[Noisebridge-discuss] Should NB mirror WikiLeaks?

[Sai]

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Shannon Lee <shannon at scatter.com> wrote:
> Noisebridge itself is, as I understand it, enjoined from making political statements and/or donations, which I am certain this wold be perceived as.

You are IMO incorrect. The ban applies only to *partisan* political
activity. Julian Assange and Wikileaks in general have no
participation in US elections. E.g. the EFF routinely engages in
political speech, lobbying, issue education, etc - but is
party-neutral.

Merely mirroring information without actually advocating for anything
is even more neutral.


http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html

"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."

See more: http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=179750,00.html

- Sai