1. Pingback: Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » Jana Kemp, Independent … | Independent

2. Interesting news. I’m left wondering if the reporter confused the $3 checkbox on tax forms with the CPD’s inclusion criteria for the debates.

3. The City Club of Boise is presumably a tax-exempt organization which can not engage in political campaigning. The only IRS publications that I could find was focused on churches and suggested certain ways to avoid problems, such as inviting each candidate to address the congregation at consecutive weekly services; or if one candidate declined the opportunity, to announce that decision at each service where another candidates spoke, and to randomly select the order of speaking.

   I did find a web site from an organization that was offering advice to civic organizations in its region, and suggested various things that could be done to avoid problems with the IRS, including formally adopting their policies in advance for inclusion or exclusion of candidates at a candidate forum, and setting polling thresholds.

   While the IRS may not have formally adopted a regulation as to what threshold is allowed, there may have developed through litigation/negotiation a sense of what is allowed. In 2004, a tax-exempt group called Open Debates, did file a complaint with the IRS seeking to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Commission on Presidential Debates, arguing it was a bipartisan rather than non-partisan. In 2001, there was a congressional resolution introduced that would have expressed the sense of Congress that a 5% threshold should be used (Jesse Jackson, Jr (IL) was the sponsor, with Neil Abercrombie (HI) and Ron Paul (TX) as the only co-sponsors).

   We don’t know what the letter actually said. “IRS rule” may be a paraphrase by the reporter, or by the author of the letter. We don’t know what the motivation behind the mention of the May letter to the Democratic candidate, or why the contents of that letter are known by the reporter or the Kemp campaign. The date of the letter was actually a week before the primary, where it would not have been 100% certain that Otter and Allred would be nominated. Did Kemp send a formal letter to the club, and have her lawyer draft it, which might imply a legal threat; which in turn triggered a more cautious (screened by a lawyer) response by the club?

4. People interested in this topic may be interested in the information posted here.

5. Wow, This was posted yesterday and five people have already responded ahead of Demo Rep. You’re slacking off Demo.

   Anyway, it’ll be interesting to see if Joe Manchin and the Republican nominee try to keep out Jesse Johnson and any other minor party candidates from the West Virginia special election for U.S. Senate. As the state’s first open U.S. senate race in over twenty five years, the establishment may have a tough time with business as usual.

   This Idaho case, though bad, may be one of the straws to break the camel’s back.

6. While there is no IRS regulation pertaining to candidate selection criteria, the IRS did issue a Technical Advisory Memorandum TAM 96-35-003 (Apr. 19, 1996) in response to a similar candidate selection issue and found in favor of the non-profit in question that had used a selection criteria of ” 15 percent in at least one recognized credible and independent state-wide poll.”

7. #6 In 96-35-003, it appears that the activity was more like a focus group, rather than a forum. After identifying what they thought were significant issues facing the state, they determined what the candidate position of “significant” candidates were, including interviews with the candidates.

   A report then explained what the issues were, and what the candidate positions were. It also included information on how the focus group felt with regard to the issues and the candidate positions. The report was publicly released, disseminated to the news media, etc.

   There were 3 occurrences of this activity in different years, states, and elections. In one year, only the views of the candidates on the issues was presented. The IRS was OK with that.

   In the other two years, where the report also included additional information, “X% of those thought Bumble’s position on the development of the intergalactic teleport project more closely represented there position”, the IRS decided had crossed over into the area of candidate advocacy.

   It does not appear that the 15% selection criteria was a salient issue in the case, other than being affirmatively noted by the IRA that it was not a salient issue.

   So an accountant or tax attorney might advise a tax-exempt educational organization that as a “general rule” the IRS “probably” won’t come after you if you use objective criteria, such as a 15% threshold. So through custom, it becomes an “IRS rule” even if not an “IRS Ruling”.

8. The duopoly is scared at inclusive debates when outsiders start gaining traction! Point in case, Perot included in ’92 and Ventura included in ’98. Hell, have at least 1 debate with all the candidates and then you can reduce the number of spots, but this is too much!

9. Here’s my take (for whats its worth) Most 3rd parties have an idealogy that is not generally applicable for a modern world. The debate’s that include third parties that say Want to abolish the Fed, end social security, stop all wars, have militia’s…how could that not make the discussion with the top 2 candidates not become a circus? Every solution that a third party would broach, it would totally take the discussion to some Philosopical plateau, and not address the REAl issues like JOBS ENVIRONMENT EMPLOYMENT AND TAXES. Most third parties have the notion that they can just banish the government and create some type of utopian existence. People would (eye roll) and just see the unviabilty of MOST of what the 3rd parties say. (okay I know here comes the bashers) like I said..just my view point…peace

10. * I know I have some spelling errors above:)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.