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 (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) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any unusual grants.) .... | 2,679,324 | 3,753,262 | 4,196,797 | 4,739,590 | 4,318,258 | 19,687,231 |
| 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 | 2,679,324 | 3,753,262 | 4,196,797 | 4,739,590 | 4,318,258 | 19,687,231 |
| 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).. | 2,132,124 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 17,555,107 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 2,679,324 | 3,753,262 | 4,196,797 | 4,739,590 | 4,318,258 | 19,687,231 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 51,981 | 70,525 | 80,755 | 83,838 | 61,911 | 349,010 |
| 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.).. | 3,169 | 7,168 | 7,339 | 12,729 | 1,626 | 32,031 |
| 11 | Total support. Add lines 7 through 10. | 20,068,272 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (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) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (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 | ||||
| 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 2015 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-2015 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2015 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
Distributable amount for 2015 from Section C, line 6 |
||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2015 (reasonable cause required--see instructions) |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2015: | ||||
| a | ||||
| b | ||||
| c | ||||
| d From 2013....... | ||||
| e From 2014....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2015 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2010 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2015 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2015 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2015, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2015. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2016. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a | ||||
| b | ||||
| c Excess from 2013....... | ||||
| d From 2014....... | ||||
| e From 2015....... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| SCHEDULE A, PART II, LINE 10, EXPLANATION OF OTHER INCOME: | OTHER INCOME - 2011 AMOUNT: $ 3,169. 2012 AMOUNT: $ 7,168. 2013 AMOUNT: $ 7,339. 2014 AMOUNT: $ 12,729. 2015 AMOUNT: $ 1,626. |
| 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, PART III, LINE 4B: CASE UPDATE | 1A AUTO, INC. V. SULLIVAN MASSACHUSETTS LAW PROHIBITS BUSINESSES-BUT NOT UNIONS OR OTHER GROUPS-FROM CONTRIBUTING TO POLITICAL PARTIES, COMMITTEES, OR CANDIDATES. WE FILED A LAWSUIT TO OVERTURN THIS BAN. WE REPRESENT TWO MASSACHUSETTS SMALL BUSINESSES: AN AUTO PARTS RETAILER IN PEPPERELL, 1A AUTO INC., AND A SMALL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY IN ASHLAND, 126 SELF STORAGE INC. A VICTORY WOULD LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD IN ELECTIONS AND SAFEGUARD CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF EQUAL PROTECTION, FREE SPEECH, AND FREE ASSOCIATION. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED SO FAR (BUT THEY WERE REQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT). BIGGS V. BREWER ON BEHALF OF 36 STATE LEGISLATORS, THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FILED A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING A NEW MEDICAID EXPANSION TAX, WHICH BECAME LAW WITHOUT APPROVAL OF A CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED SUPERMAJORITY, NULLIFYING THE VOTES OF THOSE LEGISLATORS WHO OPPOSED IT. THE STATE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE LAWSUIT WITHOUT REACHING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE TAX WAS CONSTITUTIONAL, HOLDING THAT THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SUE. THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS AND ARIZONA SUPREME COURT BOTH UNANIMOUSLY REVERSED THAT DECISION, HOLDING THAT A BARE MAJORITY OF LEGISLATORS CANNOT VOTE TO CIRCUMVENT A CONSTITUTIONAL SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT AND THAT THE LEGISLATORS WHOSE VOTES WERE NULLIFIED COULD SUE. THE TRIAL COURT RULED THAT THE TAX WAS CONSTITUTIONAL, AND WE HAVE APPEALED THE CASE TO THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED SO FAR (BUT THEY WERE REQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT). CARTER V. WASHBURN UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, CHILDREN WITH INDIAN ANCESTRY WHO END UP IN STATE PROTECTIVE CUSTODY ARE TREATED NOT IN ACCORD WITH THEIR BEST INTERESTS BUT GIVEN SEPARATE, SUBSTANDARD TREATMENT SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE. OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THAT ACT CONTINUES ON MANY FRONTS. IN JULY 2015, WE FILED A COMPREHENSIVE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT CHALLENGING SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF THIS DISCRIMINATORY ACT. WE REPRESENT ABUSED, NEGLECTED, AND ABANDONED OFF-RESERVATION CHILDREN WITH INDIAN ANCESTRY WHO, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, END UP IN STATE PROTECTIVE CUSTODY. ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS WAS HELD ON DECEMBER 18, 2015, AND WE ARE AWAITING A RULING. THE PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AWARDED E&E LEGAL $20,000 ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THIS MATTER. THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE WAIVED ANY PRO RATA SHARE OF THE AWARD TO WHICH IT MAY BE ENTITLED TO E&E LEGAL. CHEATHAM V. DICICCIO ON AUGUST 11, 2016, IN A NARROW DECISION, THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT RULED AGAINST TAXPAYERS ON THEIR GIFT CLAUSE CLAIM. THE OPINION LEFT OPEN THE POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE LITIGATION INVOLVING RELEASE TIME ON RIGHT TO WORK AND CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS. IN 2014, $339,000 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES WERE AWARDED BY THE TRIAL COURT, BUT WILL NOT BE AWARDED TO TAXPAYERS BASED ON THE FINAL CASE DISPOSITION. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT LEGAL INSTITUTE ("EELI") V. ABOR ON DECEMBER 7, 2011, THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL INSTITUTE, A NON-PROFIT RESEARCH AND PUBLIC POLICY ORGANIZATION, REQUESTED A SERIES OF E-MAILS TO AND FROM PROFESSORS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA AND OTHER UNIVERSITIES REQUESTING INFORMATION PERTAINING TO CLIMATE RESEARCH. THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA AND ITS PERSONNEL REFUSED TO PROVIDE SEVERAL REQUESTED RECORDS, CLAIMING THOSE RECORDS WERE EXEMPT UNDER ARIZONA'S PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS. EELI THEN FILED A SPECIAL ACTION AGAINST THE ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF THE REQUESTED RECORDS. THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE IS SERVING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE. WE WERE SUCCESSFUL AT ESTABLISHING A ROBUST STANDARD OF REVIEW AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL. ON REMAND, WE WON IN THE TRIAL COURT WHEN THE COURT EVALUATED UNDER THE NEW STANDARD OF REVIEW. AN APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES IS CURRENTLY PENDING IN PIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT. IT IS ANTICIPATED THE COURT WILL GRANT FEES TO EELI LEGAL. THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE HAS CLAIMED FEES AMOUNTING TO $5,699.70. FLECK V. SBAND DURING THE LAST ROUND OF ELECTIONS, ATTORNEY ARNOLD FLECK STRONGLY SUPPORTED A FAMILY LAW MEASURE ON THE NORTH DAKOTA BALLOT. IN THE WEEKS LEADING UP TO THE VOTE, HE DISCOVERED THAT-THROUGH DUES PAID TO MAINTAIN HIS MANDATORY BAR MEMBERSHIP-THE STATE BAR OF NORTH DAKOTA HAD CONTRIBUTED $50,000 TO A PAC OPPOSING THE MEASURE. WE ARE CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT FLECK MUST JOIN AND FUND THE BAR ASSOCIATION TO PRACTICE LAW AND THE BAR'S FAILURE TO PROTECT MEMBERS FROM COMPELLED SPEECH. WE WON A SIGNIFICANT EARLY VICTORY WHEN THE NORTH DAKOTA BAR AGREED TO REVISE ITS DUES POLICY TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION, SENDING AN IMPORTANT SIGNAL THAT STATES CANNOT FORCE PEOPLE TO SUPPORT SPEECH THEY DISAGREE WITH IN ORDER TO GET PERMISSION TO PRACTICE THEIR CHOSEN PROFESSION. AS PART OF THIS SETTLEMENT, THE INSTITUTE WAS AWARDED ATTORNEYS' FEES OF $25,000. THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN NORTH DAKOTA RULED AGAINST US ON OUR UNDERLYING CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS, AND THE CASE HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. A FINAL VICTORY COULD SET IMPORTANT PRECEDENT PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING IN ANY LAWFUL PROFESSION WITHOUT HAVING TO FIRST PAY TO JOIN A TRADE ORGANIZATION. FLYTENOW V. FAA THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FILED A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF FLYTENOW, INC., CHALLENGING THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S (FAA'S) LETTER OF INTERPRETATION PROHIBITING PRIVATE PILOTS FROM SHARING PRO-RATED OPERATING EXPENSES OF FLIGHTS WITH PASSENGERS IN 2- OR 4-SEATER AIRPLANES UNDER FAA'S EXISTING EXPENSE-SHARING RULE. THE LAWSUIT SEEKS TO VINDICATE THE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF PILOTS AND PASSENGERS TO COMMUNICATE USING FLYTENOW'S WEBSITE, AND CHALLENGES THE LETTER OF INTERPRETATION FOR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST FLYTENOW AND PRIVATE PILOTS AS AN EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATION. WE ASKED THE D.C. CIRCUIT TO OVERTURN THE FAA'S OPINION LETTER AND PERMIT FLYTENOW TO CONTINUE ITS OPERATIONS, BUT THE COURT RULED AGAINST US. WE PETITIONED THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THIS CASE AND ARE AWAITING A DECISION. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED SO FAR, BUT THEY WERE REQUESTED IN THE PETITIONER'S OPENING BRIEF. GOLDWATER INSTITUTE V. HHS IN AUGUST 2014, THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE SUBMITTED A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST TO THE FDA SEEKING RECORDS REGARDING THE INTERNAL APPROVAL PROCESS TO MAKE THE UNAPPROVED DRUG ZMAPP AVAILABLE TO TWO AMERICAN DOCTORS INFECTED WITH THE EBOLA VIRUS. FOR 18 MONTHS, THE FDA DENIED THE REQUEST CLAIMING THAT THE RECORDS MET THE FOIA EXEMPTION FOR "TRADE SECRETS," EVEN THOUGH WE ASKED ONLY FOR RECORDS ABOUT GOVERNMENT PROCESSES. FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE AGENCY HAS DISCLOSED SOME OF THE RECORDS AT ISSUE, WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED BUT FOR THE LITIGATION. LITIGATION OVER THE REMAINING RECORDS IS ONGOING. OUR INITIAL VICTORY INJECTS TRANSPARENCY INTO THE DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS, WHICH WILL HELP ACHIEVE OUR GOALS OF EXPANDING ACCESS TO AND LOWERING THE COST OF CARE. LITIGATION IS ONGOING. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED SO FAR, BUT THEY WERE REQUESTED IN THE INITIAL PLEADINGS. MCDONALD V. TOWN OF JEROME TRYING TO EVADE ARIZONA'S PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT, OR PROPOSITION 207 (WHICH REQUIRES STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO PAY PROPERTY OWNERS WHEN REGULATIONS DIMINISH THEIR RIGHTS AND REDUCE THEIR PROPERTY VALUES), OFFICIALS IN JEROME, ARIZONA, HAVE ISSUED WHAT THEY LABEL A "NEW INTERPRETATION" OF CITY ZONING ORDINANCES, WHICH PROCLAIMS THAT SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS-PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED IN JEROME-HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN ILLEGAL ALL ALONG. THIS SERVES AS AN EXCUSE TO AVOID PAYING PROPERTY OWNERS BY CLAIMING THAT NO NEW LAND RESTRICTION HAS BEEN ENACTED. WE SUED THE TOWN ON BEHALF OF FOUR OWNERS OF VACATION RENTALS TO ENSURE THAT GOVERNMENT MAY ONLY IMPOSE NEW LAND-USE RESTRICTIONS OPENLY AND TRANSPARENTLY THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, NOT BY AD HOC ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS. ON MAY 12, 2016, THE GOVERNOR SIGNED GOLDWATER INSTITUTE-AUTHORED LEGISLATION THAT ENDS ALL BANS ON SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS THROUGHOUT THE STATE, SO THE CASE WAS SUCCESSFULLY CONCLUDED. ATTORNEY'S FEES WERE REQUESTED BUT NOT AWARDED BECAUSE THE LAWSUIT WAS RESOLVED THROUGH LEGISLATION. |
| (CONTINUED) | PLEA V. CITY OF PHOENIX FOLLOWING THE CONTRACT CHANGES THAT ENDED PHOENIX'S PRACTICE OF PENSION SPIKING, ALLOWING RETIRING OFFICERS TO ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE THEIR RETIREMENT PAY BY CASHING IN UNUSED SICK LEAVE, VACATION TIME, AND UNIFORM ALLOWANCES, GOVERNMENT UNIONS SUED THE CITY, CLAIMING THAT THE CONTRACT CHANGES THEMSELVES WERE UNLAWFUL. THE UNIONS REQUESTED THAT THE COURT RESTORE THE PROVISIONS THAT WERE REMOVED AS A RESULT OF THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE'S INITIAL TAXPAYER LAWSUIT, WRIGHT V. STANTON. TAXPAYERS HAVE INTERVENED IN THIS LITIGATION TO DEFEND GOLDWATER'S WIN IN WRIGHT V. STANTON AND TO ENSURE THESE PENSION SPIKING PROVISIONS NEVER RECUR IN FUTURE CONTRACTS AGAIN. THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE GRANTED THE INSTITUTE'S INTERVENTION AND HAS ALLOWED BRIEFING ON THE LEGALITY OF THE PENSION PAYMENTS AT ISSUE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE UNION'S CASE SHOULD PROCEED. THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE INSTITUTE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND THE INSTITUTE HAS APPEALED THAT DECISION. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED SO FAR (BUT THEY WERE REQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT). PROTECT MY CHECK, INC. V. DILGER KENTUCKY LAW PROHIBITS CORPORATIONS-BUT NOT UNIONS, LLCS, OR OTHER GROUPS-FROM CONTRIBUTING TO POLITICAL PARTIES, COMMITTEES, OR CANDIDATES. WE FILED A LAWSUIT TO OVERTURN THIS BAN ON CORPORATIONS CONTRIBUTING TO POLITICAL PARTIES, COMMITTEES, AND CANDIDATES. WE REPRESENT PROTECT MY CHECK INC., A 501(C)(4) NONPROFIT DEDICATED TO EXPANDING EMPLOYEE RIGHTS THROUGH LEGISLATION THAT PROHIBITS COMPULSORY UNIONIZATION. ON MARCH 31, 2016, THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED KENTUCKY'S LOPSIDED CONTRIBUTION BAN. THE STATE COMPLIED WITH THAT ORDER BY BANNING ALL THREE TYPES OF GROUPS FROM MAKING DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT ALLOWING ALL THREE TO CONTRIBUTE THROUGH POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES. THIS RESOLVES OUR CLIENT'S CLAIMS, AND PROTECT MY CHECK WILL NOW BE ABLE TO ADVOCATE FOR RIGHT-TO-WORK LAWS ON AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD WITH ITS UNION OPPONENTS, AS WILL ALL OTHER BUSINESSES. WE HAVE ASKED THE COURT TO MAKE THE INJUNCTION PERMANENT AND ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE CASE. A FINAL VICTORY WOULD SET HELPFUL PRECEDENT FOR PROTECTING FREE SPEECH AND ASSIST IN STRIKING DOWN OTHER STATES WITH INEQUITABLE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS, INCLUDING MASSACHUSETTS, WHERE WE ARE LITIGATING A SIMILAR CHALLENGE. A CONSENT JUDGMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED IN THIS CASE. THE JUDGMENT AWARDED THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE $33,728.76 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS. WOMEN'S SURGICAL CENTER V. REESE LIKE MANY STATES, GEORGIA IMPOSES A "CERTIFICATE OF NEED" REQUIREMENT ON MEDICAL SERVICES, WHICH FORCES DOCTORS WHO WANT TO HIRE ADDITIONAL DOCTORS, EXPAND THEIR MEDICAL CENTERS, OR ESTABLISH NEW MEDICAL CENTERS TO FIRST SHOW THERE IS A "NEED" FOR NEW SERVICES AND TO OVERCOME OBJECTIONS FROM THEIR ESTABLISHED COMPETITORS. REPRESENTING AN OB-GYN SURGICAL CENTER THAT WAS DENIED SUCH PERMISSION, WE FILED SUIT IN STATE COURT, ON THE GROUNDS THAT THESE OPPRESSIVE CERTIFICATE-OF-NEED LAWS VIOLATE THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTION'S "ANTI-MONOPOLY CLAUSE," WHICH FORBIDS LAWMAKERS FROM "AUTHORIZING OR "ENCOURAGING A MONOPOLY OR "LESSENING COMPETITION." WE WON A SIGNIFICANT OPENING-ROUND VICTORY WHEN THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE STATE'S MOTION TO DISMISS. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED SO FAR (BUT THEY WERE REQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT). MISSISSIPPI STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL LICENSURE MATTER DR. CARROL LANDRUM, A WORLD WAR II AND KOREAN WAR VETERAN, IS A LICENSED PHYSICIAN IN EDWARDS, MISSISSIPPI-A TOWN WHERE THE AVERAGE YEARLY PER CAPITA INCOME IS ONLY ABOUT $12,000. DR. LANDRUM MAKES HOUSE CALLS AND PROVIDES MEDICAL SERVICES AT LOW COST OR FOR FREE TO THOSE WHO OTHERWISE COULD NOT AFFORD IT. THE MISSISSIPPI STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL LICENSURE TRIED TO STOP DR. LANDRUM FROM MAKING HOUSE CALLS, ASKING HIM TO SURRENDER HIS MEDICAL LICENSE BECAUSE HE DID NOT OPERATE OUT OF A PHYSICAL OFFICE. THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE SUCCESSFULLY REPRESENTED DR. LANDRUM AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAGE BEFORE THE BOARD IN APRIL. WE WERE SUCCESSFUL GETTING THE BOARD TO CEASE INVESTIGATING DR. LANDRUM'S PRACTICE (AND DEMANDING THAT HE SURRENDER HIS LICENSE) SO THAT DR. LANDRUM CAN CONTINUE TO PROVIDE A VALUABLE SERVICE TO HIS COMMUNITY. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES WERE SOUGHT. MCQUEEN V. DOUGLAS IN FEBRUARY 2014, TUCSON ELEMENTARY PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER BRAD MCQUEEN SPOKE OUT AGAINST ARIZONA'S ADOPTING FEDERAL COMMON CORE STANDARDS. MEMBERS OF THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SWIFTLY RETALIATED AGAINST MCQUEEN'S PUBLIC CRITICISMS BY REMOVING HIM FROM ALL TEACHER COMMITTEES, EVEN THOSE UNRELATED TO THE COMMON CORE. ALONG THE WAY, THEY DISPARAGED MCQUEEN INSIDE THE DEPARTMENT. WE FILED THIS LAWSUIT TO END THE RETALIATION AND PROTECT TEACHERS' FREE-SPEECH RIGHTS. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFERED A FAVORABLE SETTLEMENT, AND WE DISMISSED THE ACTION. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES WERE AWARDED (BUT THEY WERE REQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT). SEDONA GRAND V. CITY OF SEDONA THE CITY OF SEDONA, ARIZONA, MADE IT A CRIME TO RENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR FEWER THAN 30 DAYS. SEDONA DEFINED "RENT" VERY BROADLY, SUBJECTING PROPERTY OWNERS TO PUNISHMENTS OF UP TO SIX MONTHS IN JAIL AND/OR A $2,500 FINE FOR ENGAGING IN A WIDE RANGE OF ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING PURCHASING A TIME SHARE, CONTRACTING FOR HOME IMPROVEMENTS, AND EVEN HIRING A BABYSITTER. THE CITY ATTEMPTED TO CIRCUMVENT PROPOSITION 207 - A VOTER-ENACTED PROTECTION THAT REQUIRES GOVERNMENT TO COMPENSATE PROPERTY OWNERS WHEN REGULATIONS DIMINISH PROPERTY RIGHTS AND DEVALUE PROPERTY - BY MASQUERADING A PROPERTY REGULATION AS A HEALTH AND SAFETY ORDINANCE, ARGUING IT IS EXEMPT FROM THE LAW. THANKS IN PART TO THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE'S LEGAL WORK AS AMICUS, THE COURTS RULED THAT CITIES CAN'T AVOID PROP. 207 BY MERELY CLAIMING TO ADVANCE PUBLIC HEALTH WITHOUT OFFERING ANY EVIDENCE. THE CASE WAS SENT BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CITY'S WEAK HEALTH AND SAFETY RATIONALE PASSES MUSTER. THE INSTITUTE PAIRED WITH LOCAL COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND THE COURT ADOPTED THE INSTITUTE'S PROPOSED HEALTH-AND-SAFETY STANDARD, FINDING THAT SEDONA DID NOT ESTABLISH A PROPER HEALTH-AND-SAFETY NEXUS THAT WOULD ALLOW IT TO FALL WITHIN THAT EXEMPTION TO PROP. 207. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES WERE AWARDED. SMITH V. CITY OF LONGMONT ON JUNE 11, 2015, RICH SMITH OF LONGMONT, COLORADO, WAS SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR OF PROBATION, A $385 FINE, AND A 20-DAY SUSPENDED JAIL SENTENCE FOR THE "CRIME" OF OPERATING A WINDSHIELD CHIP REPAIR BUSINESS IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE HOTEL HE MANAGES. THE CITY OF LONGMONT CLAIMS THAT OPERATING A "MOBILE" WINDSHIELD REPAIR SHOP VIOLATES THE ZONING CODE, DESPITE ALLOWING OTHER MOBILE BUSINESSES SUCH AS FOOD TRUCKS. WE ARE REPRESENTING RICH SMITH IN THE APPEAL OF HIS CRIMINAL CONVICTION AND ACHIEVED AN INITIAL VICTORY ON DECEMBER 11, WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT OVERTURNED THE CONVICTION AND IS REQUIRING THE CITY TO EXPLAIN HOW REPAIRING WINDSHIELDS IN A COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT IS A CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE. A FINAL VICTORY WOULD PROTECT MR. SMITH'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EARN AN HONEST LIVING FREE FROM UNREASONABLE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE AND PAVE THE WAY FOR ENTREPRENEURS NATIONWIDE TO FOLLOW IN HIS FOOTSTEPS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 2 | DIRECTORS, RENNE GILTNER AND F. PHILLIPS GILTNER, HAVE A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 6 | THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 7A | NEW DIRECTORS ARE ELECTED BY THE REMAINING BOARD OF DIRECTORS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11 | AN OUTSIDE ACCOUNTING FIRM PREPARES THE FORM 990 AND IT IS REVIEWED BY THE TREASURER, CFO, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, AND GENERAL COUNSEL PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR REVIEW. THE TREASURER AND CFO ADDRESS ANY ISSUES RAISED BY THE BOARD BEFORE THE RETURN IS FILED WITH THE IRS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C | IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTUAL OR POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AN INTERESTED PERSON MUST DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE FINANCIAL INTEREST AND BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTS TO THE DIRECTORS AND MEMBERS OF COMMITTEES WITH GOVERNING BOARD DELEGATED POWERS CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION OR ARRANGEMENT. ANY DIRECTOR, PRINCIPAL OFFICER, OR MEMBER OF A COMMITTEE WITH GOVERNING BOARD DELEGATED POWERS, WHO HAS A DIRECT OR INDIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST IS AN INTERESTED PERSON. AFTER DISCLOSURE OF THE FINANCIAL INTEREST AND ALL MATERIAL FACTS, AND AFTER ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE INTERESTED PERSON, HE/SHE SHALL LEAVE THE GOVERNING BOARD OR COMMITTEE MEETING WHILE THE DETERMINATION OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS DISCUSSED AND VOTED UPON. THE REMAINING BOARD OR COMMITTEE MEMBERS SHALL DISCUSS IF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS. THE ORGANIZATION'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY REQUIRES ANNUAL DISCLOSURE FROM ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS. A STATEMENT IS FILED BY EACH BOARD MEMBER REQUIRING THE DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS AND TO STATE THE RESOLUTION OF THAT CONFLICT, IF ANY. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15 | THE ORGANIZATION LOOKS AT THE FORM 990 OF SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS AND COMPARES COMPENSATION FOR THE CEO AND KEY EMPLOYEES. THIS INFORMATION IS PRESENTED TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ANNUALLY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN SETTING EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION. ALL COMPENSATION DECISIONS ARE DOCUMENTED IN THE BOARD MINUTES. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 | THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC UPON REQUEST. THE ORGANIZATION DOES NOT MAKE ITS GOVERNING DOCUMENTS AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |