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.) .... | 505,000 | 653,128 | 906,928 | 1,457,199 | 2,973,108 | 6,495,363 |
| 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 | 2,973,108 | 6,495,363 |
| 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).. | 5,431,191 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 1,064,172 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2011 | (b) 2012 | (c) 2013 | (d) 2014 | (e) 2015 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 505,000 | 653,128 | 906,928 | 1,457,199 | 2,973,108 | 6,495,363 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 364 | 247 | 204 | 410 | 683 | 1,908 |
| 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. | 6,497,271 | |||||
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 |
|---|
| 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: | HIGHLAND MEMORIAL V. WISCONSIN: WISCONSIN HAS AN ARCANE LAW PROHIBITING CEMETERY OWNERS FROM HAVING ANY OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN A FUNERAL HOME. THE LAW EVEN PROHIBITS MERELY HAVING A FUNERAL HOME ON CEMETERY GROUNDS, EVEN IF IT WERE OWNED AND MANAGED BY A WHOLLY-SEPARATE COMPANY. THE LAW DATES FROM THE 1930S, AND WAS ENACTED AT THE URGING OF THE FUNERAL HOME LOBBY, WHO WERE FACING A NEW THREAT OF PRIVATELY-OWNED CEMETERIES OPENING FUNERAL HOMES TO INCREASE THEIR ATTRACTIVENESS TO POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS. THE LAW SERVES NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO PROTECT FUNERAL HOMES FROM COMPETITION. MOST OTHER STATES PERMIT SUCH "COMBINATION" FIRMS, WHICH OFFER CONSUMERS MORE CHOICES AND HELP KEEP PRICES DOWN. ON BEHALF OF HIGHLAND MEMORIAL PARK AND ITS OWNER, WE HAVE SUED TO HAVE THIS IRRATIONAL LAW STRUCK DOWN. ON BEHALF OF HIGHLAND MEMORIAL PARK, WE SUED TO HAVE THIS IRRATIONAL LAW STRUCK DOWN. THE CIRCUIT COURT RULED AGAINST US, AND WE HAVE APPEALED. MILEWSKI V. TOWN OF DOVER: THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO REFUSE TO CONSENT TO A GOVERNMENTAL SEARCH OF THEIR OWN HOME IS A FUNDAMENTAL TENET OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. A COROLLARY TO THAT TENET IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT PUNISH YOU FOR REFUSING TO CONSENT TO A SEARCH. YET WISCONSIN LAW PERMITS MUNICIPALITIES TO DEMAND ENTRY INTO YOUR HOME IN ORDER TO INSPECT IT FOR TAX ASSESSMENT PURPOSES. WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU REFUSE? AMAZINGLY, YOU LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO CONTEST YOUR ASSESSMENT AT THE BOARD OF REVIEW HEARING, WHICH IN TURN PROHIBITS YOU FROM CONTESTING YOUR ASSESSMENT IN COURT. IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU ASSERT YOUR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, YOU LOSE YOUR FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO NOT BE DEPRIVED OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. NOT ONLY DID THIS HAPPEN TO A COUPLE IN THE TOWN OF DOVER IN RACINE COUNTY, BUT THE ASSESSOR INTENTIONALLY OVERASSESSED THEIR HOME, KNOWING THEY COULDN'T CHALLENGE IT. WE FILED A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING BOTH THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LAW BANNING APPEALS AND THE APPRAISER'S UNFAIR ASSESSMENT. THE LOWER COURT RULED THAT THE LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT MERELY OFFERS A CHOICE THAT HOMEOWNERS VOLUNTARILY MAKE. IT ALSO RULED THAT THE APPRAISER'S CLAIMS THAT THEY ASSESSED THE HOME FAIRLY TRUMPED OUR EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS DONE IN AN ARBITRARY OR BIASED WAY. WE APPEALED THOSE RULINGS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH RULED AGAINST US IN A CURSORY, SHALLOW DECISION THAT DID NOT TREAT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS SERIOUSLY. SURPRISINGLY, THE COURT DENIED BOTH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE'S AND THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE'S (AN ORGANIZATION SIMILAR TO WILL WITH A NATION-WIDE PRESENCE) REQUESTS TO FILE AMICUS BRIEFS. WE HAVE ASKED THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THE CASE. GERHARD V. GREEN BAY: WE ARE REPRESENTING A WOMAN IN GREEN BAY WHOSE BEAUTIFUL NATURAL LANDSCAPED YARD WAS DESTROYED BY THE CITY WITHOUT PROPER NOTICE AFTER A NEIGHBOR COMPLAINED THAT IT WAS "UNSIGHTLY," A VAGUE TERM THAT PURPORTEDLY ALLOWS LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO ENTER PRIVATE LAND AND DESTROY PRIVATE PROPERTY. WE ARE PARTNERING WITH A GREEN BAY LAWYER TO INVESTIGATE AND BRING POSSIBLE CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY FOR DEPRIVING HER OF HER PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. SEVERAL GROUPS AROUND THE COUNTRY ARE BRINGING SIMILAR CHALLENGES TO LOCAL ORDINANCES AND ACTIONS, AND WE HOPE TO MAKE THIS PART OF A LARGER PICTURE PUSH FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. WE FILED A SETTLEMENT DEMAND WITH THE CITY, WHICH THEY REFUSED. WE THEN FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT, AND ARE CURRENTLY IN DISCOVERY. 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 APPEALED TO THE MILWAUKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, ARGUING THAT THE STREETCAR LEGISLATION WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT THE PSC LACKED AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT IT FROM PASSING COSTS ON TO THE UTILITIES. THE COURT RULED THAT MILWAUKEE LACKED STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE LEGISLATION AND THAT THE PSC WAS ACTING WITHIN ITS AUTHORITY. MILWAUKEE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAL THE DECISION. JOHN DOE LITIGATION: OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, PARTISAN PROSECUTORS HAVE ENGAGED IN WITCH HUNTS AGAINST CONSERVATIVE GROUPS (NO LIBERAL GROUPS WERE TARGETED, EVEN THOUGH THEY ENGAGED IN THE EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR) THROUGHOUT WISCONSIN, RAIDING OFFICES AND HOMES AND SEIZING DOCUMENTS FROM THEM. THEIR ALLEGED "CRIME"? ENGAGING IN ISSUE ADVOCACY WHILE AROUND THE SAME TIME TALKING WITH THE GOVERNOR. PROSECUTORS THINK THAT THIS CAN SOMEHOW TURN FULLY-PROTECTED ISSUE ADVOCACY INTO THE EQUIVALENT OF EXPRESS ADVOCACY FOR THE ELECTION OF SCOTT WALKER (NEVER MIND THAT WALKER WAS NOT EVEN RUNNING FOR ELECTION OR IN THE RECALL AT THIS TIME), BECAUSE IT WAS "COORDINATED." BUT SUCH A CRIMINAL THEORY IS (1) NOT PERMITTED UNDER WISCONSIN'S STATUTES, AND (2) EVEN IF IT WERE PERMITTED, WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN VIOLATION OF THE GROUPS' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SPEAK, ASSOCIATE, AND PETITION THE GOVERNMENT. CONSERVATIVE GROUPS HAVE FOUGHT BACK. THE PARTIES INVESTIGATED IN THE JOHN DOE INVESTIGATION HAVE CHALLENGED IT ALL THE WAY UP TO THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT. ERIC O'KEEFE AND WISCONSIN CLUB FOR GROWTH HAVE SUED JOHN CHISHOLM AND SEVERAL OTHER DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ALONG WITH THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR THOSE DAS APPOINTED SEEKING DAMAGES AGAINST THEM PERSONALLY. IN BOTH OF THOSE CASES, WILL FILED AMICUS BRIEFS ON BEHALF OF FORMER FEC MEMBER AND CHAIR, THE HONORABLE BRADLEY A. SMITH, THE CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS, AND WISCONSIN FAMILY ACTION. THE SUPREME COURT RULED THE INVESTIGATIONS WERE NOT ONLY UNSUPPORTED BY WISCONSIN'S CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW, BUT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE PROSECUTORS HAVE SOUGHT REVIEW IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. WHILE WE BELIEVE IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE COURT WILL TAKE THE CASE, WE WILL AGAIN ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE AS AN AMICUS SHOULD IT DO SO. RESOLVED CASES: 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. |
| FORM 990, PAGE 2, LINE 4A, DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM SERVICE: | KITTLE V. JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT: ALL AROUND WISCONSIN OVER THE PAST COUPLE YEARS, MANY (BUT NOT ALL) POLICE AND SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTS HAVE STARTED REDACTING BASIC INFORMATION FROM CITATIONS AND REPORTS, THE INFORMATION PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW MOST - THE IDENTITY OF THE MISCREANT ABOUT WHOM THE REPORT OR CITATION WAS WRITTEN. WHY? BECAUSE THAT INFORMATION IS USUALLY EITHER OBTAINED FROM OR VERIFIED BY THE DOT DRIVERS' DATABASE, AND THEY THINK THEY WILL GET IN TROUBLE IF THEY SHARE THAT INFORMATION. BUT THAT POLICY IS AN OVERREACTION TO A SEVENTH CIRCUIT CASE THAT HELD A VILLAGE IN ILLINOIS HAD "DISCLOSED" IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IN VIOLATION OF THE DRIVER'S PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT, A LAW ENACTED IN THE 90'S TO PREVENT DMV'S FROM SELLING DRIVER INFORMATION AND STALKERS FROM LEARNING WHERE TARGETS LIVED THROUGH MOTOR VEHICLE RECORDS. BUT THAT CASE WAS NOT AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST CASE, AND THE COURT DID NOT CONSIDER ANY OF THE 14 EXCEPTIONS THAT PERMIT THE GOVERNMENT TO DISCLOSE SUCH INFORMATION. ONE EXCEPTION IS IN CARRYING OUT ANY DUTY IMPOSED BY LAW, AND RESPONDING TO OPEN RECORDS REQUESTS IS A DUTY IMPOSED BY LAW; THEREFORE, THE DPPA SHOULD NOT REQUIRE REDACTION OF RECORDS. ON BEHALF OF A REPORTER AT WISCONSIN REPORTER, M.D. KITTLE, WE BROUGHT A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT FOR REDACTING RECORDS AND CLAIMING THE DPPA REQUIRES IT. THE CASE SETTLED WHEN THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AGREED TO TURN OVER UNREACTED RECORDS AND PAY WILL'S ATTORNEY FEES. BLASKA V. MADISON METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT / SANNES V. MADISON METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: THE MADISON METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT IS ANOTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY THAT BARGAINED WITH ITS EMPLOYEES UNIONS IN VIOLATION OF ACT 10. WHILE THAT NEGOTIATION WAS ARGUABLY PERMISSIBLE BECAUSE ITS TEACHERS UNION OBTAINED A RULING FROM DANE COUNTY JUDGE JUAN COLAS THAT ACT 10 WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND THE CONTRACT COULD BE ENFORCED WHILE THAT CASE REMAINED PENDING, ONCE THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT OVERRULED COLAS AND SETTLED ONCE AND FOR ALL THAT ACT 10 IS PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL, THOSE CONTRACTS BECAME NULL AND VOID. YET MMSD IS CONTINUING TO ENFORCE THE CONTRACT. ON BEHALF OF DAVE BLASKA AND ANOTHER LOCAL TAXPAYER, WE FILED TWO LAWSUITS AGAINST THE DISTRICT AND ITS UNION SEEKING TO HALT ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONTRACT. BLASKA'S CASE WAS DISMISSED ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS, AND THE OTHER WAS DISMISSED PARTLY ON THE MERITS AND PARTLY AS MOOT, BECAUSE THE FIRST CONTRACT HAD ALREADY EXPIRED. DUE TO THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE SECOND CONTRACT WOULD EXPIRE BEFORE ANY APPEAL WAS DECIDED, WE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAL. CRG V. GAB: FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED IN 2015: $20,000 WISCONSIN LAW IMPOSES A HARD LIMIT ON THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT A CANDIDATE FOR STATE OFFICE MAY ACCEPT IN DONATIONS FROM POLITICAL COMMITTEES. FOR EXAMPLE, A CANDIDATE FOR THE STATE SENATE MAY ACCEPT NO MORE THAN A TOTAL OF $15,525 FROM ALL COMMITTEES AND A CANDIDATE FOR THE ASSEMBLY MAY ACCEPT NO MORE THAN A TOTAL OF $7,763. THAT MEANS THAT A CANDIDATE MAY ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE FIRST FEW COMMITTEES THAT WANT TO SUPPORT HER, BUT LATER CONTRIBUTIONS, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, MUST BE REFUSED. WILL FILED A LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT CHALLENGING THAT LAW ON BEHALF OF CRG NETWORK, A PAC WHOSE MISSION IS TO EDUCATE CITIZENS AND PROMOTE THE ELECTION OF CANDIDATES WHO ARE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. CRG NETWORK ATTEMPTED TO MAKE SMALL DONATIONS TO THREE SUCH CANDIDATES, ONLY TO HAVE THEIR DONATIONS RETURNED (IN WHOLE OR IN PART) AS A RESULT OF THE LAW IN QUESTION. THE COURT GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IMMEDIATELY, AND LATER STRUCK DOWN THE LAW PERMANENTLY. JOHNSON V. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT: FEES EARNED IN 2015:$3,817 FEES COLLECTED IN 2015: $4,568, OF THIS AMOUNT $751 WAS EARNED IN 2014 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, WHICH AFFIRMED THE LOWER COURT. 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). EVENTUALLY, THE CASE WAS DISMISSED BASED ON THE DEFENDANTS' CONCESSION THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE NULL AND VOID. LACROIX V. KENOSHA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: 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, THE LOWER COURT RULED THAT THE CONTRACTS WERE, IN FACT, VOID. THE UNIONS DID NOT APPEAL. |
| FORM 990, PAGE 2, LINE 4A, DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM SERVICE: | 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. OTHER REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT: "CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WISCONSIN'S CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS," FEBRUARY 11, 2015. WE PREPARED A REPORT ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS GOVERNING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. |
| 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: |