A U.S. 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofit corporation in Washingdon DC, founded by none other than Hillary Clinton with her close mate Huma Abedin on her Board. According to reporter Joe Schoffstall, who has tracked corrupted and crooked nonprofits and their progressive dark money donors for years, Onward Together is the “dark money nonprofit launched by Hillary Clinton following her defeat against Donald Trump … to allow her to be a part of the resistance against Trump.” Its founding date is considered by Clinton insiders to be January 19, 2017, notable as the day before President Donald Trump was inaugurated. The organization includes former Vermont Governor and 2004 presidential candidate Howard Dean.
Technically, their twitter page launched in January 2017, the moment President Trump stepped into office, and Onward Together wasn’t formally incorporated until April 2017. It was officially incorporated a short few months later, not by Clinton, but by her consigliere, former campaign lawyer, Marc Elias. Elias is the corrupt liberal lawyer from Perkins Coie, represented both the DNC and the Clinton campaign during the 2016 election and funded (via Hillary) the fraudulent Steele dossier, who has been managing election reform operations in key, swing states across the country on behalf of the progressive Democratic machine. It was, of course, Elias who hired investigative firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump. Daily Caller investigative reporters discovered, Clinton transferred $800,000 of her campaign money to the new group on May 1, a communist holiday.
Unfortunately, there’s a huge problem with 501(c)4’s like Clinton’s group. Specifically, these “social welfare” organizations are not required by law to disclose their donors to the public. Unlike other nonprofit groups, which publicize who gives them money, 501(c)4s donors are not required to disclose that information in order to make a donation. This means that someone can use the organization to get rich without having to let others know exactly who’s paying them. In politics, this is a huge problem. If people are being secretly funded by others, they could essentially have conflicts of interest and pass laws favoring those who are paying them.
With this in mind, it’s now clear why Clinton would want to create Onward Together. With the group, her wealthy donors can secretly give massive amounts of money to her to spend on her political agenda. This money would be virtually untraceable, providing her with ample coverage to engage in corrupt activity.
Ironically, while campaigning against Trump, she publicly spoke out against 501(c)4s. Specifically, during the last presidential debate, she claimed that she would nominate a Supreme Court Justice who would “say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system.” Now, she’s doing exactly what she spoke out against, proving (once again) she’s a hypocrite. She never cared about the issues she was campaigning on. She was simply saying what other people wanted to hear so she could win. If she truly cared about “dark money,” then she wouldn’t have created a “dark money” group.
What’s worse, it appears like her group is unsurprisingly being supported by far-left billionaire George Soros. Color of Change will reportedly be partnering with Clinton’s group. Thanks to that, Soros can now give millions to Clinton without having to disclose it, making the risk for unethical conduct high. Influence Watch reveals that “Shortly before the 2016 election, billionaire left-wing donor George Soros gave at least $5 million to Elias and his firm to challenge what left-wing activists alleged to be restrictions that deter Democrats and left-wing constituencies from voting, such as photo identification requirements at polling places.” Through this front organization, George Soros and Hillary Clinton are able to fund domestic terrorist groups such as Antifa. As Daily Caller reported in 2017, Onward Together appears to be discreetly financing Alt-Left and “resistance” groups similar to Antifa.
In his article on Freedom Outpost, Corey Lynn says that what they don’t realize, is the fact that this tax-exempt 501(c)(4) is operating ILLEGALLY, on multiple levels. IRS laws, FEC documents, and Onward Together’s tax return create one heck of a recipe, burning for an investigation. Not only does Onward Together require scrutiny, but its partner organizations also need a closer look as well.
Perhaps “Back Together” would have been more apropos, since Hillary Clinton got the band back together to form this tax-exempt political scandal. Even Huma Abedin is on the payroll. What’s most interesting is that the DNC paid nearly $2 million to Onward Together for donor list rental/acquisition produced by Hillary for America, while the DCCC paid more than $700,000 for the same list. Sure, politicians often sell “donor lists”, but Onward Together is not allowed to declare the payment as tax-exempt “royalty income,” nor does this political activity align with the lawful purpose of 501(c)(4) organizations. But it gets worse.
In order to avoid unrelated business income taxes, some exempt organizations have attempted to classify, as royalties, payments that are in fact fees for services. The IRS, however, ignores contractual nomenclature and looks to the true nature of such transactions. For example, royalties were ruled not to include payments for personal appearances (Rev. Rul. 81-178, 1981-2 C.B. 135) or receipts from the rental of donor lists(Disabled American Veterans v. United States, 650 F.2d 1178 (Ct. Cl. 1981). Additionally, if the exempt organization maintains control over or liability for the commercial enterprise, the royalty exclusion will likely be denied. Thus, payments derived from a license of property under which an exempt organization was liable for some development and operational costs were treated as unrelated income. (Rev. Rul. 69-179, 1969-1 C.B. 158).
It’s important to note that specific laws apply to tax-exempt organizations, such as the percentage of “unrelated business income,” which could result in a loss of tax-exempt status, if that portion is substantial. Based on their tax return, it would be difficult for them to justify their tax-exempt status. According to the expenses indicated on their tax return, they shelled out $1,034,514 in fundraising, $480,000 in grants to political 527 organizations, and $500,000 in grants to questionable and political 501(c)(4) organizations, and over $400,000 in payroll and professional fees, accounting for over 80% of expenditures. That goes way beyond the limited political scope allowed.
What’s worse, is they only paid taxes on the $480,000, while listing over $3 million as “royalty income,” which presumably accounts for the funds received from the DNC and DCCC, being as they do not appear to be included anywhere else in the return.
When speaking with Financial analyst Charles Ortel, in regard to how much politics are allowed to play a role in a 501(c)(4), he stated the following:
Contributions to a 501(c)(4) are not tax-deductible. Nevertheless, these entities are not supposed to promote or advocate specific candidates in elections. So, in theory, politics should play only a tangential role, if any, in the operation of a 501-C4.
In practice, however, 501(c)(4) organizations can operate in tandem with other like-minded entities, whether 501(c)(4 or 501(c)(3). If these entities are not scrupulously managed, “joint costs” can be allocated in ways where they become disguised political contributions, or even payoffs to ghost workers or vendors.
For example, travel and other third-party costs can be over-billed to the nonprofits, subsidizing political campaigns. Or, workers on political campaigns can be underpaid by the campaign, with additional payments routed through the nonprofits.
Another issue is that many of the ostensible regulators of nonprofit abuses, for example Lois Lerner, are married or linked to others who are paid by or who support nonprofit entities.
Fair application of existing laws and precedents to flagrant, as yet unprosecuted charity and nonprofit frauds that remain ongoing, might yield billions of dollars in revenue, just when our federal, state and local governments are desperate to balance their budgets.
Despite the fact that Hillary Clinton’s name does not appear as a director, trustee, on the board, or under payroll, the entire organization is promoted by her as it being hers. Additionally, she had contributed $800,000 from Hillary for America (her presidential campaign) to Onward Together just two weeks before its public launch, accounting for 25% of the overall donations. She also solicits for donations, and is seen in countless photographs with those she refers to as “OUR Partners.” But then, why would she have her name listed, when Mark Elias of Perkins Coie, LLP, 2016 presidential campaign attorney, is listed as the incorporator? Anyone can create a corporation, and pay an attorney to register it for them so that their name isn’t reflected on public documents.
While they declare in their Bylaws and on their 990 that they are operating with this intention: “By encouraging people to organize, get involved, and run for office, Onward Together will advance progressive values and work to build a brighter future for generations to come,” they continue to make requests for donations, while stating, “Chip in today to help Onward Together support the people and organizations championing the vision that earned nearly 66 million votes in the 2016 election.” In short, this is 100% political, as demonstrated with their partnerships as well.
Interestingly, their far-reaching donors expand across 250 foreign countries, including the Russian Federation.
Add to this, these additional Democratic sidekicks, such as: former Democratic Vermont Governor and DNC Chair Howard Dean, Judith McHale, as well as Emmy Ruiz, Adam Parkhomenko, Amy Rao, and Nick Merrill, all working with Onward Together to advance its partisan political agenda.
Aside from the staff, the non-profit organizations that Onward Together partners with are both political and Democratic. This more than substantiates the fact that this is a very strong political agenda that goes far beyond what they claim their purpose to be on their tax documents and is certainly far too excessive for their tax-exempt status.
Political Organizations They Fund
According to their website, some of their many partners are: Alliance for Youth Action, The Arena, The Collective PAC, Color of Change, Demand Justice, Emerge America, Indivisible, iVote, Latino Victory, National Domestic Workers Alliance, Run for Something, Swing Left, and Voto Latino.
Just to put this in perspective, these “partners” together create a country-wide reach, with intentions of flipping votes blue, fundraising for Democratic candidates, and training and recruiting people to run for office. As an example, Swing Left was launched just one day before Trump’s inauguration to “take back the house.” They not only fundraise for Democrat candidates, they also hold voter contact events in 50 swing districts.
Run for Something is a PAC operating out of multiple states, that Hillary has recently been tweeting about. They’ve recruited more than 17,000 young activists, students, and community leaders, as well as endorsed and supported 10 young candidates in the Virginia House of Delegates elections. 40% of those candidates won their races in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and more. As of 2018, they have endorsed more than 200 candidates.
They actually state on Onward Together’s website, “After Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the Supreme Court, Demand Justice leapt into action, launching a movement to demand that Democrats in the Senate oppose anyone on Donald Trump’s SCOTUS shortlist,” as well as, “…motivating progressive voters on issues related to the federal judiciary while influencing the Senate on judicial nominees.
Onward Together in turn sponsors “Swing Left,” a political action committee (PAC) focused on moving U.S. “swing” states to the far left, and essentially engaged in everything far left. Swingleft in turn sponsored the “Georgia Democrat Party’s Ballot Rescue Team” which was behind the apparent criminal act of “curing” legal ballots after they had already been cast. It appears the Georgia Democrats’ State Board of Elections (and potentially the Georgia Secretary of State) provided actual ballots to this Democratic operation.
Ignoring Georgia law, “start[ing] on Nov. 4, 2020, 2 p.m. and end[ing] Nov. 6, 2020, 5 p.m. EST,” according to their PR, the Georgia Democratic Party began the deployment of trained teams of volunteer activist operatives – “Ballot Rescue Teams” – to do phone banking and also to travel Georgia’s counties, knocking on people’s front doors – only Democrats’ front doors, that is – and cheerfully offering to help “cure” or fix absentee and mail-in ballots which, allegedly, had problems and were, allegedly, not being counted by county registrars.
This effort violated certain specific Georgia election laws, through partisan political operatives brazenly cajoling, coercing, and influencing voters – at their own homes mind you! – to alter their ballot. (If indeed Democrats visited these individuals at all bypassing and addressing ballot issues themselves.)
Secondly, it raised the legal issue that the “chain of custody” of each and every one of these “cured” Democrat ballots which has been compromised. Chain of custody of the ballot, one of an election official’s most sacred and fundamental responsibilities in overseeing election integrity, requires that proper security measures are taken from the moment a completed ballot leaves a voter’s hands and reaches the hands of a SBOE official. The ballot, a legal document, must be secured and guarded from any tampering 100% of the time. Ballot and election integrity must also withstand independent assessment, and be able to be verified and authenticated by election auditors. Transparency of process, at all stages, is critical. Therefore, these “Democrat-cured” ballots not only should not be counted they CANNOT be counted because their chain of custody security has been violated. These ballots have been tampered with, they are now “spoiled.” (TGP)
On December 10th 2020, The Gateway Pundit uncovered that thousands of ballots in Georgia were ‘cured’, but likely they were ‘cured’ illegally. Ballots were likely transferred electronically or provided to outsiders, potentially paid election participants from the ACLU, to ‘cure’ the ballots after the election. This broke many rules and likely laws in the election in Georgia.
