IRS idea could end election debates on campus

[alp227]

Colleges are warning the tradition of presidential debates on campus could be in danger thanks to an obscure proposal in controversial proposed IRS regulations.

The Internal Revenue Service proposed changes in November to the rules governing politically active nonprofit groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS. The change would define voter registration campaigns, get-out-the-vote drives and events at which political candidates appear as “political activity.” And in the same document, they asked for feedback on eventually applying the same definition to nonprofits without a political purpose — like colleges.

So far, that’s just a question, not a regulation. But the mere possibility of extending the definition has colleges worried.

“We really do believe this would undermine our civic mission, which goes way back, even before the country was founded,” said Steven Bloom, director of federal relations at the American Council on Education. The higher education lobbying group sent a letter this week to the IRS strenuously arguing against the idea.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/irs-presidential-election-debates-college-university-campus-104113.html

[SunSeeker]

1. If that is what it takes to clean up the 501c3 mess, I'm fine with it. nt

[LuvNewcastle]

2. I agree.

The benefit the country would receive from making these regulations far outweighs any benefit the colleges get from hosting the debates. The American public doesn't need the debates to be held on college campuses. I liked the format they had at one of the debates in 2012, in which the candidates stood and talked without any podiums and the audience members could ask questions. That, or really any of the formats, could be done just about anywhere.

[SunSeeker]

3. Exactly. Fed regs need to comply with fed law.

Federal law says 501c3 corporations must be "exclusively" social welfare organizations in order to be tax exempt. Some corrupt beaurocrat under the Eisenhower administration subverted the 501c3 law by writing regs that in essence obliteraed it and allowed political activity, so long as the 501c3 is "primarily" a social welfare organization, whatever the fuck that means. That--and Citizen's United--is why things like the Rove 501c3 corporations have been able to get away with murder...literally.

As long as the IRS allows some politicical activity, 501c3 corps will be next to impossible to regulate. They need to repeal all those regs that redefined "exclusively" and just insert the dictionary definition of the word.

[X_Digger]

4. And GOTV drives, voter registration drives, etc?

That's throwing out the baby with the bath water, IMHO.