"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?