Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Information about Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.
| (i)Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 9 above or IRC section (see instructions)) | (iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document? | (v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions) | (vi) Amount of other support (see instructions) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
| Total | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") .... | 505,000 | 653,128 | 906,928 | 1,457,199 | 3,522,255 | |
| 2 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf....... | ||||||
| 3 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | ||||||
| 4 | Total. Add lines 1 through 3 | 505,000 | 653,128 | 906,928 | 1,457,199 | 3,522,255 | |
| 5 | The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f).. | 2,812,622 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 709,633 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 505,000 | 653,128 | 906,928 | 1,457,199 | 3,522,255 | |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 364 | 247 | 204 | 410 | 1,225 | |
| 9 | Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.. | ||||||
| 10 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.).. | ||||||
| 11 | Total support Add lines 7 through 10. | 3,523,480 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") . | ||||||
| 2 | Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose...... | ||||||
| 3 | Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513.. | ||||||
| 4 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf... | ||||||
| 5 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | ||||||
| 6 | Total. Add lines 1 through 5. | ||||||
| 7a | Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons... | ||||||
| b | Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 7a and 7b.. | ||||||
| 8 | Public support (Subtract line 7c from line 6.) | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Amounts from line 6... | ||||||
| 10a | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources.. | ||||||
| b | Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 10a and 10b. | ||||||
| 11 | Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on. | ||||||
| 12 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||
| Section A - Adjusted Net Income | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Net short-term capital gain | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Other gross income (see instructions) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Add lines 1 through 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Depreciation and depletion | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Other expenses (see instructions) | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4) | 8 | ||||
| Section B - Minimum Asset Amount | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year): | 1 | ||||
| a | Average monthly value of securities | 1a | ||||
| b | Average monthly cash balances | 1b | ||||
| c | Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets | 1c | ||||
| d | Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c) | 1d | ||||
| e | Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI): | |||||
| 2 | Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Subtract line 2 from line 1d | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 1-1/2% of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions). | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3) | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Multiply line 5 by .035 | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6) | 8 | ||||
| Section C - Distributable Amount | Current Year | |||||
| 1 | Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A) | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Enter 85% of line 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Enter greater of line 2 or line 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Income tax imposed in prior year | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Check here if the current year is the organization's first as a non-functionally-integrated Type III supporting organization (see instructions) | |||||
| Section D - Distributions | Current Year | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes | ||
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
||
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | ||
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | ||
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required) | ||
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | ||
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | ||
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
||
| 9 Distributable amount for 2014 from Section C, line 6 | ||
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | ||
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2014 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2014 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
Distributable amount for 2014 from Section C, line 6 |
||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2014 (reasonable cause required--see instructions) |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2014: | ||||
| a From 2009.......X | ||||
| b From 2010.......X | ||||
| c From 2011.......X | ||||
| d From 2012.......X | ||||
| e From 2013....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2014 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2009 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2014 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2014 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2014, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2014. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2015. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a From 2010.......X | ||||
| b From 2011.......X | ||||
| c From 2012.......X | ||||
| d From 2013....... | ||||
| e From 2014....... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Information about Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| FORM 990, PAGE 2, LINE 4A, DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM SERVICE: | PENDING CASES INCLUDE: JOHNSON V. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: FEES EARNED IN 2014: $67,996 FEES COLLECTED IN 2014: $78,030, OF THIS AMOUNT $10,770 WAS EARNED IN 2013 THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ("ACA") WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT WOULD REQUIRE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THEIR STAFFS TO PURCHASE INSURANCE FROM THE "EXCHANGES" ESTABLISHED UNDER THE ACA. FURTHERMORE, THEY WERE NOT TO RECEIVE AN EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION FROM THE GOVERNMENT. HOWEVER, PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ADMINISTRATION CHANGED THE RULES IN AN ILLEGAL MATTER. THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT REWROTE THE RULES SO THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THEIR STAFFS COULD RECEIVE AN EMPLOYER SUBSIDY FOR PURCHASING INSURANCE ON THE EXCHANGE AND FURTHERMORE REQUIRED THEM TO PURCHASE INSURANCE THROUGH THE D.C. "SHOP" EXCHANGE, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE EXCLUSIVELY FOR SMALL EMPLOYERS. ORDINARY CITIZENS CANNOT RECEIVE TAX-FREE SUBSIDIES FROM THEIR EMPLOYERS TO PURCHASE INSURANCE ON EXCHANGES. IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE ACA IS IMPLEMENTED THE WAY CONGRESS WROTE IT, AND TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE PRESIDENT'S UNLAWFUL USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER, SENATOR RON JOHNSON (R-WI) FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT WITH LEGAL ASSISTANCE FROM WILL AND FORMER U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL PAUL CLEMENT. THE DISTRICT COURT IN GREEN BAY DISMISSED THE CASE, CONCLUDING THAT THE SENATOR LACKED STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE OPM RULES BECAUSE HE ALLEGEDLY "BENEFITED" FROM THEM. WE APPEALED THAT DETERMINATION TO THE 7TH CIRCUIT AND ARE AWAITING A RULING. MARONE V. MATC: THE MILWAUKEE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE WAS ONE OF A FEW LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYERS TO TRY AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SO CALLED "WINDOW" OF OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID ACT 10 SUPPOSEDLY CREATED BY DANE COUNTY JUDGE JUAN COLAS'S RULING IN MADISON TEACHERS FINDING PORTIONS OF ACT 10 UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IN FEBRUARY, 2013, MATC REACHED A LABOR AGREEMENT WITH ITS EMPLOYEES' UNIONS CONTAINING NUMEROUS PROVISIONS IN VIOLATION OF ACT 10. ON BEHALF OF AN MATC PROFESSOR, WILL SUED MATC, SEEKING TO HAVE THE CONTRACT DECLARED NULL AND VOID. THE CASE IS CURRENTLY IN BRIEFING. AFTER THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT DECLARED ACT 10 CONSTITUTIONAL, WE EXPECTED MATC AND ITS UNION WOULD QUICKLY CONCEDE. HOWEVER, THEY HAVE CONTINUED FIGHTING, RAISING REPEATED ARGUMENTS THAT THE CASE IS MOOT BECAUSE THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE CONTRACT HAS ALREADY EXPIRED (THANKS TO THEIR OWN DELAYS) AND THAT THERE NEVER WAS A CONTRACT IN THE FIRST PLACE (WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY ARGUED EARLY IN THE LITIGATION). WE ARE FIGHTING AS BEST WE CAN TO REACH THE RESULT WE DESERVE - A DECLARATION FROM THE COURT THAT MATC AND THE UNION VIOLATED ACT 10 BY BARGAINING OVER PROHIBITED TOPICS. LACROIX V. KENOSHA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: $10,500 WHILE THE MADISON TEACHERS CASE WAS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, JUDGE COLAS HELD THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION IN CONTEMPT AND ORDERED THEM NOT TO ENFORCE ACT 10 AGAINST ANY OTHER MUNICIPAL EMPLOYERS OR UNIONS. SEEKING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CONFUSION CAUSED BY THE CONTEMPT ORDER (WHICH WAS LATER THROWN OUT), THE KENOSHA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ENTERED INTO HURRIED NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE KENOSHA SCHOOL DISTRICT (THE THIRD LARGEST DISTRICT IN THE STATE), CREATING A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT THAT IGNORES ACT 10'S REQUIREMENTS. ON BEHALF OF A KENOSHA TAXPAYER AND A KENOSHA TEACHER, WE FILED A LAWSUIT SEEKING TO DECLARE THAT CONTRACT VOID. ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE DENIED OUR REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, HE ALSO DENIED THE DISTRICT'S AND UNION'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND RULED THAT DESPITE JUDGE COLAS'S RULING IN MADISON TEACHERS, ACT 10 APPLIED TO KENOSHA. IN JUNE 2014, THE DISTRICT CAPITULATED, AGREEING TO A STIPULATED JUDGMENT DECLARING THE CONTRACTS VOID, AND LEAVING ONLY THE UNIONS DEFENDING THEM. AFTER THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT DECLARED ACT 10 CONSTITUTIONAL, WE FILED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ASKING THE COURT TO DECLARE THE CONTRACTS VOID. THAT MOTION HAS BEEN PENDING FOR OVER FOURTH MONTHS. COYNE V. WALKER: 2011 WISCONSIN ACT 21 CHANGED THE LAW RELATING TO STATE AGENCY RULEMAKING IN VARIOUS WAYS THAT LIMIT THE POWER OF STATE AGENCIES TO REGULATE WISCONSIN CITIZENS, INCLUDING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. RELEVANT TO THIS LAWSUIT, IT ALLOWS THE GOVERNOR TO VETO PROPOSED RULES FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. LAST OCTOBER, THE DANE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HELD THAT ACT 21, AS APPLIED TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, VIOLATED THE WISCONSIN CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE X, SECTION 1, WHICH GRANTS THE SUPERINTENDENT THE DUTY OF SUPERVISION OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. ON BEHALF OF FORMER SPEAKER OF THE ASSEMBLY SCOTT JENSEN AND STATE REPRESENTATIVE JASON FIELDS, WILL FILED AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ACT 21, ARGUING THAT THE SUPERINTENDENT DOES NOT HAVE INHERENT RULEMAKING AUTHORITY. AFTER A LENGTHY DELAY, THE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD THE DANE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT DECISION, AND WE EXPECT THE CASE TO BE PETITIONED TO THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT, WHERE WE WILL ALSO LIKELY FILE AN AMICUS BRIEF. HEALY PETITION BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN: BRETT HEALY, PRESIDENT OF THE JOHN K. MACIVER INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY, AND DOZENS OF OTHER WE ENERGIES CUSTOMERS FILED THIS PETITION URGING THE PSC TO DECLARE THAT THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE MUST BEAR THE SUBSTANTIAL COSTS OF UTILITY RELOCATION FOR ITS TROLLEY PROJECT, INSTEAD OF THE UTILITIES AND THEIR RATEPAYERS. AFTER NUMEROUS ROUNDS OF SPARRING BEFORE THE PSC, THE WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW BANNING MUNICIPALITIES ACROSS THE STATE FROM REQUIRING UTILITY COMPANIES TO PAY RELOCATION COSTS FOR URBAN RAIL PROJECTS SUCH AS THE TROLLEY. SHORTLY AFTER THAT LAW WAS PASSED, THE PSC RULED IN OUR FAVOR. THE CITY HAS APPEALED THAT DECISION TO THE MILWAUKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WHERE WE HAVE JOINED AND ARE AWAITING A BRIEFING SCHEDULE. RESOLVED CASES INCLUDE: NAACP V. WALKER; LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS V. WALKER; FRANK V. WALKER; LULAC V. DEININGER: THESE CASES ARE CHALLENGES TO WISCONSIN'S NEW VOTER ID LAW. THE FIRST TWO CASES WERE STATE CASES THAT INITIALLY RESULTED IN PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST THE LAW FROM DANE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES. ON BEHALF OF A DIVERSE GROUP OF CONCERNED CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT VOTER ID, WILL FILED AMICI BRIEFS SUPPORTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REQUEST TO HAVE THE SUPREME COURT TAKE THE CASE UP IMMEDIATELY, BUT THE SUPREME COURT DECLINED. WILL HAS ALSO FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE. BOTH CASES WERE EVENTUALLY REVERSED BY THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT. HOWEVER, THOSE DECISIONS HAD LITTLE PRACTICAL EFFECT, AS A FEDERAL INJUNCTION AGAINST THE LAW REMAINS PENDING IN THE OTHER CASES. THE SECOND TWO CASES ARE FEDERAL CHALLENGES IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. ONE ARGUES THAT VOTER ID VIOLATES SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT BECAUSE IT HAS A DISPROPORTIONATE EFFECT ON MINORITIES. THE OTHER ARGUES THAT IT VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE AND CONSTITUTES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLL TAX. A LENGTHY JOINT TRIAL WAS HELD IN BOTH CASES IN NOVEMBER, AND WILL PROVIDED REPRESENTATION FOR CRUCIAL WITNESSES. THE TRIAL COURT STRUCK DOWN VOTER ID, ENJOINING ITS IMPLEMENTATION. THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT QUICKLY REVERSED AND LIFTED THE INJUNCTION, BUT DUE TO THE LOOMING FALL ELECTION, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ACTUALLY TOOK THE UNUSUAL STEP OF REINSTATING THE INJUNCTION. HOWEVER, THE COURT DECLINED TO HEAR THE CASE, LIFTING THE INJUNCTION AND PERMITTING VOTER ID TO BE IMPLEMENTED. WHILE THE DECISION CAME TOO LATE TO PERMIT VOTER ID IN THE SPRING 2015 ELECTION, VOTER ID WILL BE THE LAW OF THE LAND EVERY ELECTION THEREAFTER. MACIVER V. ERPENBACH: FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: $58,265 STATE SENATOR JON ERPENBACH REFUSED TO DISCLOSE THE EMAIL ADDRESSES OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS WHO EMAILED HIM ABOUT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. WILL FILED AN OPEN RECORDS LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THAT REFUSAL. JUDGE VANDEHEY IN GRANT COUNTY RULED THAT ERPENBACH WAS CORRECT IN WITHHOLDING THE RECORDS, BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED IT IN A STRONGLY-WORDED OPINION UPHOLDING THE RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC TO LEARN THE IDENTITIES OF ANYONE WHO TRIES TO INFLUENCE A LEGISLATOR. MADISON TEACHERS, INC. V. WALKER: IN MADISON TEACHERS, ALTHOUGH THE DANE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT INITIALLY RULED ACT 10 UNCONSTITUTIONAL (CREATING MUCH CONFUSION AND A MISTAKEN BELIEF IN SOME OTHER LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT THAT THEY COULD NEGOTIATE FREELY WITH UNIONS), THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT REVERSED, UPHOLDING EVERY PORTION OF ACT 10. |
| FORM 990, PAGE 2, LINE 4A, DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM SERVICE: | MCCUTCHEON V. FEC; YOUNG V. GAB: YOUNG V. GAB FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: $5,312 THESE TWO CASES CHALLENGED AGGREGATE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS AT THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVEL. AGGREGATE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS PREVENT CITIZENS FROM SUPPORTING CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IN MULTIPLE RACES BEYOND A CERTAIN POINT. THE LIMITS WERE SO LOW IN WISCONSIN THAT A SINGLE MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION TO ONE CANDIDATE, SAY THE GOVERNOR, WOULD PREVENT THE SAME PERSON FROM GIVING SO LITTLE AS $100 TO ANY OTHER CANDIDATE. IN THE CASE CHALLENGING FEDERAL LIMITS, MCCUTCHEON V. FEC, WE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, URGING THE COURT TO START TREATING ALL EXPRESSIONS OF SUPPORT FOR A CANDIDATE - WHETHER VIA MONEY OR INDEPENDENT SPEECH - EQUALLY. WHILE THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT ADOPT THIS POSITION, THE COURT DID VOTE TO STRIKE DOWN THE AGGREGATE LIMITS. WE ALSO FILED A COURT ACTION IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN CHALLENGING WISCONSIN'S AGGREGATE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS ON BEHALF OF FRED YOUNG. ONCE MCCUTCHEON WAS DECIDED, THE GAB QUICKLY STIPULATED TO A JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT WISCONSIN'S AGGREGATE LIMITS WERE ALSO UNCONSTITUTIONAL. RICE V. MILWAUKEE COUNTY BOARD (ROUND TWO): JOSEPH RICE, A FORMER MILWAUKEE COUNTY BOARD MEMBER, FILED TWO OPEN MEETINGS COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE MILWAUKEE COUNTY BOARD. FIRST, THAT THE BOARD VIOLATED THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW WHEN IT WENT INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS AND VOTE ON ENTERING INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH ITS UNIONS IN VIOLATION OF ACT 10. SECOND, THAT THE BOARD VIOLATED THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW WHEN A QUORUM OF SUPERVISORS ATTENDED AND TESTIFIED AT A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON ASSEMBLY BILL 85, WHICH WOULD LATER BECOME THE LAW DRAMATICALLY REDUCING THE BOARD'S POWERS. THE COURT RULED THAT THE BOARD HAD NOT VIOLATED THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW, AND OUR CLIENT DECIDED NOT TO APPEAL. IBRAHIM V. CITY OF MILWAUKEE: ON BEHALF OF LOCAL TAXI-CAB DRIVERS, THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE SUED THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE SEEKING TO OVERTURN AN ORDINANCE CAPPING THE NUMBER OF CAB LICENSES AVAILABLE AT AN ARBITRARY NUMBER. THIS CAP CREATED A MASSIVE BARRIER TO ENTRY FOR ANYBODY WHO WANTED TO START THEIR OWN CAB BUSINESS (AS OPPOSED TO DRIVING FOR SOMEBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS), BECAUSE THE VALUE OF THOSE PERMITS SOARED TO APPROXIMATELY $150,000. JUDGE JANE CARROLL AGREED WITH IJ, STRIKING DOWN THE ORDINANCE AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION OF ECONOMIC LIBERTY. THE CITY APPEALED, AND WILL FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER GROUP OF TAXI-CAB DRIVERS. HOWEVER, THE CITY AMENDED ITS ORDINANCE, ADDING AN ADDITIONAL 100 PERMITS, AND THEN DISMISSED ITS OWN APPEAL. EVENTUALLY, THE CITY LIFTED THE CAP ALTOGETHER. CASES LITIGATED IN 2013 WITH FEES RECOVERED IN 2014: JERUSALEM EMPOWERED AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH V. MILWAUKEE: FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: $1,319 WILL FILED A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING A DETERMINATION BY THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE THAT A PORTION OF A SMALL MILWAUKEE CHURCH'S 4.4-ACRE LOT WAS "EXCESS" AND THEREFORE TAXABLE. FIRST, WILL CONVINCED THE JUDGE THAT A STATE LAW PREVENTING LANDOWNERS FROM CHALLENGING A PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION DENIAL IN COURT UNLESS THEY PAID THE TAXES FIRST WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT APPLIED TO JEAMEC, A NON-PROFIT CHURCH WITHOUT THE RESOURCES TO PAY THE UNLAWFUL TAX BILL. WILL ALSO CONVINCED THE JUDGE, WITH HELPFUL TESTIMONY FROM THE CITY'S OWN ASSESSORS THAT THE PROPERTY MET THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE TAX EXEMPT, TO GRANT THE CHURCH A RETROACTIVE TAX EXEMPTION. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11 | FORM 990 IS REVIEWED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND BOARD PRESIDENT PRIOR TO FILING WITH THE IRS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C | BOARD MEMBERS AND KEY PERSONNEL COMPLETE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. DISCLOSURE OF POSSIBLE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ARE REVIEWED BY THE ENTIRE BOARD. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15 | COMPENSATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND KEY PERSONNEL IS REVIEWED ANNUALLY BY THE BOARD. COMPARATIVE DATA IS USED TO REVIEW COMPENSATION LEVELS FOR ALL STAFF. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 18 | THE ORGANIZATION'S FORM 990 IS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION AT THE ORGANIZATION'S LOCATION DURING BUSINESS HOURS. COPIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 | ALL GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY, AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |