Greater Greater Washington --- Please Explain Why They Have Obfuscated Their Donors in The 990 Schedule B Filing

[Anonymous]

So it seems like the GGW has people lurking on here to try to reply to all the complaints about bike lanes and other ill-thought out building density plans for Ward 3. They are also behind trying to stack all the ANC seats in Ward 3 and were featured in this vile tweet that shows how they really feel about their constituents: https://groups.io/g/clevelandpark/message/194850

Was just looking at their 990, when I noticed that their Schedule B list of contributors is restricted.
Can someone explain why a so-called grassroots advocacy group would want to obfuscate their donors? I have not seen that before.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/472738753/202243199349327214/full

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So it seems like the GGW has people lurking on here to try to reply to all the complaints about bike lanes and other ill-thought out building density plans for Ward 3. They are also behind trying to stack all the ANC seats in Ward 3 and were featured in this vile tweet that shows how they really feel about their constituents: https://groups.io/g/clevelandpark/message/194850

Was just looking at their 990, when I noticed that their Schedule B list of contributors is restricted.
Can someone explain why a so-called grassroots advocacy group would want to obfuscate their donors? I have not seen that before.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/472738753/202243199349327214/full

[Anonymous]

I don't know but their "Regional Policy Manager" is a real estate agent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it seems like the GGW has people lurking on here to try to reply to all the complaints about bike lanes and other ill-thought out building density plans for Ward 3. They are also behind trying to stack all the ANC seats in Ward 3 and were featured in this vile tweet that shows how they really feel about their constituents: https://groups.io/g/clevelandpark/message/194850

Was just looking at their 990, when I noticed that their Schedule B list of contributors is restricted.
Can someone explain why a so-called grassroots advocacy group would want to obfuscate their donors? I have not seen that before.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/472738753/202243199349327214/full

Oh, hey Dan!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it seems like the GGW has people lurking on here to try to reply to all the complaints about bike lanes and other ill-thought out building density plans for Ward 3. They are also behind trying to stack all the ANC seats in Ward 3 and were featured in this vile tweet that shows how they really feel about their constituents: https://groups.io/g/clevelandpark/message/194850

Was just looking at their 990, when I noticed that their Schedule B list of contributors is restricted.
Can someone explain why a so-called grassroots advocacy group would want to obfuscate their donors? I have not seen that before.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/472738753/202243199349327214/full

Oh, hey Dan!

I don't know a Dan, but he's probably a cool guy if you don't like him that much.

[Anonymous]

GGW and MAGA are interesting allies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it seems like the GGW has people lurking on here to try to reply to all the complaints about bike lanes and other ill-thought out building density plans for Ward 3. They are also behind trying to stack all the ANC seats in Ward 3 and were featured in this vile tweet that shows how they really feel about their constituents: https://groups.io/g/clevelandpark/message/194850

Was just looking at their 990, when I noticed that their Schedule B list of contributors is restricted.
Can someone explain why a so-called grassroots advocacy group would want to obfuscate their donors? I have not seen that before.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/472738753/202243199349327214/full

Oh, hey Dan!

Or GK. But seriously, they don't even realize how conspicuous they are on this site. Easy to spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it seems like the GGW has people lurking on here to try to reply to all the complaints about bike lanes and other ill-thought out building density plans for Ward 3. They are also behind trying to stack all the ANC seats in Ward 3 and were featured in this vile tweet that shows how they really feel about their constituents: https://groups.io/g/clevelandpark/message/194850

Was just looking at their 990, when I noticed that their Schedule B list of contributors is restricted.
Can someone explain why a so-called grassroots advocacy group would want to obfuscate their donors? I have not seen that before.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/472738753/202243199349327214/full

Oh, hey Dan!

Or GK. But seriously, they don't even realize how conspicuous they are on this site. Easy to spot.

Sorry, also not GK, but s/he is probably pretty cool to know too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it seems like the GGW has people lurking on here to try to reply to all the complaints about bike lanes and other ill-thought out building density plans for Ward 3. They are also behind trying to stack all the ANC seats in Ward 3 and were featured in this vile tweet that shows how they really feel about their constituents: https://groups.io/g/clevelandpark/message/194850

Was just looking at their 990, when I noticed that their Schedule B list of contributors is restricted.
Can someone explain why a so-called grassroots advocacy group would want to obfuscate their donors? I have not seen that before.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/472738753/202243199349327214/full

Oh, hey Dan!

Or GK. But seriously, they don't even realize how conspicuous they are on this site. Easy to spot.

Sorry, also not GK, but s/he is probably pretty cool to know too!

I think you mean they.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So it seems like the GGW has people lurking on here to try to reply to all the complaints about bike lanes and other ill-thought out building density plans for Ward 3. They are also behind trying to stack all the ANC seats in Ward 3 and were featured in this vile tweet that shows how they really feel about their constituents: https://groups.io/g/clevelandpark/message/194850

Was just looking at their 990, when I noticed that their Schedule B list of contributors is restricted.
Can someone explain why a so-called grassroots advocacy group would want to obfuscate their donors? I have not seen that before.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/472738753/202243199349327214/full

The GGW and YIMBY groups are always scurrying around trying to make it appear that there is much more support for their causes than actually exists. It’s transparent social engineering trying to make it appear that there is demand for something when there just, isn’t.

Ultimately, they think that their bad ideas are good ideas and want to just build out the bad solutions because OF COURSE it will all work out in the end because they are ever so smart and clever. Unfortunately for them it doesn’t work that way so they have to create the illusion of current demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So it seems like the GGW has people lurking on here to try to reply to all the complaints about bike lanes and other ill-thought out building density plans for Ward 3. They are also behind trying to stack all the ANC seats in Ward 3 and were featured in this vile tweet that shows how they really feel about their constituents: https://groups.io/g/clevelandpark/message/194850

Was just looking at their 990, when I noticed that their Schedule B list of contributors is restricted.
Can someone explain why a so-called grassroots advocacy group would want to obfuscate their donors? I have not seen that before.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/472738753/202243199349327214/full

Page 1, Line L: They are a 501(c)(4)

"Effective May 28, 2020, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued final Treasury Regulations addressing donor disclosure requirements on Form 990, Schedule B. There are three essential takeaways for tax-exempt organizations:

In general, Section 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, Section 506(c)(6) business leagues and other exempt entities that are not Section 501(c)(3)s or 527 political organizations no longer have to include donor identifying information on Form 990, Schedule B."
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/irs-releases-final-regulations-regarding-donor-disclosure-form-990-schedule-b

Does that help?

[Anonymous]

get help OP

[Anonymous]

It’s called a public disclosure copy. It’s standard to not show names. Look at an organization you like and see if the donors are listed.

[Anonymous]

Privacy, duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it seems like the GGW has people lurking on here to try to reply to all the complaints about bike lanes and other ill-thought out building density plans for Ward 3. They are also behind trying to stack all the ANC seats in Ward 3 and were featured in this vile tweet that shows how they really feel about their constituents: https://groups.io/g/clevelandpark/message/194850

Was just looking at their 990, when I noticed that their Schedule B list of contributors is restricted.
Can someone explain why a so-called grassroots advocacy group would want to obfuscate their donors? I have not seen that before.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/472738753/202243199349327214/full

The GGW and YIMBY groups are always scurrying around trying to make it appear that there is much more support for their causes than actually exists. It’s transparent social engineering trying to make it appear that there is demand for something when there just, isn’t.

Ultimately, they think that their bad ideas are good ideas and want to just build out the bad solutions because OF COURSE it will all work out in the end because they are ever so smart and clever. Unfortunately for them it doesn’t work that way so they have to create the illusion of current demand.

There is support for parts of this agenda, but not many people support it in its entirety. Many more people will support the "alternatives to driving" aspects than will support the "mixed use Cabrini Green" next to their house part.