RSS
Home
Does Violence Policy Center represent the People? (Part 2)
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
The previous article examined how Violence Policy Center (VPC) had to downsize in recent years in order to survive, due to significant decreases in “direct public support.” Because VPC has no public membership revenues, the term “direct public support” is misleading.
Two people perform most of VPC’s public outreach: Executive Director Josh Sugarman and Legislative Director Kristen Rand. Between 2003 and 2007, as revenues decreased 49.9%, both Sugarman’s and Rand’s salaries increased 5.9%. But because revenues decreased, these two top earners––each of whom earned $132,894 in salary and $3,987 in benefits in 2007––went from 15.5% of total revenue in 2003 to 32.7% in 2007, more than doubling their slice of the pie (111.3% increase). Having just two employees taking home about one-third of total revenue may not be a long-term success strategy for a normal business, but it works when normal profitability concerns don’t exist. To understand the financial circumstances of VPC, one must understand their definition of “public support,” which accounted for 91.8% of VPC’s total revenue between 2003 and 2007.And to understand VPC’s “public support,” one must understand the Joyce Foundation, because VPC’s primary “public donor” is the Joyce Foundation.
At the Joyce Foundation site, selecting “Gun Violence” on their “Grant List” page displays a roster of Who’s Who in gun control: e.g. Violence Policy Center, Mayors Fund to Advance New York City, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. Joyce Foundation spent $9,475,883 on gun control research between 2005 and 2007. By comparison, the entire gun rights industry contributed a total of $3,188,704 for the four years of the 2006 and 2008 election cycles.
An examination of the Joyce Foundation’s 2006-7 financial statement shows no line item for membership dues or individual contributions. Their income is derived from investments: e.g. stocks, bonds, and real estate. The seed money for their grants came from Beatrice Joyce Kean in the 1970s, when she left the Foundation over $100 million. By year-end 2007, Joyce’s portfolio was valued at $931,643,665, an increase of $27,871,329 over 2006.
Joyce Foundation is exempt from federal income taxes because it is a 501 (c)(3) organization, defined as follows:
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates. [Emphasis added]
Furthermore, “exempt purposes” are defined as follows:
The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. [Emphasis added]
Since all the “gun violence” grantees are demonstrably anti-rights, it appears that Joyce Foundation not only doesn’t defend the civil right of self-defense, but discriminates against law-abiding gun owners.
In 2003, of the $1,507,016 in “public support” received by VPC, $500,000 (33.2%) came from the Joyce Foundation. In 2004, VPC received another $500,000 from the Joyce Foundation, but due to decreases from other sources of “public support,” the Foundation’s share rose to 60.1%. In 2005, as revenues decreased again, the Joyce Foundation chipped in another $450,000, increasing their share of VPC’s “public support” to 68.1%. Because VPC received an 18 month grant in 2006 and a one-year grant in 2007, the two years combined results in Joyce providing VPC 92.3% of its total “public support.”
In just four years, the Joyce Foundation nearly tripled (178.2% growth) its share of VPC’s “public support” and more than tripled (219.4% growth) its share of VPC’s total revenues from 29.9% in 2003 to 95.5% in 2006-7.
This increasing share of financial support shows that the Violence Policy Center is the public mouthpiece of the Joyce Foundation’s agenda, which is to destroy your civil right of self-defense. It is also clear that their favored policies represent the wishes of a few well-paid VPC employees and the Joyce Foundation’s board of directors, and not the American People.
References
VPC and Joyce Foundation numbers compiled from IRS Tax Forms 990. Email request for spreadsheet.
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Atlanta: Restaurant with anti-gun policy saved by a gun
- Austin: Does Violence Policy Center represent the People? (Part 1)
- Boston: Accidental firearm discharge still brings maximum sentence, Supreme Court says
- Charlotte: Are sheriffs using taxpayer money to trample taxpayer gun rights?
- Cleveland: Investing in gun rights
- DC: More guns, less pirates
- Denver: Montana seeks to test states' rights
- Los Angeles: Meeting the Hate, Part III: breaking the cycle
- Milwaukee: Milwaukee Police Chief Flynn bullies gun owners
- Minneapolis: Are gun owners facing a ‘perfect storm’?
- National: Capture the flag--and send a message to your representative
- Seattle: Montana lawmakers have it right with new statute on self-defense
- St. Louis: What the Brady Campaign really wants
- Wisconsin: The time for civil obediance is now
More About:
civil rights ·
self-defense ·
gun control ·
Constitutional rights ·
Violence Policy Center ·
gunrights
Related Articles:
State Dinner in Honor of Dr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of the Republic of India-Live streaming!
Comments
New research shows that states with liberal concealed carry laws may be safer for Black Americans. A previous article examined eight years of Federal …
Yesterday, Somali pirates attacked the commercial cargo ship Maersk Alabama. This time, however, an armed security team successfully thwarted the …
- National - David Codrea
- Cleveland - Dan White
- Los Angeles - John Longenecker
- St. Louis - Kurt Hofmann
- Charlotte - Paul Valone
- Denver - Dan Bidstrup
- DC - Mike Stollenwerk
- Minneapolis - John Pierce
- Seattle - Dave Workman
- Atlanta - Ed Stone
- Wisconsin - Gene German
- Boston - Ron Bokleman
- Grand Rapids - Skip Coryel
- Cheyenne - Anthony Bouchard
- Phoenix - Douglas Little
- Knoxville - Liston Matthews
- David Hardy - Arms and the Law
- Gun News Daily
- War on Guns
- The High Road
- Say Uncle
- NRA News
- Free Republic
- Jeff Soyer - Alphecca.com
- Snowflakes in Hell
- Nicki Fellenzer - The Liberty Zone
- Dave Kopel
- Massad Ayoob
- A Keyboard and a .45
- The Real Gun Guys
- Wake Up America
- Clayton Cramer - Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
- Oleg Volk - A Human Right
- National Rifle Association
- Texas State Rifle Association
- Keep and Bear Arms
- California Rifle and Pistol Association
- Gun Owners of America
- Second Amendment Foundation
- USA Carry
- Canadian Shooting Sports Association
- Canada's National Firearms Association
- Ted Nugent
- Georgia Carry
- Open Carry
- Armed Females of America
- Future of Freedom Foundation
- Second Amendment Sisters
- Liberty Belles
