 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||
|
|
By David Sumner, K1ZZ
ARRL Chief Executive Officer
August 1, 2006
This fall's off-year federal election campaign promises to be one of the most contentious in memory. Non-profit organizations that are tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as is the ARRL, must pay strict attention to what they can and cannot do during campaign season.
The IRS has issued a fact sheet that is available on the web. The fact sheet goes into more detail than either space or your likely attention span would allow here, but in view of our ongoing legislative efforts the subject is worth some discussion.
First, to address a common misconception: tax-exempt non-profits are not prohibited from attempting to influence legislation. The ARRL can lobby, and we can encourage individuals (principally our members) to lobby, on behalf of our legislative positions as long as the resources we devote to this purpose are "insubstantial." Exactly what that means is beyond the scope of this month's editorial, but the ARRL is in no danger of exceeding the limit.
What is prohibited is any involvement in a political campaign. 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. The prohibition applies to all campaigns at the federal, state and local level, and violating it could result in revocation of tax-exempt status.
Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. Endorsements of candidates are prohibited, of course. So are contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position made by or on behalf of an organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. Distributing statements prepared by others that favor or oppose any candidate is not permitted. Allowing a candidate to use an organization's assets or facilities also violates the prohibition if other candidates are not given an equivalent opportunity.
Leaders of organizations are free to speak for themselves, as individuals, about candidates. However, for their organizations to remain tax exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions of the organization. This applies to anyone who may be perceived as speaking for the ARRL. Leaders who speak or write in their individual capacity should always indicate that their comments are personal and not intended to represent the views of the organization.
As we said at the outset, the ARRL may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office. However, we must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention. Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, we risk violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate. The IRS fact sheet lists the key factors that are used in determining whether a communication, including a Web site or a link to someone else's Web site, amounts to prohibited intervention. Links are particularly tricky since the content of a linked site may change over time.
For us this is not simply a matter of the law. It is also a matter of principle. By long tradition, Amateur Radio and the ARRL are staunchly non-partisan. Individual ARRL members can and should be politically active, but we should never imply that the mission of the Amateur Radio Service is more closely aligned with one political party than with another.
Over the years we have been fortunate to win many friends on both sides of the aisle. We want to keep them.
On June 16, just before this issue went to press, the FCC took long-awaited action to address ongoing interference from the BPL system in Manassas, Virginia (see "The Third Battle of Bull Run" on this page, June 2006 QST).
Responding to submissions made in April by the City of Manassas and BPL system operator COMTek in response to an individual complaint, the Commission said that the submissions showed that the BPL system "is not in compliance with the Commission's emission requirements at several frequencies." Further, the Commission said, "the report does not include any indication that your tests included steps to specifically address [the] complaint (e.g., conduct tests with [the complainant] present, utilize similar equipment, re-create the mobile transmission environment, or attempt to compare the local interference and noise with the types of signals affecting [the complainant]."
Noting that new BPL equipment was expected to be installed by the end of July, the Commission observed: "We note that a failure to respond until the end of July to any complaint alleging harmful interference in an effort to determine if the new equipment resolves the matter is not sufficient."
The FCC gave COMTek and the City of Manassas 20 days either to resolve the complaint or to reduce its emissions to 20 dB below the Part 15 limit. Significantly, they were also required to report "the specific steps you will take to inform customers of a cessation of service in the event you are directed to cease operations, either in part or system-wide."
Finally, COMTek and the City have 30 days to report that they have brought the system into compliance with the emission requirements, as well as to address complaints submitted by several other amateurs.
We are grateful to the Spectrum Enforcement Division of the FCC Enforcement Bureau for taking a firm stand. As we noted here in June, COMTek loves to issue news releases with more spin than substance. We can't wait to see how they try to spin this.
