San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn said he bought a charity decades ago for $25, called it the Basic Faith Foundation and used it to hold money from real estate deals.
Horn said he gave the interest to Christian missionaries in Mexico and South America.
“That’s a way that I was able to direct the money to where I wanted it to go,” Horn explained, “and I wouldn’t have to pay taxes on the money earned, and I could finish my transaction.”
Visit the Basic Faith project page to see everything related to this evolving story.
inewsource dug into the Basic Faith Foundation and into Horn’s own description of how he used it. Five experts with national reputations in tax law and nonprofit management reviewed the transcript of inewsource’s interview with the supervisor, as well as the supporting documentation from state and federal agencies.
All reached the same conclusion: the way Horn used Basic Faith violated both state and federal laws, civilly and possibly criminally.
From Horn’s initial “purchase” of the charity, to using the organization for real estate transactions, to not filing annual disclosures with the Internal Revenue Service, the entire operation did not resemble a public benefit corporation, the experts said.
Marcus Owens, a Washington, D.C. lawyer who headed the nonprofit division of the IRS for 10 years, was particularly pointed in his assessment of Basic Faith:
“There is virtually nothing that I would describe as ‘legal’ about the way the supervisor appears to have managed the charity,” he said.
Frances Hill, who has helped shape U.S. nonprofit tax policy and serves as a professor at the University of Miami School of Law, studied the documents as well.
“I’ve never seen anything like this before,” she told inewsource, “and anything quite so blatant as you make up your own rules and do what you see fit.”
She said, “… the IRS, if it wants to do something about this, can. The state authorities might want to look into this.”
inewsource requested a follow-up interview with Horn this week. Instead, Jim Sutton, a high-profile political campaign lawyer from San Francisco, responded. He took issue with the conclusions of the experts inewsource consulted, and said Horn’s description of activities with Basic Faith were based on his “recollection … going back 20 or 30 years.”
A ghost trail
Today, there is almost no trace that the Basic Faith Foundation ever existed.
It has no website, no land, no assets and no known donors. A thorough web search yields no evidence any organizations ever publicly acknowledged having received donations or assistance from Basic Faith. inewsource couldn’t find any trace in the media of Horn acknowledging his organization — or his role as its chief financial officer — until interviewed about it in May.
inewsource made the connection between Horn and his charity during a due-diligence public records search in advance of the June 3 primary election. Horn is running for a sixth term, challenged by Oceanside mayor Jim Wood.
A $1,372 tax lien filed against Basic Faith by the state of California in November 2012 stood out.
Why would a charity, which doesn’t pay taxes, have a tax lien?
There is virtually nothing that I would describe as ‘legal’ about the way the supervisor appears to have managed the charity.”— Marcus Owens
The question led to an even deeper, weeks-long inquiry unearthing a patchwork of paperwork filed with the IRS, the California Attorney General, the California State Franchise Tax Board, the California Secretary of State and San Diego County.
It all started back in the 1960s with a call to spread the gospel.
Religion, land and missionaries
Basic Faith was originally called the Sojourners Foundation — registered in 1962 under the Greenwald family of Orange County.
Its mission was to serve as a “philanthropic tool to help Christian Ministries in the areas of charity, education and the spreading of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” It had roots in a church called Faith Fellowship Foundation in Valley Center.
In the early 1980s, according to Horn, he bought Sojourners from the Greenwalds for $25. inewsource could find no paperwork for that transaction, but all documents filed with the state after 1979 show Horn’s name and address as the primary contact.
The name was changed from Sojourners to Basic Faith Foundation in 1979, but its primary mission remained “Christian Education, Christian Charity, and opportunities of outreach and service.”
For decades following, real estate records at the San Diego Recorder’s office show Horn and the Greenwalds bought and sold land together in locations throughout the county, including Valley Center, San Marcos and Escondido. There’s no paperwork to show that these transactions involved Basic Faith.
Horn, a licensed real estate broker, said he sold “millions of dollars” worth of buildings in the 1980s and early ‘90s — he still owns and operates many of them as apartment complexes.
During an interview with inewsource, Horn spoke openly and gave specifics about Basic Faith, for which he was chief financial officer.
He said he used the charity as a “facilitator” when he sold buildings through a special IRS Code called a 1031 tax-free exchange.
Here is how he explained the process:
“I would move $2 million into Basic Faith instead of going into escrow. I’d open an escrow but I’d just put in a small deposit. The money would sit in Basic Faith and earn interest — in some cases up to $50,000. The money would then go in to finish the transaction, but the residue — the amount of money that the principle earned in four months — would go to Christian missionaries in South America.”
Horn didn’t identify any of the organizations who received money from Basic Faith. He wrote them checks, he said, but he no longer had the checkbook.
Nonprofits are allowed to operate tax-free by the IRS, and religious organizations especially are afforded great freedom in keeping certain elements, such as donations, free from public disclosure.
Asked how charities could find Basic Faith to solicit funds, Horn said, “We don’t want them to find us!”
“It was a personal thing I used to save the money,” he said. “Rather than it going to an escrow company I could send it to Christian missionaries.”
The charity never filed tax returns, called Form 990s, because, he said, it “didn’t have to.”
To be required to file a tax return, “you have to make money,” Horn said. “We never made any money. All the big money that was in there was put in there in the ’80s [and] the first part of the ’90s.”
Horn dissolved Basic Faith on April 30, 2012, two years after the IRS revoked its tax-exempt status for failing to file tax returns. He contests the date of dissolution, although paperwork with his signature clearly states the time period.
The state tax lien, which inewsource initially questioned, was for unpaid corporate taxes. Because Basic Faith had lost its nonprofit status, California then treated it as a taxable corporation.
Horn’s children, Geoff Horn and Julie Romero, are the only people listed as officers for the organization. Geoff Horn, the CEO of Basic Faith, told inewsource he knew almost nothing about the charity.
“It’s mainly my dad’s thing,” he said.
When inewsource asked Bill Horn if he understood why Basic Faith was of interest to the public, he answered, emphatically, “No.”
“It’s a private part of my private life,” he said.
“It was mine. I owned it. I bought it.”
Horn’s history with taxes
Horn’s disdain for paying taxes is no secret. He told the Los Angeles Times in 2000 he would like to “abolish the Internal Revenue Service.” In the past, the politician has declined to release his tax returns, saying that no law requires it.
“I do pay some income tax,” he said, but “I could pay a whole lot more if I wasn’t real careful and knew what the code was.”
In the same interview from 2000, Horn said he estimated his net worth at $10 to $15 million.
Owens — who spent 25 years at the IRS monitoring exempt organizations — told inewsource the Basic Faith situation sounds familiar.
“It sounds like it turned into this guy’s wallet,” he said.
Horn said he hasn’t used the foundation since before he was elected as supervisor in 1994.
But in May of 2000, he held an event at San Diego’s Town and Country hotel called “San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn Proudly Presents Basic Faith Foundation’s National Day of Prayer Luncheon.” The keynote speaker was Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes.
“I sponsored a luncheon,” Horn said, “and we used the 501(c)(3) for that. And basically I supported Alan Keyes for president.”
Guests were asked to make checks out to Basic Faith Foundation — $45 per person, $450 for a table.
Tax experts weigh in
After interviewing Horn, inewsource consulted experts — from San Diego, Miami, and D.C. — with well-established backgrounds in nonprofit management and tax law. (Their full bios are available here)
All five expressed surprise at how Horn described his management of Basic Faith. They took issue with his “purchase” of the charity, his using it for real estate purposes, his failure to file tax returns for Basic Faith, his lack of record-keeping, and his using it to sponsor the appearance of a political candidate.
First, they said, you can’t buy a charity.
“You can’t buy and sell nonprofits. They are not stock corporations, so they’re not for sale,” said Victoria Bjorklund, who was recently named the “2014 Nonprofit lawyer of the year” in Best Lawyers magazine and is a lecturer on nonprofits at Harvard law school.
Paul Dostart, a professor at the USD School of Law and private practitioner with 35 years experience in nonprofit organizations, explained that California law and the federal law both prohibit the buying and selling of a nonprofit.
He said simply, “It’s not possible to buy a charity for $25 — or for any price.”
The experts also zeroed in on Horn’s using Basic Faith to facilitate real estate transactions.
“Facilitators in these deals are typically a real estate broker, licensed and regulated, perhaps an attorney,” Owens said, “but nonprofits can’t engage in a commercial trader business as their activity.”
Dostart asked, “Can the operation of a real estate facilitator business be charitable? The answer is no, that’s not a charitable purpose.”
Both Owens and Dostart said facilitators must be independent.
Bjorklund said, “It is unusual to see charities that aren’t organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes — because it’s wrong. And I would put this situation in that category.”
Using a charity primarily for real estate transactions, Bjorklund and others pointed out, is not a charitable purpose, because it’s not primarily in the public’s interest.
Suzanne McDowell, who focuses on tax-exempt organizations as a partner with the D.C.-based law firm of Steptoe & Johnson, said, “I’m not sure I’ve seen anything like this in my practice.”
What “stood out,” McDowell said, “is that he was really just using this … for his private purposes to facilitate his real estate transactions. It is good that the interest that was earned on the funds did eventually go to charity, if that’s what happened, I mean, that’s one saving grace — but not much of one in this case.”
Bjorklund, who with McDowell was in San Diego recently to lecture at a tax seminar, said charities have to have a distinct purpose.
“Charities have to be operated for the public good,” she said. “The public, really, are the beneficiaries of these organizations, which is why regulators like the state attorney general and the IRS have the authority to go in and examine these entities.”
Hill, from Miami, echoed the opinions of her colleagues in saying, “This is just an unusual concept of how one relates to a foundation, and none of it has any support in the law at all.”
All of the tax law experts disagreed with Horn’s contention that he didn’t have to file Form 990s for Basic Faith with the IRS.
Owens said charities that received less than $25,000 in annual income were exempted from the requirement to file the form back in the 1980s and 1990s, but, using Horn’s own example, Owens said, that $25,000 threshold “seems likely to have been exceeded in his case if he is referring to distributing $50,000 in interest proceeds.” [pullquote]If the 990s aren’t being filed, how is the IRS supposed to know that the organization exists or what it’s doing?” —Victoria Bjorklund[/pullquote]
Some of the experts said Basic Faith might have fallen into the category of a private foundation, which is a different kind of charity and subject to different rules.
McDowell explained it this way: “The idea behind a public charity as opposed to a private foundation is that is has broad public support, that the public knows about it, and that the public serves an oversight function, which you don’t have with private foundations, where most of the funding comes from a family or a single company.”
If Basic Faith was or had become a private foundation, the experts said, it would have been required to file tax returns annually even 30 years ago.
“If the 990s aren’t being filed,” Bjorklund said, “how is the IRS supposed to know that the organization exists or what it’s doing?”
Finally, the experts agreed the Alan Keyes event at the Town and Country Hotel in 2000 was troubling if, in fact, it was for political purpose as opposed to charitable purpose.
Nonprofits are “prohibited from either supporting or opposing any candidate for public office,” explained Dostart. “It’s a cause of automatic and immediate revocation of tax-exempt status.”
Because inewsource could find no records describing the event in detail, it is unclear whether Keyes attended the event to speak generally or about his candidacy.
When asked if that event might pose a conflict of interest, Horn told inewsource, “I don’t see it as a conflict of interest. I paid the bill.”
Lawyer responds
For his response to inewsource this week, Horn turned to Sutton, who was described in a 2004 profile as “one of a small handful of very influential political law attorneys who typically represent moneyed, influential candidates.” Sutton counts now-Attorney General Kamala Harris, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, and former Senator Leland Yee as current or former clients.
After consulting with Horn, Sutton said inewsource and the experts it consulted may have drawn incorrect conclusions from some of Horn’s initial statements. The experts, he said, might be basing their opinions on laws today, not those decades ago.
In summary, he said, “there is no legal or factual basis” to claim the Basic Faith operation was illegal.
Read the response letter from Horn’s lawyer
In a three-page letter, Sutton said Horn’s recollections are “20 or 30 years” old, and he said it was important to note that “Basic Faith has not been in operation for at least 12 years, was very inactive for several years before that, and its files have long since been discarded.”
Sutton attempted to clarify Horn’s statements. For example, he said, when Horn talked about buying the charity for $25, he was referring “to the fee he paid to the Secretary of State or Attorney General to change the organization’s name.” (State documents show the name change fee was $15.)
Sutton also said that according “to Supervisor Horn’s recollection,” Basic Faith did not raise or spend more than $25,000 in any year. Because of that, Basic Faith was not required to file 990s, he said.
The attorney said Horn spoke generally to inewsource about the real estate transactions and “did not intend to convey that $50,000 in interest was ever actually generated by a particular transaction.”
In addition, when Horn “said that ‘millions were put in to’ the organization,” Sutton wrote, “he simply meant that millions of dollars of proceeds from different real estate transactions over several years went into the bank account administered by Basic Faith though only the small amount of interest generated by these funds ever went into the organization’s own coffers.”
Basic Faith qualified as a public, rather than a private charity because “it raised funds from a wide range of sources,” Sutton said. He did not specify the sources.
The attorney said “Horn confirmed with the IRS at the time that it was appropriate for a nonprofit organization to act as the ‘facilitator’” for his real estate transactions. Because it was so long ago, Sutton said, “tracking down details about any of these transactions would be difficult if not impossible.”
Consequences
If the charity was not handled in compliance with the law, could there be consequences?
“That would make a beautiful law school examination question,” Owens said.
“They could range from criminal sanctions, that is criminal fines, jail time, on through civil penalties for failing to keep books and records, failing to file the tax returns, income tax plus interest in penalties — if indeed as I suspect… somebody’s taxable income was being sheltered,” he said.
Owens and the others said these situations are handled on a case-by-case basis, and it’s up to each federal or state agency to decide if they would look into the Basic Faith situation, and how far they’d be willing to go.
There is the issue of the statute of limitations — whether the time has run out to seek action, they said. And what level of priority the agencies would assign to a case.
They’d also have to decide whether Horn’s actions were criminal or civil.
“Criminal actions generally have to be willful,” said McDowell from Steptoe & Johnson. “In order to be willfully breaking the law you have to understand the law, and intend to break it — so that’s a high bar.”
“Supervisor Horn clearly believed he was acting appropriately under law,” Dostart said. “Most of these politicians who get into problems end up getting indicted because of a coverup … of things that were wrong in the past. He’s not hiding anything; it’s evident that he believes that these events of 20 years ago were legal.”
Owens said the IRS would be concerned with unpaid taxes from the real estate transactions that took place during the decades Basic Faith operated as a tax-exempt organization, plus the related money Horn may not have disclosed on his own personal tax returns.
Other potential penalties and taxes include: private foundation excise taxes (if Basic Faith was determined to be a private foundation), self-dealing taxes, mandatory distribution taxes, taxable expenditures, and certain IRS penalties which “can be up to 200 percent of the amount at issue,” according to Bjorklund.
In the realm of politics, Horn didn’t list Basic Faith on any of his statements of economic interest, called Form 700s, for the more than 15 boards he’s chaired or been a part of during his 20-year tenure. Horn reasoned he didn’t have to — and his lawyer agreed — because, according to Horn, he didn’t use Basic Faith while in office.
Form 700s detail stocks, real estate, gifts and other potential conflicts of interest held by politicians — such as county supervisors, mayors and city council members — who oversee budgets, spending and contracts.
California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) serves as the watchdog and enforcement committee for public officials’ financial disclosure statements. It has the power to levy fines for violations.
Jay Wierenga, communications director for the FPPC, said, “In general, one would not necessarily have to disclose their position in a nonprofit if there is no income, gifts or travel payments.” But he said, “if there are gifts or travel payments, then there could be disclosure requirements.”
Horn maintains he never derived income from Basic Faith.
inewsource researchers Leo Castaneda and Emily Burns contributed to this report.
- Editorial Standards Page
- Ethics Policy
- Diversity Statement
- Diversity Staffing Report
- Corrections Policy
- Ownership Structure, Funding
- Founding Date
- Masthead
- Mission Statement with Coverage Priorities
- Fact-checking Standards
- Unnamed Sources Policy
Editorial Standards Page
- Our Mission
- Ethics Policy
- Diversity
- Ownership Structure, Funding and Grants
- Financial Documents
- Fact-checking and Verification Standards
- Unnamed Sources
- Corrections and Clarifications
- Actionable Feedback and Newsroom Contacts
- Masthead
- Byline Policy
- The Trust Project
- Privacy Policy
Our Mission
inewsource is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom dedicated to improving lives in the San Diego region and beyond through impactful, data-based investigative and accountability journalism.
Our Vision
Betrayals of the public trust are revealed and rectified, wrongdoing is deterred, and inequities are illuminated thanks to inewsource’s deep, dogged, fact-based reporting.
Our Values
Truth: Above all else, we value the importance of a free and credible press. Truth is the cornerstone of democracy and the core value for inewsource.
Transparency: We build trust with our readers by adhering to the highest standards and ethics, and to reporting with facts, precision and context.
Collaboration: Our newsroom prioritizes collaboration over competition. We regularly partner with media outlets on reporting projects and to share content.
Community: Our reporting serves the San Diego region, and we strive to build relationships with our audience by getting out into the community to listen and engage.
Ethics Policy
inewsource will conduct its business with the highest standards of decency, fairness and accuracy. These standards shall apply equally to inewsource employees, freelancers and all others engaged in gathering information on behalf of inewsource. All receive a copy of these ethical standards.
In the course of our reporting, we will consistently:
● Identify our organization and ourselves fully and avoid false representations of any kind to any source.
● Obtain consent from all parties before electronically recording any interview or conversation except in extraordinary cases authorized by the Managing Editor and Editor. If a source refuses to be taped, that must be honored; no recordings are to be made without consent.
● Respect the individual’s right to privacy. inewsource will never manipulate or barter private, personal, health, financial or other extraneous information in the course of preparing its reports.
● Any source we describe or write about in any significant manner must be contacted. The employee should document all efforts to contact the source, and if unsuccessful, should summarize these efforts at contact in the body of his/her writing.
In addition, inewsource follows the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. The latest version, revised in 2014, can be found here.
Editorial Independence Policy
We subscribe to standards of editorial independence adopted by the Institute for Nonprofit News (INN) as follows:
Our organization retains full authority over editorial content to protect the best journalistic and business interests of our organization. We will maintain a firewall between news coverage decisions and sources of all revenue. Acceptance of financial support does not constitute implied or actual endorsement of donors or their products, services or opinions.
We accept gifts, grants and sponsorships from individuals and organizations for the general support of our activities, but our news judgments are made independently and not on the basis of donor support. Our organization also may consider donations to support the coverage of particular topics, but our organization maintains editorial control of the coverage. We will cede no right of review or influence of editorial content, nor of unauthorized distribution of editorial content.
Our organization will make public all donors who give a total of $1,000 or more. We will accept anonymous donations for general support only if it is clear that sufficient safeguards have been put into place that the expenditure of that donation is made independently by our organization and in compliance with INN’s Membership Standards.
Diversity
Diverse Voices
Inclusiveness is at the heart of thinking and acting as journalists, and it supports the educational mandate of inewsource. Race, class, generation, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and geography all affect point of view. inewsource believes that reflecting societal differences in reporting leads to better, more nuanced stories and a better-informed community.
inewsource is committed to employment equity and diversity.
Diverse Staffing Report
Below is a breakdown of staffing data at inewsource. We determine the composition of our staff by asking them to self-identify. It is based on a newsroom of 11 and a total staff of 15 as of August 2020. Percentages are based on 15 total survey responses. The numbers include full-time and part-time staff, full-time fellows and full-time and part-time interns.
| All Staff Percentages are based on 15 total survey responses. The numbers include full-time and part-time staff, full-time fellows and full-time and part-time interns. | Newsroom Percentages are based on 15 completed survey responses to this question. | Business Percentages are based on 15 completed survey responses to this question. | |||
| Gender Identity | Gender Identity | Gender Identity | |||
| Women | 80% | Women | 82% | Women | 75% |
| Men | 20% | Men | 18% | Men | 25% |
| Sexual Orientation | Sexual Orientation | Sexual Orientation | |||
| Straight | 87% | Straight | 82% | Straight | 100% |
| LGBTQ-identifying | 7% | LGBTQ-identifying | 7% | ||
| Not specified | 7% | Not specified | 7% | ||
| Speak a language beyond English at home | 33% | Speak a language beyond English at home | 18% | Speak a language beyond English at home | 75% |
| Race/Ethnicity | Race/Ethnicity | Race/Ethnicity | |||
| White | 67% | White | 73% | White | 50% |
| Hispanic or Latinx | 20% | Two or more races | 18% | Hispanic or Latinx | 50% |
| Two or more races | 13% | Hispanic or Latinx | 9% | ||
| Age | Age | Age | |||
| 20-29 | 40% | 20-29 | 45% | 20-29 | 25% |
| 30-39 | 47% | 30-39 | 45% | 30-39 | 50% |
| 60 or older | 13% | 60 or older | 9% | 60 or older | 25% |
* The percentages in the charts have been rounded and may not add up to 100.
Ownership Structure, Funding and Grants
inewsource is a nonprofit organization, whose legal name is Investigative Newsource. It does business as inewsource. The business was incorporated on Aug. 4, 2009 in the state of California. Tax-exempt status as a 501c3 was granted by the IRS on Sept. 15, 2010. inewsource is funded primarily by individual contributions and foundation grants. We are guided by a board of directors.
Editorial independence: Journalists employed by inewsource take no editorial direction from donors whose contributions may support the organization. inewsource will not hesitate to report on its donors when events warrant. Our Editorial Independence Policy details the firewall between journalism and revenue.
To be transparent with the public, inewsource lists its donors on its website. In cases where a donor is the subject of an inewsource story, additional disclosure will be made.
Financial Documents
We do our due diligence to earn your trust in our reporting, as well as in our governance and financial sustainability. All of our financial documents are made available to view so that our supporters can trust we are sound stewards of your philanthropy. Review our IRS Form 990s, audited financial statements and annual reports:
Tax Returns
Financial Statements
Annual Reports
Fact-checking and Verification Standards
Transparency is one of our core values. Today, there is a need to build trust with our audience because new media and ways of communicating spread lies and slanted news faster than “real” news. At the same time, this era of new technologies makes it easier than ever for news organizations to be transparent. People don’t just have to believe us, they can investigate our investigations with our source materials.
Transparency is key to building credibility.
inewsource reporters have primary responsibility for reporting, writing, and fact-checking their stories. But before a story is published, the reporter reviews all facts and sources with an editor or another reporter. Facts must be traced to a primary source.
In addition, we “transparify” certain investigative stories. This process involves publishing a version of the web story with hyperlinks to all the story’s facts. This is proof that all facts have been documented with primary evidence. We do this to build trust with our readers and to be as transparent as we hope the public figures and institutions that we hold accountable will be.
Unnamed Sources
Not all sources are created equal. Some sources cannot speak authoritatively, provide proper analysis or speak specifically to every inquiry placed before them. To maintain the integrity of our reporting, inewsource reporters must select sources who can speak with validity to the topic at hand, and avoid presenting unqualified or underqualified sources as experts.
If an interviewed source has a conflict of interest, or whose qualifications may be tangential or limited, reporters will note that within the context of the story.
It is incumbent upon reporters to fully background their sources to uncover conflicts of interest or slant prior to using them in a story.
Unless discussed prior to an interview, all subjects talking to inewsource journalists are on the record. Specifically, the source is identified by name and title, and their exact or paraphrased words are attributed to them for publication. If journalists speak with sources who are not politicians, public figures or those not commonly interviewed by journalists, staff should explain clearly that information discussed will be on the record and for publication.
There are times, however, when information may be critical for a story but cannot be found or verified by other means. For example, a source may be able to confirm specific information about a series of events they may have witnessed, but have legitimate concerns about using their name or title. The repercussions to the source could be legal, job-related retribution or personal safety. The source and journalist must discuss these potential dangers and terms of use should be agreed upon by both parties.
If inewsource publishes information from an anonymous source, inewsource will explain to readers, in as much detail as possible, why we agreed to anonymity.
Corrections and Clarifications
inewsource strives for accuracy in everything we do, which is why we are committed to fact checking our content. But sometimes we make errors. When that happens, we correct them. We also clarify stories when something we’ve written is confusing or could be misinterpreted.
We endeavor to always be transparent about our commitment to correcting errors and clarifying misperceptions. When staffers see, hear or read about a possible issue with the accuracy of any inewsource content, they are expected to bring it to the attention of an editor and the web producer so it can be evaluated to determine how to proceed.
Including the web producer is key because inewsource is a multimedia news organization and shares its content with multiple partners on multiple platforms. The web producer must alert these partners about corrections and clarifications.
Corrections and clarifications should be included at the bottom of stories and dated.
Actionable Feedback and Newsroom Contacts
Our audiences know the region we cover and have a stake in maintaining and improving the quality of life in San Diego and Imperial counties. We know your knowledge and insights can help shape what we cover and how we cover it. We invite your comments and complaints on news stories, suggestions for issues to cover or sources to consult. We rely on you to tell us when we get it right and when we need to keep pushing.
Your comments, questions and suggestions can be sent to the team as a whole at contact@inewsource.org or you can contact a specific member of our staff.
Masthead
CEO, Editor and Founder: Lorie Hearn, loriehearn@inewsource.org
Lorie Hearn is the chief executive officer, editor and founder of inewsource. She founded inewsource in the summer of 2009, following a successful reporting and editing career in newspapers. She retired from The San Diego Union-Tribune, where she had been a reporter, Metro Editor and finally the senior editor for Metro and Watchdog Journalism. In addition to department oversight, Hearn personally managed a four-person watchdog team, composed of two data specialists and two investigative reporters. Hearn was a Nieman Foundation fellow at Harvard University in 1994-95. She focused on juvenile justice and drug control policy, a natural course to follow her years as a courts and legal affairs reporter at the San Diego Union and then the Union-Tribune.
Hearn became Metro Editor in 1999 and oversaw regional and city news coverage, which included the city of San Diego’s financial debacle and near bankruptcy. Reporters and editors on Metro during her tenure were part of the Pulitzer Prize-winning stories that exposed Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham and led to his imprisonment.
Hearn began her journalism career as a reporter for the Bucks County Courier Times, a small daily outside of Philadelphia, shortly after graduating from the University of Delaware. During the decades following, she moved through countless beats at five newspapers on both coasts.
High-profile coverage included the historic state Supreme Court election in 1986, when three sitting justices were ousted from the bench, and the 1992 execution of Robert Alton Harris. That gas chamber execution was the first time the death penalty was carried out in California in 25 years.
In her nine years as Metro Editor at the Union-Tribune, Hearn made watchdog reporting a priority. Her reporters produced award-winning investigations covering large and small local governments. The depth and breadth of their public service work was most evident in coverage of the wildfires of 2003 and then 2007, when more than half a million people were evacuated from their homes.
Managing Editor: Mark J. Rochester, markrochester@inewsource.org
Mark J. Rochester began as inewsource managing editor in April 2021, having served as editor in chief at Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative newsroom in Manhattan. He was previously senior news director for investigations at the Detroit Free Press. Both newsrooms, he notes, shared a commitment to diversity and inclusion, and their investigative journalism often received national recognition for exposing problems impacting communities of color.
His family looks forward to returning to California, having spent more than seven years in San Francisco where Rochester was a senior manager for the Associated Press. While with the news cooperative, he led computer-assisted reporting training efforts around the West, both inside and outside of AP, and conducted a widely used analysis of the $74 million in campaign contributions that went toward the California gay marriage ballot initiative in 2008. The AP analyzed who gave and why and then made the data available to member newspapers. The resulting series of stories based on the data was AP’s 2009 Pulitzer nomination for Local Reporting.
Rochester, who served as a Pulitzer Prize jurist in 2017, also has held senior leadership positions at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Denver Post, Newsday and The Indianapolis Star. Rochester is vice president of Investigative Reporters & Editors Inc., the 6,000+ member international organization dedicated to improving investigative journalism. He also serves on the national advisory board of the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University in Washington, D.C.
Managing Editor: Laura Wingard, laurawingard@inewsource.org
Laura Wingard is the managing editor at inewsource. She has been an editor in San Diego since 2002, working at The San Diego Union-Tribune, KPBS and now inewsource. At the Union-Tribune, she served in a variety of roles including as enterprise editor, government editor, public safety and legal affairs editor, and metro editor. She directed the newspaper’s award-winning coverage of the October 2007 wildfires and the 2010 disappearance of Poway teenager Chelsea King. She also oversaw reporting on San Diego’s pension crisis.
For two years, Wingard was news and digital editor at KPBS, overseeing a team of four multimedia reporters and two web producers. She also was the KPBS liaison with inewsource and collaborated with inewsource chief executive officer and editor Lorie Hearn on investigative work by both news organizations.
Wingard also worked at the Las Vegas Review-Journal as the city editor and as an award-winning reporter covering the environment and politics. She also was the assistant managing editor for metro at The Press-Enterprise in Riverside. She earned her bachelor’s degree at California State University, Fullerton, with a double major in communications/journalism and political science.
Byline Policy
Most of our articles carry a byline to identify the author. In some cases, inewsource will use a brand byline such as “Staff” or “inewsource” for internal or editorial information about the newsroom. In these instances, inewsource‘s Editor and Managing Editor are responsible for content that uses a brand byline.
The Trust Project
inewsource is proud to be a member of The Trust Project and support efforts to increase transparency in journalism by displaying the 8 Trust Indicators on our stories. We launched the Trust Indicators on Sep. 16, 2020.
Privacy Policy
inewsource has prepared this Privacy Policy to explain how we collect, use, protect, and share information when you use our inewsource.org website (the “Site“) or when you use any of our services (the “Services“).
By using the Site or Services you consent to this Privacy Policy.
Log Data
Like many site operators, we collect information that your browser sends whenever you visit our site (“Log Data”).
This Log Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol (“IP”) address, browser type, browser version, the pages of our site that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages and other statistics.
Cookies
Cookies are files with small amount of data, which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a web site and stored on your computer or mobile device.
Like many sites, we use “cookies” to collect information. You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our site.
Certain pages on our site may set other third party cookies. For example, we may embed content, such as videos, from another site that sets a cookie. While we try to minimize these third party cookies, we can’t always control what cookies this third party content sets.
Additionally, we may use third party services — such as those that provide social media conveniences, measure traffic, send newsletters and facilitate donations — that may place cookies on your computer. We don’t have any way of knowing how such services handle the resulting data internally. inewsource makes no claim, nor takes liability for the insecure submission of information via these applications.
Here are the services whose cookies you can find on inewsource.org:
- Sharing buttons for Facebook and Twitter. These use the standard scripts provided by each company.
- Google Analytics, which we use to measure site traffic. Google Analytics gathers certain non-personally identifying information over time, such as your IP address, browser type, internet service provider, referring and exit pages, time stamp, and similar data. We also use Facebook Pixel to measure, optimize and build audiences for advertising campaigns served on Facebook. In particular it enables us to see how our users move between devices when accessing our website and Facebook, to ensure that our Facebook advertising is seen by our users most likely to be interested in such advertising by analyzing which content a user has viewed and interacted with on our website.
- Stripe, which allows us to accept donations through our website.
- Salesforce to manage newsletter subscriber, donor, and other identifiable user data.
- Mailchimp, to manage newsletter distributions. We collect your email address if you choose to subscribe to one of our email newsletters or email news alerts. Other optional information that you enter when subscribing – such as your first and last names or city are simply so that we can deliver more personalized email newsletters. We DO NOT sell, rent or market your information to any other parties. We retain your information only as long as necessary to provide your service. When we send emails, it collects some data about which users open the emails and which links are clicked. We use this information to optimize our email newsletters and, as aggregate information, to explain what percentage of our users open and interact with our newsletters.
Personal Data
We only collect personally identifiable information such as your name and email address when you sign up for a newsletter, donate to our organization, or otherwise submit it to us voluntarily. We do not share your personal data with any third parties other than some common service providers, whose products use your information to help us improve our site, deliver newsletters, or allow us to offer donation opportunities.
inewsource limits access to all user data for the purposes of newsletter, fundraising, and customer service only. User data is not sold to or otherwise shared with anyone not working with or for the inewsource.
You may unsubscribe or opt-out of our email and mail communications at any time by hitting the “unsubscribe” button in any email you receive from inewsource, or by emailing us at contact@inewsource.org or calling us at 619-594-5100.
Donor Information
The identities of all donors will be listed on our website. inewsource does not share, trade, sell, or otherwise release donors’ personal information to any third parties.
Refunds
If you encounter errors when donating on the website, please contact us at members@inewsource.org. For example, if you submit a donation for an incorrect amount or make a duplicate transaction please email us immediately so we can reverse the charges.
Cancellation of Recurring Donations
You can cancel your monthly recurring donations free of charge by notifying us at members@inewsource.org.
Links to Other Websites
Our site may contain links to documents, resources or other websites that we think may be of interest to you. We have no control over these other sites or their content. You should be aware when you leave our site for another, and remember that other sites are governed by their own user agreements and privacy policies, which should be available to you to read.
Disclaimers and Limitation of Liability
Although we take reasonable steps to prevent the introduction of viruses, worms, “Trojan Horses” or other destructive materials to our site, we do not guarantee or warrant that our site or materials that may be downloaded from our site are free from such destructive features. We are not liable for any damages or harm attributable to such features. We are not liable for any claim, loss or injust based on errors, omissions, interruptions or other inaccuracies on our site, nor for any claim, loss or injust that results from your use of this site or your breach of any provision of this User Agreement.
Contact Us
If there are any questions regarding this privacy policy, please contact us at contact@inewsource.org or call us at 619-594-5100.
The Ten Commandments at Exodus 20:7 (ESV): “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.”
I’d say abusing laws for personal financial gain under the auspices of a Christian charity is misusing God’s name, and misrepresenting God’s personhood.
If Horn’s profits can be considered church-related, he and his family are also in violation of the spirit of Matthew 21:12-13: “And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.””
You’re not doing God any favors in your blatant blasphemy, Supervisor Horn, and as a Christian I take exception to your actions. Including many which are publicly known but not cited nor necessarily related to this thoroughly researched piece of journalism.
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-7751-he-did-what_.html
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-7752-funny-money.html
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-3571-enter-the-daughter.html
Right on Eathysara. Horn should resign. He abused public trust as well as the “basics” of Christian faith. If he was ignorant of the law when almost anyone would have see that he was doing something wrong, what is he doing in a position of authority in our local government..
The timing on this “new” information couldn’t possibly be related to the election, right?
The timing on this “new” information couldn’t possibly be related to the election, right?
It’s absolutely related… we started digging into Horn because of the election. We found this about a month ago, and have been working on it since.
It’s absolutely related… we started digging into Horn because of the election. We found this about a month ago, and have been working on it since.
If Supervisor Horn had been caught smuggling fully automatic rifles and grenade launchers to mobsters and terrorists I would say it’s time for him to go. Horn and his organization can’t possibly be any more crooked than the IRS, or the California legislature.
I’m not a fan of Bill Horn. I will not be voting for him. I don’t know him but what I’ve heard from him makes me believe we might not be best friends any time soon.
That said, the article seems to be a witch hunt posing as journalism.
I am not a non-profit expert but even a mildly educated person in the structure, function and requirements of 501(C)3s could support Mr. Horn’s innocence.
Is there a way to do what he did legally? Yes. Actually a couple of ways.
Is there a chance that what he did was illegal? Also yes if you assume a set of facts. Did he conduct his non-profit corrently? No. His status was revoked as it could be by the IRS and then the state. Is the IRS infallable? Humm.
The experts were not quoted on multiple ways that Mr. Horn could have been legal. I’d call it selective fact gathering and quoting.
With the rapid rise of non-profits in the last 20 years I see so much misinformation about them that I had to voice my displeasure when I see potentially incorrect info being passed as fact.
Again, not a Bill Horn fan, but also not a fan of showing only the facts that support one conclusion.
Glenn,
Thank you for taking the time to read the story. As you’ll notice, we have linked throughout the story to the full transcripts of our interviews with the experts.
The experts “were not quoted on multiple ways that Mr. Horn could have been legal” because none of them knew of a way it could be legal. If you are aware of ways this could have been done legally, please let me know and I will pass along your information to our experts.
Thank you,
-Brad
The only reason the issue of Mr. Horn’s organization was brought up is because he is being challenged in the upcoming race by a democrat with a very shady past.
His primary challenger is also a Republican.
I work with an attorney who specializes in nonprofit law: formations, governance, compliance. I forwarded this to him yesterday. He agrees it’s a great article.
Oh, Jim Wood is a Republican. Fooled me!
How so? Because he’s not a fascist Teabagger?
You don’t get to assign people a political party based on your prejudices, son.
If Mr. Horn is so God fearing ethical and legal, then he knows right now that his resignation should happen now. And if the agencies see that there is meat in the missing records – then there is no statute of limitations – and the party is on.
Mr. Horn is yet another example of corruption permeating the church and government, His crimes are no less fraudulent than those of Bernard Lawrence “Bernie” Madoff. However, since it is called the Basic Faith Foundation and is a so call Christian Charity any indictment will be dismissed.