I replied to (a comment) and tried to contrast how a state owned power grid can still have profit models attached and function both technically and for it's intended customers.
(Like most hospitals in the US, by the way, coming back to the original "There shouldn't be a profit motive attached to basic services like electricity, policing (private prisons), or medicine" comment.)
My understanding is that they're registered as a charitable organization, not a non-profit. These terms are often used interchangeably, but from a tax and earnings perspective they mean different things. This is often further confused with not-for-profit organizations, which is yet another thing.
501(c)s, including 501(c)(4)s, are nonprofits, so “not a nonprofit” was wrong.
501(c)(3)s are charitable organizations, so “as a charitable organization” was also wrong. But 501(c)(3)s are a subset of 501(c) and thus are also nonprofits, so your implication that they could be a registered charitable organization but not a nonprofit was also wrong.
As a 501(c)(4) they are a nonprofit and not a charitable org; if they were a 501(c)(3) they would be both.
No. My point was that 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) are not the same thing. The important point to note in this case is:
"501(c)(4) organizations may engage in unlimited lobbying in furtherance of their social welfare purposes."
"The more generous limit of non-exempt activity permissible to a 501(c)(4) explains why a 501(c)(4) organization may engage in substantial amounts of political campaign intervention activities even though the regulations make clear that such activities do not constitute the promotion of social welfare."
It's less pedantic and more: you can call a fork a spoon all you want, until you have to eat soup with it.
(Like most hospitals in the US, by the way, coming back to the original "There shouldn't be a profit motive attached to basic services like electricity, policing (private prisons), or medicine" comment.)