How charity law could have killed the presidential debate

Fahrenkopf's explanation is that a one-person debate would amount to an illegal contribution to the Obama campaign, not that it would violate the 501(c)(3) obligations of any of the sponsoring organizations. I have very limited respect for the Commission on Presidential Debates, and while I don't have anything at hand to disprove his statement, I have to doubt that when you provide the exact same opportunity to the candidates and one or more declines it, that you are then somehow giving a contribution to the remaining candidate(s). When you add in the fact that McCain's non-appearance, had it come to pass, would have been very last minute and would have followed his previously announced intention to participate, I think the case is stronger.

Also, I hope that you are not, in fact, teaching your students that charities must maintain a bipartisan appearance. Charities must maintain a nonpartisan appearance and reality. Maintaining a merely bipartisan appearance is as much a violation of their obligations as is supporting an individual candidate, since being bipartisan, by definition, advances the two dominant parties' interest in remaining dominant and squelching debate from other parties and points-of-view. The merely bipartisan make-up of the Commission on Presidential Debates is a major part of why I have so little respect for them.

Thanks for the comment!

Of course the standard is nonpartisan, and that is what I teach--in the post, I was speaking in the immediate context of this debate.

Fahrenkopf refers to rules enforced by the IRS as well as the FEC.

While I agree with your point re the declined invitation, when trying to understand the impact of law we have to good beyond the law as ideally interpreted and enforced.

For example, internal charity policies re politicking and lobbying often prohibit behavior that is technically legal but practically unwise. These policies aren't wrong; they illustrate how the law shapes risk management.

A viable defense is just that--a defense. Most organizations do not--and wisely so--want to waste money, time and peace of mind in having to raise that defense in an audit, litigation or media storm.