IANAL (particularly a tax attorney), so no-one — least of all the Wikimedia Foundation — should be taking my advice on this, but it was my understanding that th

IANAL (particularly a tax attorney), so no-one — least of all the Wikimedia Foundation — should be taking my advice on this, but it was my understanding that the rules surrounding 501(c)(3) organizations and political action had more to do with endorsing for or against candidates than taking overt positions on specific issues. For example, from a 2007 IRS ruling on the subject: "Section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office. However, section 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention." [1] Further details in the referenced ruling suggest that if WM were to make reference to specific legislators and their respective positions, for or against SOPA, and thus even implying that WM wanted you to vote one way or another for those candidates, they'd have crossed the line. Simply saying, "We don't like SOPA. Here's why it's the worst bill since the Let's All Grind Up Babies For Pet Food Act of 1887..." OTOH, seems to be kosher, per my reading on the subject. [1] http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf (EDIT: clarification.)