I hereby issue an invitation to 501(c)(3) organizations to endorse my candidacy for US President in 2012.
But there might be a problem…
Since 501(c)(3) orgs are tax-exempt, they’re not supposed to be involved in political campaigns. However, this is not the same as saying “They can’t attempt to exert any political influence at all.” This quote from the IRS website sheds some light, though my following words will attempt to poke holes in their restrictions:
QUOTE:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
:UNQUOTE*
I don’t think there’s a problem at all…
Suppose a 501(c)(3) said: “Our group hereby endorses Arnold Schwarzenegger for US President.” How could the IRS have a problem with that? I mean, Arnold couldn’t serve even if elected because he’s constitutionally ineligible – only natural born citizens can serve.
Let’s pick another name. How about Lady Gaga? Well, she’s too young. But suppose some conniving 501(c)(3) made her an offer: “We’ll endorse you for President as a publicity stunt (for our benefit) and you’ll get a chance to plaster your political views all over our website. Sounds like a win-win. Deal?”
Even though
QUOTE [Note the words I boldface]:
…all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.
COMMENT:
How can the words “any political campaign” apply to a candidate who could not possibly win (I’ll get to that) or serve if elected? How can one who cannot serve if elected possibly be deemed as mounting a “political campaign?” How can anyone who is not legally eligible to serve as president be considered as campaigning for that office?
How about the part that says: “(or in opposition to)?” If promoting Lady Gaga’s bid for the presidency could be claimed as detrimental to Sarah Palin’s chances, would Palin (and therefore the IRS) have a legitimate beef? And, if so, when? That question becomes relevant in the case of an endorsement which is made but then quickly withdrawn. In that case, how “quickly” then becomes an issue.
For the sake of argument, I’ll make some assumptions:
· That Palin will run for the presidency;
· That Lady Gaga’s well-publicized position statements could be held as being detrimental to Palin’s (and only Palin’s) own positions;
· That the following part of the quote applies to candidates like Palin running in the primaries: “any candidate for elective office.” [Should she be considered a “candidate for elective office” before she wins the GOP nomination?]
Even though Lady Gaga could not serve if elected, her sham campaign (gaining strength and notoriety by means of the 501(c)(3)’s endorsement) might bring down Sarah Palin a notch or two. Or might serve to make Sarah Palin a greater laughingstock than she already is.
Given these conditions, the IRS could find the 501(c)(3) in violation. However, wouldn’t the IRS have to prove Gaga’s negative impact on Palin? And wouldn’t intent to damage Palin have to be demonstrated?
Suppose Lady Gaga’s published positions attacked all of her opponents, each where they are particularly vulnerable? Suppose all of them could be deemed to suffer at her hands? That would depend on how the word “deemed” is interpreted. The IRS, or any complaining candidate, would have to sift through her statements and evaluate how much harm was done and to whom. And prove it.
But wait a minute…the IRS would itself become a laughingstock by appearing to move against Lady Gaga, though they would really be moving against her supportive 501(c)(3). And maybe the IRS would thereby cause more harm to these candidates by appearing to be so heavy-handed. For that reason, would the IRS have to lay off?
Back to “attacked all of her opponents.” Suppose a 503(c)(3) didn’t endorse anybody but attacked all candidates with equal ferocity. That could be one way of saying, “We find this entire field of candidates to be lame and here’s why [followed by itemized analysis].” Couldn’t such a move be considered fulfilling an “education activity” as cited in the following quote?
QUOTE:
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity.
COMMENT:
One of the legitimate functions of a 501(c)(3) is to educate, cited above as “certain voter education activities.” Okay, the IRS is saying it’s okay to educate the voters. And it further adds “[if] conducted in a non-partisan manner.” This part specifically impacts my candidacy. I am running as an independent who opposes all partisanship – that is, who opposes all political parties. If a 501(c)(3) endorses me, they would be endorsing someone who seeks the destruction of all political parties. You couldn’t get more “non-partisan” than that.
Some might argue that the entity I’ve founded – The Independent Contractors’ Party – is a political party. However, I’d respond:
Not in the classical sense, since it’s a ‘party’ that seeks to promote independents regardless of their politics, as long as they aren’t connected to a party and as long as they offer binding written contracts in exchange for votes. Furthermore, it’s a concept party that doesn’t have a hierarchy, members, officers, or even a street address (or PO Box).” In other words, it’s a ‘party’ that isn’t a party.
QUOTE:
… voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
COMMENT:
This passage is a bit strange, for from it we could conclude that it would be okay to oppose so long as the opposition was to more than one candidate. Read (b) carefully, then compare it to (c). The problem arises when the words “or group of candidates” is inserted. To be consistent, perhaps the IRS should have written the entire passage this way:
…voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate or a group of candidates; or (b) would oppose one candidate or a group of candidates.
Though the IRS is guilty of sloppy writing in this case, my bigger source of complaint is the part that reads “with evidence of bias.” That is a matter I’ll address in the next section.
What about my particular case?
The “evidence of bias” provision, mentioned in the preceding paragraph, means that the IRS (at first) and then the courts would have to gather and then weigh such evidence. Wouldn’t that be an infringement of my freedom of speech – giving them that kind of power of review? My point is not to win this election but to create awareness of the alternatives to our current insane way of conducting elections. That’s a general point that’s far more important than the outcome of any one election.
My goal is to pave the way for legions of other independents who are (admittedly) more qualified and better able to pursue higher office than I.
The promotion of my candidacy by a 501(c)(3) could not be merely a form of “bias” against any one candidate or “group of candidates.” It’s much more than that. Basically, mine is an attack against all of them; an attack against the entire system conducted by means of educating voters concerning the perils of partisanship. And that seems to be a concern of the IRS, when it tries to assure that “voter education activities…[be] conducted in a non-partisan manner.”
Another factor is: I cannot possibly win. According to all conventional wisdom, my candidacy is doomed to failure. I’m not making any attempt to raise money (and have vowed to reject all donations) nor to even get on the ballot. I’m not politically, socially, or financially connected to anybody; in fact, I’m dirt poor. My “campaign” will be a write-in campaign, and that approach has never been tried during any campaign for national office.
Therefore, the IRS couldn’t even pretend that I’m a “real” candidate. However, if I managed to obtain endorsements from 501(c)(3)’s (lots of them, I hope), that might negatively impact one or more candidates. However, that is a negativity they could easily overcome, thereby making it a moot point. Here are some possibilities:
ONE: For candidates who feel the potential for imminent harm because I offer a written contract that forfeits my office if I were to violate my written campaign promises, they can unharm themselves by also offering contracts. There’s nothing un-Democratic or un-GOP about contracts.
TWO: If my opponents feel that my promise to veto any bill that contains a tax increase or increases the debt ceiling could embarrass them in the eyes of the voters, let them make a similar (or better) promise.
THREE: None of my opponents will dare claim to be harmed by my promise to void diplomatic recognition of
FOUR: None of my opponents will feel threatened with my promise to veto every bill that crosses my desk until we have Single Payer Health Care (replacing Obamacare) and a cap of 18% on personal credit card balances. Again, their mouthpieces could, if they felt sufficiently aroused, call my plan “pie in the sky” or “socialist.”
FIVE: My opponents could claim I’m undermining their candidacies by promoting independents for office, but they won’t do that. They know I would retaliate by saying:
If our candidates would show more independence instead of always supporting the party line, there wouldn’t be any need to emphasize the importance of independent, non-party candidacies. Right now, Americans hold politicians (especially Congressmen) in historically low esteem because they are keenly aware they’re beholden to special interests and party leaders. Would you vote for a president who says such a Two Party System is such a great thing, when it very obviously isn’t?
Join the New American Revolution: Declare your independence by voting for independents.
SIX: In short, none of my opponents would dare claim that I’m negatively impacting their campaigns. For that would be to admit I’ve got a point. Which would grant me far greater influence than if they were to leave me and my 501(c)(3) supporters alone.
As for the IRS moving against my 501(c)(3) backers, all they would have to do is bring this to court and ask my opponents under oath, “Is Steven Searle’s campaign causing you harm due to our endorsement?” There’s no way any of them could admit such a thing.
Conclusion:
As any fool can plainly see, I have no chance of winning (wink, wink) and, therefore, my faux campaign is really meant to educate the voters. My goal is for a future, beyond the 2012 election, for which I am right now “campaigning.”
Therefore, I once again invite 501(c)(3) organizations to endorse me for President in 2012. Doing so could not conceivably be in violation of any IRS rules, so you would not risk losing your tax-exempt status.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“Fortune favors the bold. If you really want to change things, you’ve got to think outside the box and be bold enough to act” – Steve.
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
* http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html
No comments:
Post a Comment