The ONE Campaign, through an initiative called ONE Vote ‘08, is doing a good job with candidate- as well as grassroots-engagement in primary battlegrounds around the country, trying to inject the issue of global poverty into the upcoming presidentials. See: http://www.onevote08.org/
Any organization has “the constitutional right to support or criticize candidates.” They just don’t have the right to do it and remain a 501(c)3 non-profit. So become a for-profit enterprise or a 527 or a 501(c)4… your donors won’t get to deduct their contributions from their taxes, but if explicitly saying that you like candidate x is so important to you, then this is a small price to pay. Most issue-oriented 501(c)3s get around this by being unambiguous about the issues and letting the public connect the dots to the candidates.
THE AUG. 23 E-MAIL, AND THE BLOGGER SOUND LIKE LIBERAL -LEFTISTS.
LET’S FIX THE POVERTY AT HOME.
LET’S DEMAND REDUCTION OF THE CO2 IN AFRICA, INDIA, CHINA AND THE PHILIPPINES.
STOP ENDLESSLY CONDEMNING THE VERY CORPORATIONS THAT FINANCE MUCH CHARITABLE WORK.
CHECK TO SEE HOW PHILANTHROPY IS SPENT. THE SALVATION ARMY IS THE IDEAL EXAMPLE.
THE “BLEEDING HEART” PEOPLE OFTEN LIVE “CUSHY” LIVES IN FASHIONABLE OFFICES, EXPENSIVE
RESTAURANTS, AND COSTLY VISITS AROUND THE GLOBE.
WOULD THESE “CRUSADERS” PAY THEIR OWN WAY TO SEE HOW THINGS ARE IN NAIROBI
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, MANY OF US FEEL THAT “SOCIAL FIXING” IS VERY POORLY DONE.
501(c)(3) nonprofits can legally engage in education of officeholders without lobbying on particular issues, and many do just that on Capitol Hill. As for candidate involvement, Mr. Hammitt is correct: most 501(c)(3)s educate on the issues and let the public connect the dots to candidates. Another route is for 501(c)(3)s to establish separate political action committees to explicitly raise funds from supporters that can be contributed to campaigns, thereby separating political activities from their other operations.
Mark - The risk of losing one’s 501c3 status is exactly what is at stake. For most nonprofits, it is not an option to set up a 501c4 or 527 for just the reasons that you give - they fear losing donors because they no longer can offer ar tax deduction on donations. I recently overheard a large nonprofit discussing a potential partnership with a youth oriented nonprofit that had a section on their website about homelessness. The website had links to articles as well as a tool to locate and send an email to the local congressman. The large nonprofit was worried that the partnershpi with this potential partner, by virtue of having a website with articles and a tool to write the letter, may jeapardize its 501c3 status. Now as Janet points out very correctly - this is well within the law of engaging in education - and many think that it’s a matter of just educating nonprofits more. But I disagree to some extent because even many nonprofit lawyers are argueing for more bright line clarifications from the IRS. See http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/2806/tax-lawyers-ask-irs-to-clarify-rules-for-nonprofit-groups-on-election-activities.
The motivation and intent of the 1954 1954 IRS rule seems unjustified. And the application of it seems to have been selective, and the threat of losing one’s 501ce status has cast a pall upon the entire sector making many nonprofits fearful of just about anything that involves politicians.
COMMENTS
BY Joe Cerrell
ON August 23, 2007 01:07 PM
The ONE Campaign, through an initiative called ONE Vote ‘08, is doing a good job with candidate- as well as grassroots-engagement in primary battlegrounds around the country, trying to inject the issue of global poverty into the upcoming presidentials. See: http://www.onevote08.org/
BY Mark Hammitt
ON August 23, 2007 02:06 PM
Any organization has “the constitutional right to support or criticize candidates.” They just don’t have the right to do it and remain a 501(c)3 non-profit. So become a for-profit enterprise or a 527 or a 501(c)4… your donors won’t get to deduct their contributions from their taxes, but if explicitly saying that you like candidate x is so important to you, then this is a small price to pay. Most issue-oriented 501(c)3s get around this by being unambiguous about the issues and letting the public connect the dots to the candidates.
BY DAHLMANN
ON August 23, 2007 02:25 PM
THE AUG. 23 E-MAIL, AND THE BLOGGER SOUND LIKE LIBERAL -LEFTISTS.
LET’S FIX THE POVERTY AT HOME.
LET’S DEMAND REDUCTION OF THE CO2 IN AFRICA, INDIA, CHINA AND THE PHILIPPINES.
STOP ENDLESSLY CONDEMNING THE VERY CORPORATIONS THAT FINANCE MUCH CHARITABLE WORK.
CHECK TO SEE HOW PHILANTHROPY IS SPENT. THE SALVATION ARMY IS THE IDEAL EXAMPLE.
THE “BLEEDING HEART” PEOPLE OFTEN LIVE “CUSHY” LIVES IN FASHIONABLE OFFICES, EXPENSIVE
RESTAURANTS, AND COSTLY VISITS AROUND THE GLOBE.
WOULD THESE “CRUSADERS” PAY THEIR OWN WAY TO SEE HOW THINGS ARE IN NAIROBI
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, MANY OF US FEEL THAT “SOCIAL FIXING” IS VERY POORLY DONE.
DAHLMANN
BY Janet Kavinoky
ON August 23, 2007 04:01 PM
501(c)(3) nonprofits can legally engage in education of officeholders without lobbying on particular issues, and many do just that on Capitol Hill. As for candidate involvement, Mr. Hammitt is correct: most 501(c)(3)s educate on the issues and let the public connect the dots to candidates. Another route is for 501(c)(3)s to establish separate political action committees to explicitly raise funds from supporters that can be contributed to campaigns, thereby separating political activities from their other operations.
BY Perla Ni
ON August 28, 2007 08:07 AM
Mark - The risk of losing one’s 501c3 status is exactly what is at stake. For most nonprofits, it is not an option to set up a 501c4 or 527 for just the reasons that you give - they fear losing donors because they no longer can offer ar tax deduction on donations. I recently overheard a large nonprofit discussing a potential partnership with a youth oriented nonprofit that had a section on their website about homelessness. The website had links to articles as well as a tool to locate and send an email to the local congressman. The large nonprofit was worried that the partnershpi with this potential partner, by virtue of having a website with articles and a tool to write the letter, may jeapardize its 501c3 status. Now as Janet points out very correctly - this is well within the law of engaging in education - and many think that it’s a matter of just educating nonprofits more. But I disagree to some extent because even many nonprofit lawyers are argueing for more bright line clarifications from the IRS. See http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/2806/tax-lawyers-ask-irs-to-clarify-rules-for-nonprofit-groups-on-election-activities.
The motivation and intent of the 1954 1954 IRS rule seems unjustified. And the application of it seems to have been selective, and the threat of losing one’s 501ce status has cast a pall upon the entire sector making many nonprofits fearful of just about anything that involves politicians.