In several places, the FEC draws a distinction between a donation and a contribution.
"donation means a payment, gift, subscription, loan, advance, deposit, or anything of value given to a person,
but does not include contributions."
"to solicit means to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a
contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value."
I argue that the FEC meaning of the term has nothing to do with the bylaws, unless the bylaws said "FEC donation" or "FEC contribution."
The dictionary definition of donation is simply "the making of a gift especially to a charity or public institution" / "a free contribution" - this is distinct from sales, which are
not in the nature of a gift - they are purchases of items and services.
Regarding Mr. Vinson: we've often voted on opposite sides, but I'm not so petty that I'd seize a technicality to remove him from the board.
If the ruling is overturned, I intend to vote to reinstate him -- and I think that's the universal opinion here.
I don't want him or anyone else to think this is a plot to remove him due to an easily cured technicality.
This is to prevent a reinterpretation of the bylaws in contrast to a long-held position that's even codified in the membership report itself.
I agree that we should clarify this point in the bylaws at convention. But I do not think the lack of clarity means we must use the FEC's definition for political
contribution vs the dictionary and common usage of donation.
If we change the meaning of "donation," would we suddenly owe people who were given incorrect quotes for lifetime memberships?
Would the new owner of the LPHQ building be able to gift out 500+ lifetime memberships?
Do we need to re-calculate the membership numbers to include people who have bought $25 of merch?
It's far easier and cleaner to leave the interpretation alone and simply vote Mr. Vinson back on.
Thanks,