“moderate.” If cretins such as you or I happen to hold a particular opinion, he’s against it because he’s so much smarter than we are, Jaded.

On the other hand, if Obama and Co. are to be defeated, it will be we cretins that get the job done, bad manners and all. I don’t expect thanks from folks like Sean if we manage it, but I will insist that they sit over in a corner somewhere and shut up.

I am an advocate for free, unfettered political speech. Please check my web site if you think otherwise, so you can see just what we are doing to push back against efforts to stifle political speech.

For the last time: 501(c)3 status is not going to somehow enhance or diminish the government’s power to trample the first amendment rights of newspapers. As this incident proves, if they want to, they can find the leverage they want.

There is nobody supporting the concept that is cackling with glee that “once they’re 501(c)3 groups we can control them!” Nor is there anyone concerned that “Oh, no, if they become (c)3 groups we won’t be able to control them.” It’s irrelevant. You might as well argue against OSHA regs, or taxes, or the minimum wage, on the grounds that it gives government the power to harass newspapers and dictate content.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org

That you don’t get this is sad.

And you have made me think more about the 510(c) status – newspapersi issue more clearly.

Actually, I think I have two tiers of consideration.

1) I think there is a qualitative difference between daily newspapers and opinion magazines such as NRO, etc. Given the content that comprises daily newspapers, which means that newspapers intersect government interests far more broadly than non-profit magazines, there is a much higher need to prevent entanglement with the government, of which 501(c) status would be a clear example.

For instance, a daily newspaper is much more likely to be dealing matters coming up for city council votes or investigating the processes behind political decisions (and/or) corruption. Also, newspapers have traditionallyt viewed themselves as a voice for the people (or a voice for disfavored and ill-treated groups) – and this voice cannot remain clear if the paper has to constantly be self-check as to whether their stories cross a line between “educational” and “advocacy” – especially when their oppositional targets are likely to be influencing where that line is drawn after the fact.

So apart from the issue of future dangers, I believe that 501 (c) status inherently interferes with newspapers exercising full freedom of the press.

2) Along that line, I would go further and argue that 501(c) status is a threat to the freedom of any publishing entity, including magazines like NRO. It is a Faustian bargain in which the press agress to some government constraint on what they publish (or what lobbying they can do) in return for tax-favored status, including the ability of donors to take a tax deduction on donations, which gives them some competitive advantages over for-profit competitors in terms of taxes.

Now for entities that truly see their mission as educational, charitable, etc. the benefits of this bargain historically have largely outweighed the negatives, as they have gain financail benefits with only limited constraints over their speech that largely corresponds to their own sphere of speech.

However, the other half of the bargain is that the government will act reasonably in terms of interpreting the speech restrictions, as to what constitutes permissable vs. impermissable activities. Up to now, the government has kept it’s half of the bargain in most instances.

But nonetheless, we see in this acceptance of government constraint on content the seeds of a possible future conflict should the govenrment become tyrannical

3) What you’re hearing here at RedState is a conviction, based upon the ideological and historical actions of key government players, from the President and his Czars on down – and from recent actions since Jan 20th – a conviction that the government is changing the rules and that it now wishes to control speech and suppress dissent, and that it will use extraordinary measures – even unconstitutional measures – to do so being confident that it can successfully intimidate opponents because of it’s power – and that can maintain control of Congress and the courts to prevent checks on its power.

We see that progressive destruction of democratic instituctions and free speech and free press in Venezuela (as just the latest of a pattern of behavior in non-democratic or one-party states) and perceive similar tactics starting to be employed in the U.S. by the current adminstration – along with a lack of trust in the adminstration that leads us to fear that these are just first steps.

Thus we do see malign motives with move to allow non-profit status for newspapers.

Which is is why you’re hearing the Chicken Little talk here. Which doesn’t mean that the sky isn’t about to fall even if Chicken Little was wrong in her time.

4) Thus in brief, the thrust of my argument here is that501(c) status involves an acceptance of governmental constraints, and that because of the potential of government to overreach, any press entities – whether newspaper or opinion magazine – who accept 501(c) status need to be especially vigilant as to their boundaries so that they can be prepared to surrender non-profit status to preserve their independence.

Which correspondingly means to be vigilant to keep themselves from being too vulnerable and too dependent on their tax benefits such that they cannot give up their non-profit status, thus forcing them to submit to govenrmental control.

I have one other (relatively brief) basic point that I will make in a separate comment.

Thanks for reading; much of the passion here comes from a conviction that our country is in grave danger and a corresponding impatience with those who don’t perhaps share the level of concern.

I and others here at RedState have focused on the potential for government to punish dissent by abusing the definitions of permissable speech by non-profit entities (and perhaps threat of punishment for past speech or prior restraint).

Or in brief, what we’re saying is this: It’s a trap to accept non-profit status, and the intent of this legislation is to set this trap to unsuspecting newspapers

—————————————-

However, the other side of the coin is perhaps more insideous, in that we perceive this legislation being designed as an effort to provide government assistance (ultimately taxpayer assistance) to newspapers in financial straits in an effort to favor and strengthen a press favorable to the current adminstration (and to make it difficult for them to back out later) – that is, to try to prop up a portion of the press that has been their biggest cheerleaders and complicit in advocating for the current administration that otherwise are at risk of being supplanted by other press/media many of whom that are not cheerleaders.

And in conjunction with these legislated advantage for allies, the creation of a privileged non-profit status clears the deck for future discriminatory legislation, etc. to effectively punish or burden publications that do not accept non-profit status and attendant government controls.

Hahvud and MIT have this thing called “Interest Based Bargaining.” It purports to get around the nastiness of what they style positional bargaining by spending a lot of time and money masturbating, I mean, identifying each other’s interests and finding commonality of interest as the basis for a labor agreement. What it actually is is a means for an employer and a union to look like they’re doing something that looks like bargaining while they’re actually just conspirring to screw the taxpayers or stockholders.

Anyway, it is probably the most popular collective bargaining training in the Country and of course it is mostly public employers and third sector employer such as healthcare providers, and of course unions. It costs about five grand for a week so people who don’t know any better thing they’re being taught something useful by all those PhDs from Hahvud. I’ve been, sent my whole staff so we could put the cert on the wall, but we went as a know your enemy course.

Anyway, these people go to that thing and come out thinking that all you gotta do is try to get along with the union and you’ll all live happily ever after with no conflicts. Starry-eyed stupidity, courtesy of Hahvud!