCI’s political activity comes in a few different forms, all consistent with election or tax law.
Political Action Committee – SCI-PAC
To support candidates and office holders who support our goals, SCI members long ago established a political action committee called SCI-PAC. While PAC donation amounts have varied over the decades, they amount to only a few thousand dollars per candidate per election cycle. By the way, individual political donor contributions are also quite limited. And because limits are so low compared to the cost of political campaigning, office seekers typically spend a good portion of their time raising donations from both individuals and PACs.
PACs are highly regulated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and active PACs are required to make quarterly disclosures. There are about 7,000 PACs in the U.S.
On our website we note with pride: “SCI-PAC is the largest sportsmen-led Political Action Committee in America. This is larger than the PACs of numerous corporate giants such as American Express, General Motors and Delta Airlines. This accomplishment and strength is due to the SCI members who have made a commitment to being first for hunters.”
Like most major PACs, information or metrics about SCI-PAC are available online by the FEC or on other sites like Opensecrets. SCI-PAC is making a difference for hunters and we are pleased 94% of SCI-PAC supported candidates emerged victorious in the 2014 election cycle and that SCI-PAC helped to elect 147 pro-hunting candidates to Congress.
“Super” PAC – Hunter Action Fund
In the 2010 Citizens United case the Supreme Court struck down strict limits on political advertising enacted by Congress in 2002. The Court based its ground breaking decision on the Constitution’s First Amendment free speech clause.
The decision led to an expansion of so-called “super” PACs or “527” groups. Technically, all PACs are 527 organizations, it’s just the use of the term “527” as applied to the newer PACs organized to support newly de-regulated spending was popularized after the Citizens United decision. Like the 501(c) designation, 527 is a reference to a section of the Internal Revenue code dealing with tax exemptions.
Super PACs face less restriction of amounts used for activities supporting the causes they advocate and, in some cases, less disclosure requirements to the federal government about who supports those causes. They are used primarily to advocate political preferences or educate voters through media—but their activities are prohibited from any coordination with an individual candidates’ campaign. Amounts raised and spent, and whether the activities were for or against a candidate must be disclosed.
SCI has established the Hunter Defense Fund, since renamed the Hunter Action Fund (HAF). In 2014, the fund conducted activities that helped to elect two U.S. Senators, Cory Gardner from Colorado and Steve Daines from Montana.
Independent Expenditures
As we noted above, politicians and office seekers rely on donations from average citizens or organized PACs. They benefit in the form of contributions which they then use for campaign events, activities, or media advertising that they direct themselves. However, candidates occasionally benefit indirectly by advertising or spending from outside groups who share similar policy objectives. As an aside, groups are also permitted to advertise their opposition to candidates; however, these kinds of expenditures are more commonly used to support the election of candidates.
These activities are referred to as independent expenditures and are regulated and monitored by the FEC. They were the subject of the Citizens United court case.
Not only must these expenditures be disclosed to the FEC, federal election law is clear that there can be no coordination between the candidates and the groups making the expenditures. In fact, the relevant regulation states that these expenditures cannot be made “in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee, or their agents, or a political party committee or its agents.”
Since both traditional PACs and 527s are permitted to make these expenditures, SCI-PAC and HAF will be actively supporting the election of several candidates this election cycle who will defend Americans from the many mounting threats to our hunting heritage.
SCI is utilizing the resources given by its active membership and the free speech rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to ensure that hunting and a culture of support for hunting are handed down to future generations.