Talk:527 organization

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

move to 527 organization?

The term 527 Organization is more common than 527 Group. I recommend moving the article to 527 Organization and putting a redirect at 527 Group. Mdchachi|Talk 18:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I get 1900 hits for "527 group", 2700 for "527 organization", and 3800 for "527 committee", so it probably ought to go to committee, with redirects from 527 group and 527 organization. Meelar 18:24, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I still vote for "527 Organization" because they are legally referred to as "organizations" on the IRS forms. Mdchachi|Talk 19:10, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, then. Capitalized "O" in organization, or no? Meelar 19:13, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

527 group and Wiki colors

The Web page wiki/527_group has the wrong colors for some of the 527 groups shown, even though they are coded properly (style="background:#DDEEFF" for blue, and "background:#FFE8E8" for red). For example, America Coming Together and Joint Victory Campaign are correctly labeled in blue, and Progress for America is correctly labeled in red, but Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the Club for Growth (with the code #FFE8E8" for red) are shown in blue, and the groups Democratic Victory & Laborers Union (with the code #DDEEFF) are shown in red.

Comment moved from Wikipedia:General complaints.

That's because the name/text is a wikilink. It displays red if there is no page with the name linked to, and blue if there is. As a result, some have blue text on a red background and vice versa. --Zagsa 19:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top 20 527 groups, 2008 election cycle?

Is one of these, forthcoming, or does it usually come later in the cycle when there are more organizations created? Brian Pearson 01:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 527 organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070528034106/http://www.tpj.org:80/page_view.jsp?pageid=667&pubid=422 to http://www.tpj.org/page_view.jsp?pageid=667&pubid=422

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the DNC and RNC not listed anywhere in the article?

Both the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee are influential and longstanding examples of organizations that are 527 nonprofits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.53.212 (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 527 organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ProPublica article about 527 groups

How a Network of Nonprofits Enriches Fundraisers While Spending Almost Nothing on Its Stated Causes

https://www.propublica.org/article/political-nonprofits-fundraising-ftc-irs-527s-pacs

"Experts say that it’s hard for the public to follow the business practices of 527 groups because of how difficult it is to access the records that the IRS publishes about their activity. Data about 527 organizations is published on an IRS website in a hard-to-use data file with a limited search interface. On top of that, experts said that there is lax oversight by the federal agencies in charge of regulating the groups."

Some of the info from this article might be worth adding to the Wikipedia page. In this specific case, several 527 organizations are taking as much as 90% of the fundraising money for themselves, and spending very little on the actual promised advocacy work they told donors the money would be used for.

Seems like a loophole in the legal framework related to 527 groups. Not sure where to put this in the Wikipedia article, any ideas? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent quote. I think it should be in a new subheading like "527 Disclosure."

I would delete the Public Opinion section. In general, this article is confusing as it deals with things that are NOT 527s. I have a book coming out on this stuff in a few weeks, but can't figure out a way around Wikipedia's prohibition against self-cites. Open to suggestions... SandwichProf (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SandwichProf: I think it would be okay to mention your book here, as a potential source to be used in the article. But you'd have to let other editors make the call on reading and utilizing any of the book's content for citation purposes in this Wikipedia article, etc. 72.14.126.22 (talk)