The Richmond, Virginia Times-Dispatch has this op-ed, criticizing the League of Women Voters and other organizations that are sponsoring debates. All such organizations, so far, have refused to invite the Libertarian nominee, even though in some neutral polls he has been as high as 7%.
501(c)(3) organizations should unquestionably invite all candidates. If they don’t, it would be appropriate to file complaints against them.
Note this IRS document:
http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-tege/rr86-095.pdf
IRS 86-95 says it is OK for 501(c)(3) organizations to sponsor political debates. It does not address the issue of whether all candidates must be invited.
The Times-Dispatch should sponsor its own more inclusive debate. In fact, it should go even further and ensure that all candidates receive equal news coverage, and block news coverage and advertising from groups like the AARP and LWV.
Jim, the issue is whether or not excluding a candidate from the debate on an arbitrary standard is actively campaigning against said candidate. Arguably, legally yes it is. (SEE: Johnson, Gary.)
IRS 86-95 says it is OK for 501(c)(3) to hold political forum and debates. The IRS says it is OK so long as it serves an educational purpose.
Of course, the real solution is to eliminate the corporate income tax, and the personal deduction for charitable giving.
If Virginia requires reporting of political expenditures then the AARP and LWV would simply report what they spent on the forum.
No, the ruling says that the forum cannot constitute an intervention in the campaign. Serving an educational purpose is not sufficient, if other factors demonstrate that it intervenes in the campaign.
To me, the document pretty clearly indicates that failure to invite all candidates could be grounds for finding that the forum constitutes an intervention in the campaign.
“Shaming” is a good tactic — publicly calling out the League for treating Libertarians the way male chauvinists treat women. Having donors threaten to cease contributing would be even more effective.
Jeff Daiell
@Arthur DiBianca
The ruling says:
“This conclusion is based on the totality of the circumstances described. The presence or absence of a particular fact here in other similar situations is not determinative of other cases but would have to be considered in light of all the surrounding factors in that case.”
You are extrapolating what is not said.
And you are also falling into a trap of advocating for the use of the tax code to regulate speech.
I am surprised at the LOWV’s actions in this case.