I've just scanned the article, but it seems to me that the common
denominator in almost every example is the specific identification and
targeting of particular candidates. That's what makes it cross the line
into political activity, and in most cases specific naming is not essential
for a general advocacy group to make their point. For years, political
agenda groups have hidden under the shroud of non-profit status to avoid
legal responsibility, and these regs are trying to address that issue. As
is true in so many areas, a few have ruined it for the many who follow the
rules. In a couple of examples - specific activity such as voter
registration that is de facto political in nature - there's no question that
this type of thing should not be infringed upon. Although, I must say, if a
group is planning specific voter reg drives in Hispanic and Black
communities, then given the demographic, its hard to say the particular
activity is NOT partisan in nature.

JG

"Jim" responded to my private email, saying.....


So state senator candidate Jones is in favor of limiting industrial
discharge into a lake; Candidate Jones is not. Boat US says that limiting
discharge is in the best interest of boaters. You want to shut down Boat
US?


I'm presuming your example meant to be smith and jones.

Again, I've just had time to scan it, but the way I understood it (naively
presuming some degree of objective accuracy on the part of Salon... :-) ),
if Boat/US advocates for limiting discharge and cleaning the lake, then they
are clear of regulation. If they advocate specifically against Jones, then
they become a political group. Seems fairly simple. Nothing prevents them
from doing so. The only requirement is that if they want to be pointedly
political, they have to play by the rules for political groups.

And no, I don't want to "... shut down Boat US?..." There's that hyperbole
thing again. You really should try to control that. Its unbecoming.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
I've just scanned the article, but it seems to me that the common
denominator in almost every example is the specific identification and
targeting of particular candidates. That's what makes it cross the line
into political activity, and in most cases specific naming is not
essential
for a general advocacy group to make their point. For years, political
agenda groups have hidden under the shroud of non-profit status to avoid
legal responsibility, and these regs are trying to address that issue. As
is true in so many areas, a few have ruined it for the many who follow the
rules. In a couple of examples - specific activity such as voter
registration that is de facto political in nature - there's no question
that
this type of thing should not be infringed upon. Although, I must say, if
a
group is planning specific voter reg drives in Hispanic and Black
communities, then given the demographic, its hard to say the particular
activity is NOT partisan in nature.

JG



As long as the new rules are administered equally, it should work nicely.
The fear is that the administration will hand-pick groups that are a pain in
the ass, specifically with regard to pet legislation. For instance, the
Nature Conservancy is probably a big pain in the ass because it's alerted
its members to the hocus pocus going on with the Clean Air Act. But, a
lobbying group for electric utilities would NOT be considered a pain in the
ass, at least by your president. See the problem?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:0lhdc.1093

. See the problem?




Selective enforcement is always a problem, even when Democrats are in
charge.