4 ms·

You could consider working for a 501(c)(3) charity, where employees are forbidden by law to make most types of political statements (including in private) using

You could consider working for a 501(c)(3) charity, where employees are forbidden by law to make most types of political statements (including in private) using company equipment or channels. The actual laws around this are nuanced and don't cover all types of political speech, but it covers enough to where the average employee will be wise to think twice before saying just about anything political at work. The IRS has zero tolerance for this.

mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
Wait, really? Dont many (most?) 501c3s have highly political missions? E.g. EFF, ACLU, NRA?
- Nuzzerino 6y ago
  Those organizations (if they are 501(c)(3)) are permitted to discuss politics within the narrow scope of the organization's mission. As I said, the laws are nuanced.
- jefftk 6y ago
  The ACLU is a 501c4. There's also the ACLU Foundation which is a 501c3 and in exchange for being able to receive tax deductible donations accepts limits on what it can do politically. See https://stateimpact.npr.org/florida/2013/04/05/explaining-the-differences-between-501c3-and-501c4-non-profits/ https://stateimpact.npr.org/florida/2013/04/05/explaining-th... The NRA is also a 501c4. The EFF is a 501c3, which limits what sorts of political work it can do.
  - mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
    Oh, interesting, thanks. The only one I verified before posting was EFF, and I hadn't heard of a 501c4 previously.
- ZhIPh3zW5R 6y ago
  I am with you on this one. The definition of a having a non-political mission must mean all but mentioning a candidate's name. You can transparently see that some 501(c)(3)s are mostly political groups. As this becomes more common I expect politicians will use them to bypass campaign finance election laws. They will create charities that 'educate' voters about how bad their opponent is without naming that opponent.
  - mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
    Yeah, that's exactly much what I was thinking, that when you take a look at their activities, it's clear that the definition of what's considered political here is fairly narrow. Re: your hypothesis, after learning about 501c4s from Jeff in this thread and reading about for 10 seconds on Wikipedia, it seems that those actually serve that purpose quite well ("super PACs" are apparently 501c4), so I don't think the 501c3s are highly likely to get used in that way.
    - d1zzy 6y ago
      Maybe workplaces (and the public in general) should adopt the same rules as to what constitutes political discourse and then we'd stop having threads around "everything is political" statements...
protomyth 6y ago
You could consider working for a 501(c)(3) charity, where employees are forbidden by law to make most types of political statements (including in private) using company equipment or channels That's not quite how it actually works. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
- Nuzzerino 6y ago
  I work for a 501(c)(3). IIRC from the company meeting we had with an attorney who specializes in this subject, taking a political stance can fall under the category of indirect participation in a political campaign. If you're using company channels to make a statement, you're effectively campaigning under the official badge of that company, even if you're only talking to one other person who happens to work for that same company. You don't want to provide any ambiguity, however slight, to allow regulators to make a case for removal of the charity status. That can be the death of the company in many cases. What sounds reasonable to a layman and what sounds reasonable to a lawyer can be miles apart here.
  - schoen 6y ago
    Sure, but think of how much of politics in the workplace and elsewhere today is not about political campaigns and candidates.
schoen 6y ago
I worked at a 501(c)(3) for a long time and my coworkers followed the IRS rules about politics in the sense of electoral advocacy. That does not mean that they refrained from airing their social views at work or saying what people, groups, or ideas they thought were good or bad. Your advice would be great for people who are uncomfortable mainly about coworkers using an employer mailing list or chat to ask people to vote a certain way. Otherwise, not so much, I think. My impression is that restrictions on 501(c)(3)s' political activity are grounded in something like campaign finance concerns.

mandelbrotwurst 6y ago

Wait, really? Dont many (most?) 501c3s have highly political missions? E.g. EFF, ACLU, NRA?

Nuzzerino 6y ago
Those organizations (if they are 501(c)(3)) are permitted to discuss politics within the narrow scope of the organization's mission. As I said, the laws are nuanced.
jefftk 6y ago
The ACLU is a 501c4. There's also the ACLU Foundation which is a 501c3 and in exchange for being able to receive tax deductible donations accepts limits on what it can do politically. See https://stateimpact.npr.org/florida/2013/04/05/explaining-the-differences-between-501c3-and-501c4-non-profits/ https://stateimpact.npr.org/florida/2013/04/05/explaining-th... The NRA is also a 501c4. The EFF is a 501c3, which limits what sorts of political work it can do.
- mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
  Oh, interesting, thanks. The only one I verified before posting was EFF, and I hadn't heard of a 501c4 previously.
ZhIPh3zW5R 6y ago
I am with you on this one. The definition of a having a non-political mission must mean all but mentioning a candidate's name. You can transparently see that some 501(c)(3)s are mostly political groups. As this becomes more common I expect politicians will use them to bypass campaign finance election laws. They will create charities that 'educate' voters about how bad their opponent is without naming that opponent.
- mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
  Yeah, that's exactly much what I was thinking, that when you take a look at their activities, it's clear that the definition of what's considered political here is fairly narrow. Re: your hypothesis, after learning about 501c4s from Jeff in this thread and reading about for 10 seconds on Wikipedia, it seems that those actually serve that purpose quite well ("super PACs" are apparently 501c4), so I don't think the 501c3s are highly likely to get used in that way.
  - d1zzy 6y ago
    Maybe workplaces (and the public in general) should adopt the same rules as to what constitutes political discourse and then we'd stop having threads around "everything is political" statements...

protomyth 6y ago

You could consider working for a 501(c)(3) charity, where employees are forbidden by law to make most types of political statements (including in private) using company equipment or channels That's not quite how it actually works. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

Nuzzerino 6y ago
I work for a 501(c)(3). IIRC from the company meeting we had with an attorney who specializes in this subject, taking a political stance can fall under the category of indirect participation in a political campaign. If you're using company channels to make a statement, you're effectively campaigning under the official badge of that company, even if you're only talking to one other person who happens to work for that same company. You don't want to provide any ambiguity, however slight, to allow regulators to make a case for removal of the charity status. That can be the death of the company in many cases. What sounds reasonable to a layman and what sounds reasonable to a lawyer can be miles apart here.
- schoen 6y ago
  Sure, but think of how much of politics in the workplace and elsewhere today is not about political campaigns and candidates.

schoen 6y ago

I worked at a 501(c)(3) for a long time and my coworkers followed the IRS rules about politics in the sense of electoral advocacy. That does not mean that they refrained from airing their social views at work or saying what people, groups, or ideas they thought were good or bad. Your advice would be great for people who are uncomfortable mainly about coworkers using an employer mailing list or chat to ask people to vote a certain way. Otherwise, not so much, I think. My impression is that restrictions on 501(c)(3)s' political activity are grounded in something like campaign finance concerns.