President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 30, 2010 05:04 AM UTC

Bob Hislop: The Smoking Gun

  • 12 Comments
  • by: oncart

(What you’re really going to see here is a FAILed attempt at gotcha journalism by a right-wing Republican (and one who claims to want to end “self serving political agendas) who is trying to damage the campaign of another Republican running in HD-54. You can read the notes in the comments for more info, but there was no law broken here — not even close. – promoted by Colorado Pols)

http://themoveright.com/2010/0…

The Ethics Violation and Broken Laws:

What you’re going to see here is Bob Hislop himself using an online forum to raise funds for his campaign. The law that’s been broken comes into play not because he was raising funds, but because the forum Bob used was a Non-Profit forum. It’s from the AFAUSSS message board. This is a private chat forums which allows it’s members to chat amongst themselves. AFAUSSS is a 501(c)3 organization, which is strictly prohibited in promoting a candidate. Looks like Bob feels he’s above the law though.

Here’s the funny thing about this piece you’re about to see. I met with Bob during Parker Days. He and I sat in a sandwich shop, he bought me a soda, and we talked about him and his race. Near the end of our converstation, I through out a “hypothetical” to Bob. It went something  like this…

Me: So I’m working this story that I have a candidate that may have raised funds illegally. He apparently went onto this online message board, that’s owned by a non-profit, and solicited funds from people all over the country. Is that a violation?

Bob: Yes it is. It’s a major violation if someone were to do that.

Me: So in you’re view they’d be in violation of the law. If this were to come out, during the election, should that person drop out of the race?

Bob: It would be hard for them not to. It would be a serious ethics violation and they would probably be in some sort of legal troubles.

Comments

12 thoughts on “Bob Hislop: The Smoking Gun

  1. even one controlled by a 501(c)3 is not a violation of campaign finance laws.  

    The violation is if a 501(c)3 itself promotes candidates–does it only allow Bob to post but not any other candidate?  

    Does it use its staff generated emails to solicit funds for candidates?  Those examples would be violations.  An individual posting on an open board is not–the non-profit might be wise to remove such, primarily to avoid unfounded accusation, but no crime is committed here unless Bob is a staff or board member or if a staff or board member facilitated his posting, other than providing the forum.  The ‘crime’ is one that only the 501(c)3 or its agents can commit, not a third party.

    Before you make accusations you might educate yourself on the FEC and IRS regulations pertaining to non-profits.

    1. Twitty is right — you’re firing blanks, pal. It would be a violation if the nonprofit raised money for him, but he can’t violate the law on behalf of the nonprofit because he posted on the website. That would be like saying a campaign violated the law because someone else wrote them a check above the contribution limits; it’s not a violation because the check was written, only if the campaign cashes it.

      We don’t know anything about Hislop, but he made you look pretty silly by answering your questions in your “gotcha” journalism attempt — because he was the only one of the two of you who actually knew the law.

      But no “political agenda” here, right?

      1. Shouldn’t the former president know the IRS rules? Did his competitor get to post for money? Did he put his organization in a position to possibly lose its non-profit status? This is similar to churches losing non-profit status for just simply engaging in politics which are very clearly prohibited. See below. Also based on campaign contributions there must have been an email blast somewhere.  maybe the writer is holding onto this piece. Just maybe!

        http://www.irs.gov/charities/c

        News Bulletin IRS http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/ar

        If we want leaders to lead by example then this is not a way to do it.  

        1. If you want to say that Hislop isn’t setting a good example by asking for money on a nonprofit chat board, that’s different than accusing him of flat-out breaking the law. It’s probably inappropriate for Hislop to solicit donations from the site in question, but it’s not illegal.

            1. A member of a congregation–for instance–could stand up in church and scream ‘Hilsop is a RINO!!!’ and no violation would occur.  The preacher (staff) from the pulpit (i.e. ‘wearing the trappings of the church’) shouting such would be a different matter.  

              1-You are wrong

              2-You intent is to smear Hilsop so you probably don’t care.

            2. “Inappropriate” is different than “illegal.” It may well be inappropriate to do what Hislop is doing, but it is NOT AGAINST THE LAW. Those are different arguments.

  2. Relevant TMR “Values”:

    2. I believe that virtuous actions are better that[sic] stated values



    6. I believe that tolerance and acceptance through Love is[sic] the only way to have[sic] truly effective change in this country.



    8. I believe that this country and its citizens should reject all political agendas that are strictly self-serving,[sic] we need to end political corruption.

    Is playing ‘gotcha’ politics consistent with your “values?”

    As CT recommends, you ought to familiarize yourself with the appropriate regulations. Next you might evaluate whether your methods are consistent with your “values.”

    Or is this your principle “value?”

    0. The ends justify the means.

  3. they help the person who is being attacked.  I think this falls in that category.  

    First of all, neither the writer or Hislop understand campaign finance.  CT is right, there is NOTHING in campaign finance law that prohibits this solicitation.  There may be some IRS Regs regarding this, but nothing in regards to Colorado’s campaign finance law (FEC rules don’t apply, it is a state race).  Second, the bias here certainly ruins any attempt to make this appear to be anything close to journalism.  Just admit that you are an anti-Hislop shill.  Third, the people who came up with this story shopped it to the Daily Sentinel and GJ Free Press, but neither of them deemed it to be of any value.  The reporters laughed when the subject came up.  We can see here how low down the totem pole the Ray Scott supporters need to go to get their message out.  

    Next time you have a ‘smoking gun’, it is best to not have it pointing at your foot…

    1. But the IRS rules would apply for 501(c)3’s

      Which is to say, no violation applies.  Unless one could prove that the 501(c)3 did something here–only allowed Bob to post, forwarded his email with some ‘official’ heading, etc.  

      Gotcha diaries are par for course this time of season, but at least learn how to do it with something approaching skill.  This makes the Ray Scott team look stoopid and desperate.  

  4. This doesn’t violate anything and even a potential ethics violation is debatable.

    The poster is not responsible for the 501 (c)3 status of the organization.

    He is clearly writing to a community that he is a part of. If he was a member of the PTA, he might be writing on a PTA members open forum page. And if he was a member of a church, the same thing.

    Neither of those acts is illegal or unethical just because the organization in question happens to be a 501 (c)3. Members can do all the self-promotion they want regardless of the tax status of the organization. And if the organization has a policy saying that only members can post, it would still be very difficult to say that they were acting contrary to the 501 (c) 3 rules.

    The only thing 501 (c) 3 status prohibits is the organization itself endorsing and supporting a candidate. If they set up  a special page on their website for him, you would begin to have an argument.

    And the church activity prohibition is constantly misunderstood (maddeningly so by liberal churches who get all nervous while right wing churches print out voter guides). A church is a community. So, if a candidate shows up with their friend and gets introduced around as a candidate, there is definitely politicking going on but no violation of the church’s non-profit status. This is true even if that friend happens to be the pastor.

    (This is not legal advice but my opinions and experience based on 20+ years working with non-profits, ten of them as a pastor.)

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

247 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!