About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

86 Tul. L. Rev. 493 (2011-2012)

handle is hein.journals/tulr86 and id is 497 raw text is: I'll Believe It When I C It: Rethinking § 501(c)(3)'s Prohibition on Politicking Jennifer Rigterink* The United States Suprme Courth decision n Citizens United v. FEC challenged fundamentalnotions of fe mspeech junsprudence Wile many commentators have focused on the decisions iplications for corpoate speech, this Comment examines whether the new Fst Amendment paradigm announced in Citizens United will challenge cunrent speech restrctions on churches and other entities oiganized under §501(c)(3). Not only does this Comment propose that such rstrctions could potentially be invalidated based on the Court rasonng in Citizens United, but also that practical factors irlating to compliance and enfomement pmblems inherent h7 § 501(c)(3) ndicate the ban should be amended 7his Comment concludes by offenng a proposed change to § 501(c)(3) & pohticiang ban that would allow a § 501(c)(3) oiganiation to engage in some amount ofpoliticking, as long as it was not a substantial part of the organdation & ovemall chantable activity I. INTRODUCTION.......................... ................494 II. WHERE DOES § 501(C)(3)'s POLITICKING BAN COME FROM? ...498 A. The Histoical Development of Tax Exemption ...............498 B. The Evolution ofthe Politicking Ban......... ...........499 C CongressionalProposals To Amend f 501(c)(3)..............500 III. CTIZENS UNTED'S IMPACT ON THE POLITICKING BAN..............501 A. The Supreme Court and the Alternate Channel Doctrne........... .............. ......501 B. Citizens United and the Erosion of Dual-Aifiliate Reasonlg .................. .................. 506 IV PRACTICAL FACTORS UNDERMINING THE EFFICACY OF THE POLITICKING BAN ...................................508 A. Compliance Problems......... .................... 508 1. Issue Advocacy vs. Candidate Advocacy .................508 2. Spotty Analysis: Facts and Circumstances...........510 B. Enforcement Problems.............................. 511 C Possible Solutions and a Proposal.......... ..... 513 V CONCLUSION ............................... ........516 * © 2011 Jennifer Rigterink. J.D. candidate 2012, Tulane University Law School; B.A. (hons.) 2007, Greyfriars Hall, University of Oxford. Special thanks to my family for their love and support and to the members of the Tulane Law Review for their editorial expertise. 493

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most