On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote: > >>> I'm not speaking for WMF, but I don't see the connection here. >> >> The connection is free speech. > > Analytically, however, the issue raised by Citizens United is not > simply an issue of free speech. It centers on the precise question of > what role corporate expenditures can play in elections.
The law in question was with respect to "electioneering communications", which the court held was speech. > It does not > address the question of whether corporations can engage in political > activity. "Political activity" is awfully broad. The ruling was primarily concerned with political speech. > >>> Wikimedia Foundation, as a corporation, is profoundly regulated in >>> what it can and cannot do politically >> >> What regulations are you referring to? Corporations can't *deduct* >> certain political expenditures. But what are the profound regulations >> on what it can do politically? > > See, e.g., > http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/limits-political-campaigning-501c3-nonprofits-29982.html > and http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicl03.pdf. First of all, you selectively quoted me, cutting out the part where I made it obvious that I was talking about regulations that apply to corporations in general. I specifically pointed out that there are regulations which apply to 501(c)(3) organizations. Furthermore, I think it's a bit misleading to say that a 501(c)(3) is prohibited from engaging in these activities. IRC 501(c)(3) *defines* a certain type of organization, which does not engage in certain types of political activities. Saying that a 501(c)(3) is prohibited from engaging in certain political activities is like saying that a virgin is prohibited from having sex. If a virgin has sex, they cease to be a virgin. If a 501(c)(3) organization engages in "prohibited" political activities, it ceases to be a 501(c)(3). > I'm unaware of the Wikimedia Foundation's attempting to influence an > election. Surely you understand that one need not be directly affected by the exact law being challenged to have a great interest in free speech rights being upheld. If you prohibit corporations from attempting to influence an election, what's the big leap from prohibiting them from attempting to influence legislation? > But perhaps you're making a one of those "obvious" (excuse me, I mean > "quite obvious") connections that is too subtle for me to follow. I guess so. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l