Reply #19: Thank you for the clarifications

[DoYouEverWonder]

I just know enough about this stuff to be dangerous, in the meantime I am more then glad to pay my accountant to keep me honest.

A couple of questions -

1. Even if IV-A is not the appropriate form, I don't see where they account for the income they report on Part 1-A under Direct Public Support. Is it not necessary to explain the source of that income in one of the attachments?

2. According to this report they claim they had paid staff do the design work for their website but the only report paying for an executive director. Wouldn't expenses for other 'paid staff' be reflected in their return? I don't see it?



So a little while later, Siobhan Guiney from MAF calls me back. (From her MAF bio: "She has worked as a legislative advocate fighting for the people against liberal corruption.") She says that RM+R did register the site for them, but that they hadn't paid for it or consulted on the name. Paid staff at MAF did the design work, and she said that she paid for service when they rolled the phones over to the same receptionist, and that the two groups only shared a building.

Guiney further denied that any RM+R employees did work for MAF on company time, or that they had any involvement in the organization. But after she'd completely denied the possibility of involvement, she volunteered that some group had falsely accused RM+R of being a GOP PR firm. I said it looked like they did most of their work for the GOP, and asked her what was wrong with being a GOP PR firm. She said that they were political consultants, and not really a PR firm.

http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/000202.html